[HN Gopher] Starting a Crypto Project ___________________________________________________________________ Starting a Crypto Project Author : grey-area Score : 286 points Date : 2021-05-06 11:33 UTC (11 hours ago) (HTM) web link (twitter.com) (TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com) | onebot wrote: | Having been part of launching Helium HNT token (which is honestly | a real-world utility use case), here is my personal experience | related to his points... | | Helium started as a traditional centralized IoT project, realized | that centralization was a limiting factor, then joked about | turning it into a blockchain application. Now it is over $1.5bn | market cap and provides a real-world utility. | | Exchanges are pay-to-play. It feels bad to interact with them to | get listed. | | Lots and lots of scammers. | | There is still so much untapped value in some possible use-cases, | but honestly too many get-rich schemes. | | Launching a new layer 1 protocol is a tremendous amount of | development effort and I think underestimated by most. | | Security is hard. | | Scammers/hackers go after all project members personally. You | probably aren't prepared for any kind of success. | | 5 years ago crypto wasn't mainstream. Fast forward to today, and | when you say you're in crypto, everyone thinks you're a | billionaire. | | 1.) Decentralization will come for sure (DAO LLC), but no matter | what, there is still a Foundation of some kind. | | 2.) Community depends on utility. There are some amazing strong | communities, but is in direct proportoin to the utility the token | really brings. Otherwise, just pump and dumpers. | | 3.) I don't think it is 100% possible to truly decentralize | governance. But people are trying. | | 4.) I don't believe this is true for everything. There are pump | and dumpers, but many of the decent tokens today need to focus on | utility, the tokens for speculation only will always be | manipulated. | | 5.) I think the VC landscape has changed and maybe a more piling | on, but couple of years ago, VCs wouldn't touch crypto and the | VCs focusing on crypto (Multicoin, Polychain, etc) are very good | and extremely smart. | | 6.) Time makes no difference. Since it is decentralized it isn't | like you have a support team fielding issues. You can't fix | anything in a moment's notice. Releases take careful planning and | careful testing. | | 7.) Again this assumes there is no utility in the token. But he | is right you can't talk about token price or speculation. But | underneath it all you hope the token price goes up. | | 8.) 100% true. You can't build it and they will just come. It | requires real marketing and PR. Most importantly branding. People | are looking for value and community around your token. But the | early adopters are FOMO speculators. | | 9.) Yes, legal fees are very high. Could be 7 figures. | | 10.) Taxes are becoming more clear. Cost basis and capital gains. | But a lot depends on how you acquired your token. | | 11.) Basically, people will constantly claim your are scammers. | Literally day and night. And people will spam free bitcoin offers | to all your telegram and discord users. Every day and every | night. | | 12.) I think insider trading is unbounded in crypto currency, but | that being said a.) its still illegal and not sure founders would | be participating in this, b.) its still unclear what really | motivates the market. Crypto is heavily retail and the chatter as | always be trolls, scammers and naysayers. But also fomo'ers. So | hard to say how much insider trading will capitalize on | information versus exchanges that can manipulate the volume data. | I think whales can manipulate far better than insider trading. | | 13.) hard to say are we talking a stock market bear market or a | crypto bear market? | | 14.) There are several tokens that have real utility and likely | you aren't questioning your lifes' decisions. But lots of | sh*tcoin maybe you are. But blockchain (layer 1) developers are | still incredibly hard to find--so think they can pick whatever | they want to work on. | | 15.) Again, utility (real use case) or pure speculation play. | There are tons of garbage uses of blockchain that are a super | poor fit. Hopefully, you don't work for one of those (does | supplychain really need to be on a blockchain?) | | 16.) Unsure if that is true. I think most projects get a halo | effect from the success of bitcoin. Most new tokens should be | real utility instead of trying to replace bitcoin. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | > Helium started as a traditional centralized IoT project, | realized that centralization was a limiting factor, then joked | about turning it into a blockchain application. Now it is over | $1.5bn market cap and provides a real-world utility. | | Why did you need to create a new, unique token anyway? | | How much of that market cap would you estimate is used for | utility versus simply being held for speculation? | samsonradu wrote: | > Security is hard. | | I'm still wondering how no impactful hacking occured to this | day at major exchanges or even the major blockchains. By now | it's probably a top-level target worldwide. | vmception wrote: | I've advised many projects, allowing them to inherit my | professional network in the crypto space, as well as launched | my own tokens. | | And the exchanges really are a problem and are still a racket. | | It is so great that Uniswap and their style of autonomous | liquidity pool creating has taken over, the market was tired of | that other bullshit. | | Even the most reputable custodial exchanges are a total racket! | See Coinbase's settlement with the CFTC a few weeks back for an | example. | | The challenges to fixing it are very high, I agree with Gary | Gensler's (SEC chair, former CFTC chair) comments to Congress | today about a new regulatory framework for custodial crypto | exchanges. | | For one: Projects cant talk about exchanges because one part of | being considered an unregistered security is by providing an | expectation of liquidity! | | But communities do have an expectation of liquidity and so does | everyone. Otherwise they will attack the founders personally, | forever! | | The exchanges know this and create extremely toxic | relationships, that any complaint from a founder will cause the | exchange to completely ruin and slander the project and also | delist it, validating any detractors existing beliefs! | | Complete racket because the regulators are already taking an | adversarial stance and cant even get any insider to talk to | them because they'll go after the insider! | | If you arent aware, uniswap (AMMs) and yield fixes this, as | communities are providing all of the liquidity and listing of | the token for exchange. So honestly the impossible regulatory | environment is really being a catalyst for innovation. | tromp wrote: | Sounds like he's talking about tokens, rather than an honest | blockchain built from scratch with no rewards for the developers | other than creating innovative technology. Without a | premine/instamine/devtax, there's no need to shill the coins, or | care much about the price. | wmf wrote: | I was about to say that Grin tried that and nobody has heard of | it... then I saw the username. | vmception wrote: | These arbitrary distinctions don't help the asset class either. | | There is just as massive of a graveyard of dead chains because | the dev teams could not exchange time for food and shelter. | tromp wrote: | can you provide an example of a dead coin that featured real | innovation without rewarding its creators? | vmception wrote: | There is no way for this to be a productive conversation if | 'real innovation' can always be a goal post to move. The | other side of that is that I don't remember, none of this | has been relevant since 2016 which is half a decade ago | now. Just trudge bitcointalk for defunct chains and find | one that you liked the roadmap of. | | There is a more quantifiable trend of market tolerance in | this asset class for what founders can earn. | | You have an extremely antiquated view of what that can be, | the impractical charity developer building a product that | the communities adores and spawns into a very active | network. That pretty much never happens as the dev needs to | use their time to exchange for food and shelter and nobody | else picks up the baton. | | Following that, devs attempted small dev taxes of 1-2%, the | market barely tolerated that for some years, and it also | wasn't good enough to fund development | | Following that the market tolerated larger preallocations | of 30%. | | Then it tolerated fund raises where developers kept funds | raised and large preallocations, similar to equities. | | Then it tolerated even more where low float assets are now | commonplace, with developers keeping upwards of 99% of the | asset created, keeping the funds collected, and have | unlimited issuance capabilities. | | But there is no hard line in the sand, and not everyone has | an uncomfortable relationship with money such that | arbitrary thresholds determine what a founder "deserves". | It is obvious that being able to actually pay a dev team | has done much more for the speed of development in this | space than harping on about some irrelevant ideology. You | might find it surprising (okay now I am being facetious, | but it still has to be said to highlight the inanity of | your last decade view), but the entire industrial era has | the same aspect based on paying workers closer to the value | they provide at the time and thats the only model proven to | work in an economy. | literallyWTF wrote: | He forgot the most important part, hope your revolutionary x-coin | reaches a few cents and cash out in US dollars. | FlyingSnake wrote: | This is a brilliant thread and sums up neatly what's wrong with | crypto space in general. | | > _90% of your telegram /discord are scammers and people asking | why price is going down/accusations that you and your entire team | should go to jail._ | | So much this. The greed of get-rich-quick crowd is the biggest | hurdle in the success of crypto. Remove the incentives from | crypto projects and you'll see how the interest from general | public decreases. After all no one cared about BTC until people | figured out how to build a ponzi scheme out of it. | intotheabyss wrote: | It's also one of its biggest strengths. People with real value | at stake in an ecosystem will do anything possible to increase | the value of their holdings, which means making the overall | ecosystem more valuable through individual and team | contributions, all open source contributions I might add. | jude- wrote: | He forgot a point: exchanges are the house, and the house always | wins. | | Want your token to be traded on an exchange? You'll pay a fee, | you'll do all the integration legwork for them _pro bono_ , and | then they'll skim money off of all the trades on your token in | perpetuity. | arberx wrote: | Thankfully there are now DEXs which are super cool. | | uniswap.org | jude- wrote: | Thank you for reaffirming my point! If you want your token | traded on uniswap, you'll write the integration code _pro | bono_ , you'll pay a fee (a transaction fee to deploy it), | and Ethereum miners (who run uniswap) skim transaction fees | off of your token trades in perpetuity. | wmf wrote: | So clearly every token should have its own exchange. | jude- wrote: | I didn't say that. I'm saying that it's another | unanticipated burden of building out a crypto project, | which is what this twitter thread is going on about. | | EDIT: Also, sure, why not own the exchange too if you can | swing it? Less middlemen taking a cut from your revenue. | arberx wrote: | There's no "integration" code-once your token is on the | blockchain if can traded on uni once there's enough | liquidity. | | Using the network is not "skimming" transactions. | jude- wrote: | My code must conform to whatever programmatic interfaces | that the exchange provides, even if they are not a good | fit for the token's intended purpose. So yes, there is | integration legwork that _I the developer_ have to do. | | > Using the network is not "skimming" transactions. | | Sure it is. Users are paying a _different_ token to | _miners_ (not me) to use _my_ app 's token. Tell me, if | users are given the choice between transacting in both | ETH and the ERC-20, or transacting only in an ERC-20, | would they ever willingly do the former? | arberx wrote: | Your argument is: don't use the internet because electric | utility providers are profiting off you. | christiansakai wrote: | So he is a Bitcoin shill? lol. Nothing to see here boys. You get | all you know already. | | Ironically this post happens near top as well lol | http://paulgraham.com/newideas.html | dylkil wrote: | yes hes a bitcoin maximalist. Everything but bitcoin is bad | according to him. | atweiden wrote: | "Bitcoin maximalist" is a pejorative invented by Vitalik | Buterin circa the Ethereum ICO. It's best understood as a | laxative for one's disposable income, prescribed by the | Ethereum doctors to be imbibed by would-be altcoin investors. | | Altcoin promoters quickly attached themselves to the term for | financially motivated reasons, unsurprisingly. Notably it has | little to no meme/entertainment value: its value is strictly | limited to psychological warfare, and is rooted in sophistry. | dylkil wrote: | are you being serious | idlewords wrote: | It is hard being a tulip grower! | [deleted] | purple_ferret wrote: | Is there a POS stablecoin blockchain with smart contracts in the | works? Why couldn't it be done? Because founders wouldn't be able | to hold 80% of coins so they can cash out like Vitalik, CZ, or | Justin Sun? | EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: | Because every stablecoin is by definition centralized. It has | an underlying bank account, which could at any moment be | freezed or seized, all coins confiscated and all smart | contracts voided (or some specific contracts voided). Not so | with decentralized blockchains based on proof of work. | rodiger wrote: | Most, not all. E.g. DAI [0] | | [0] https://makerdao.com/en/whitepaper#abstract | noxer wrote: | We can make trust-less stablecoins backed by crypto but we cant | run a blockchain on a stablecoin. Its only stable if its backed | or pegged to something and that we dont know how to do | decentral. | RichardHeart wrote: | Add to that: 16.5 You will be demonized by everyone except those | that participate in what you build. 17. Every dollar spent on dev | didn't 40x in ETH over the last year, or 400x in some other | things. 18. Centralized gatekeeping of the "decentralized" | projects both in coin ranking sites and exchanges. 19. Constant | and never ending copycats and straight scams impersonating your | brand. 20. People duct-taping coins onto what you build and | stealing your users (ala sushi vampire attack on uniswap.) 21. | Advertising is banned everywhere for you (reddit, facebook, | youtube, google, etc) Caveat: Founder of #14 on nomics.) | vmception wrote: | > Every dollar spent on dev didn't 40x in ETH over the last | year, or 400x in some other things. | | Yes, but thats why you collect a ton of other people's money in | token sale revenue to begin with! | | You have larger than normal overhead costs, but still larger | than normal earnings | jcpham2 wrote: | It would be super awesome if the personalities attracted to this | would realize they are many many years too late to attract anyone | else to their scheme. | | That's my personal opinion but ya'll seem to like that over here | on the 'ol HN (aka the new slashdot) | dylkil wrote: | every cycle has a new "trick", e.g. in 2017 ICO's to tokenise | everything, in 2020/2021 IDO's, yield farming and NFTs. | maxqin1 wrote: | Easier to read version than what's on Twitter: | https://mythreadreader.com/jonsyu/1389635626698297344 | knorker wrote: | > 9. The LAW. SO MUCH LAW. SO. MUCH. LAW. | | > 10. There's actually a good chance that there's not a single | person in your entire state or country that knows how to do your | taxes. | | And this is because your entire business model is to get around | laws that were put in place ON PURPOSE. | ypeterholmes wrote: | Not really.. most of these companies aren't trying to evade the | law- in fact the industry is mostly begging for regulatory | clarity in order to be in compliance. Nobody wants to invest | millions into something that may or may not end up being | designated as illegal. | knorker wrote: | I actually think that this is at the core of most of these | companies. | | Take anonymous money transfers for any amounts. This is why | KYC/AML laws exist. | | If someone could show how a cryptocurrency with anonymous | features can follow KYC/AML laws, I'm all ears. | | Begging for regulatory clarity makes it seems one-sided. It | seems very clear to me that the dream the cryptocurrency | companies are trying to sell is fundamentally incompatible | with the intent of the regulation, even if not yet its text. | | What can they be left with afterwards? We'll see, but it | won't be the vision they've sold. | | > Nobody wants to invest millions into something that may or | may not end up being designated as illegal. | | The bitcoin blockchain has child porn on it. And BTC is | explicitly designed to break KYC/AML laws. Yet people invest. | wmf wrote: | _If someone could show how a cryptocurrency with anonymous | features can follow KYC /AML laws, I'm all ears._ | | Zcash has done a lot of work on this. | https://z.cash/compliance/ | vmception wrote: | Nah. | | There are really dumb laws that you need a powerful defense or | deterrent against. | | The biggest problem is that you cant talk about them, or even | share the deterrents, because it makes you a target for the | regulators if you do. Its actually better that the regulators | simply know you have a lawyer, and that they have no idea what | your legal strategy is. In finance, ignorance of the law _is_ | an excuse ("scienter"), they codified the law specifically that | way for themselves, and so giving any knowledge about the law | undermines the defense of your own actions, and being able to | say "my lawyer made me do it" is an even better defense. | | This also means that each and every project has to recreate the | legal guidance, until Congress explicitly makes a safe harbor | route a default regulatory regime. | | Corporate Securities lawyers know it, exchanges and service | providers know it, they carved out a niche for themselves to | provide this legal service and it costs 6 figures easily. It is | not a perfect defense. | | Many crypto project issuers are victims in this regard, with | everyone onboard with this racket, they cant even talk to the | SEC about what's wrong. | | Taxes aren't that hard but most providers overthink the word | "crypto" when they hear it and confuse themselves. | knorker wrote: | You seem to be describing exactly what I said. They are | trying to get around the law, and trying to get around the | intent of the law. | | So the aim is to break the intent of the law. Laws that were | put there on purpose. | | So I really don't understand what you mean by "nah". It's | exactly that. Company sees the law, says "that's dumb, I'm | going to break that but in a complicated way" and then does | breaks it using what they consider a loophole. | | "Nah"? No, you exactly agree. | | > In finance, ignorance of the law is an excuse | | Yet you can also get convicted for tax fraud without having | intent. | | And the flip side of what you said is also that (depending on | jurisdiction) it can be _illegal_ to do something _legal_ , | if your motive was to get around the _intent_ of the law. | Using loopholes can be illegal, even though the act is legal. | | > This also means that each and every project has to recreate | the legal guidance, until Congress explicitly makes a safe | harbor route a default regulatory regime. | | This is just delusional. I think you forgot who has the guns. | vmception wrote: | Lets focus on securities laws because as I said tax is | solved and not that hard. I'm not talking about tax fraud | so lets focus instead of being all over the place: | | So basically crypto projects dont mind securities laws, | they do mind that the securities laws have lots of | unnecessary contigencies added to them that makes it | impossible to couple with utility. | | If a crypto token actually was a registered security, then | nobody could list it because they arent broker dealers. All | the partnership projects could not be because the partner | would have to be a broker dealer. There would be zero | framework to potentially add utility at all, if they | complied with laws that didn't consider issued assets | existing peer to peer outside of any walled garden. | Alternatively, it can exist as a consumer product under the | consumer framework, no different than the secondary market | for Nike shoes, and thats what people do. Upon asking "how | does Nike do it? People can walk in the shoes but many | people buy their shoes with an expectation of profit" my | securities attorney told me that Nike probably has | securities legal opinions too. | | Congress and commissioners at the SEC are warm to helping | this, you are going to have to retire your talking points | to the last decade as the grownups are building and some | are representatives. | knorker wrote: | Tax is not even remotely solved, thanks to anonymity on | these currencies. How can tax be solved if tax fraud is | not solved? | | > they do mind that the securities laws have lots of | unnecessary contigencies added to them | | Specifically what? What laws have what aspects, and more | importantly why were they put in place, and why should | they not apply to cryptocurrencies (but to other | things?). | | You're talking as if laws sprung from nature, somehow. | vmception wrote: | The paragraph about broker dealer requirements is about | that | | A requirement which did not spring from nature but has no | usefulness for fungible consumer products and simply | hasn't been revisited | | Without clarity from regulators it is impossible to | simultaneously comply with FTC consumer regulations and | SEC investor regulations as they are incompatible | regulatory regimes which alter how things are marketed, | promoted, traded and accounted for. | | And actually complying with SEC regulations means there | is no where to trade it. There is a joke amongst | securities attorneys about the Howey Test which is the | premier securities framework from the Supreme Court "if | Howey wanted to comply and register properly as a | security how would he? Well he couldn't because they're | fucking oranges". And that reality exists for digital | assets today, yet the market is there and the risk:reward | is extremely favorable. | | But what you might be missing from trying to nitpick | specific regulations: The SEC will never ever ever | fulfill its mission from Congress of protecting investors | by sanctioning issuers, it will only hurt them in the | current reality. Whatever it does in the equities space | is not applicable here. It understands that part too and | its prudent that you do as well. | yunusabd wrote: | Most of the comments here seem to revolve around "traditional" | crytocurrencies that are more or less copycats of Bitcoin with no | real value-add. | | I think what most people don't realize is how much crypto has | changed since 2017, mainly through Ethereum and the concept of | smart contracts. The idea of running (immutable) functions on a | decentralized network combined with transaction of value has so | many interesting applications, that I believe we haven't even | scratched the surface of what's possible. | | Shameless plug: We're in the middle of validating/refining an | idea for a tokenized e-commerce platform. The main idea is that a | tokenized platform can shift the incentives for all actors to | produce drastically different outcomes. So we're more about | embracing the game-theoretical side of crypto than the technical | side. | | https://shopla.shop | | Curious what you guys think, any feedback is welcome. | asdev wrote: | unless your platform is better than shopify or your fees are | 90% less, I don't see how you can compete | yunusabd wrote: | 90% is a lot, but we do plan on having lower fees. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | Can confirm. I'm friends with a group of very smart distributed | systems engineers who were excited to launch an actually useful | crypto project that gets talked about here from time to time. | | As much as they're excited about the technology itself, very few | people are actually interested in using it. Instead, their | business seems to revolve around the value of the utility tokens | for their project. | | Few people are buying the utility tokens to pay for the service. | They're buying them to horde so they can resell to other | speculators when the price goes up. They have a lot of tokens in | circulation, but only a small number of them get used to pay for | the service. Many of them are sitting in the wallets of exchanges | where they get traded back and forth but never come near the | blockchain. | | Investors only care about getting more press releases out so they | can pump up the price of their discounted tokens, which have a | shortened lockup period relative to something like stocks. It's | almost like a pump-and-dump scheme for investors. | | Maybe their underlying project will become popular in the future, | but the volatility of the token price makes it increasingly | unattractive for companies that want to actually use it. | mkohlmyr wrote: | > Investors only care about getting more press releases out so | they can pump up the price of their discounted tokens, which | have a shortened lockup period relative to something like | stocks. It's almost like a pump-and-dump scheme for investors. | | "almost" | | If even useful services are being abused for speculation, it's | time to realise the entire space is fundamentally broken. We've | already seen massive fraud in the space, it's only a matter of | time before people who fundamentally don't understand what they | are "investing in" are left holding bags. It will necessarily | collapse because of how it's being used. (imo) | matheusmoreira wrote: | Is price speculation considered abuse? | mkohlmyr wrote: | The tokens issued in this case (on of the few) have a | purpose which is not speculation. If large amounts of | speculation is undermining the business itself then yes I | think that might qualify as a form of abuse? Happy to use | an alternative term of your choice, ESL etc. | matheusmoreira wrote: | I'm not sure if the price speculation actually undermines | the underlying businesses. For example, I participate in | a blockchain wiki project. On the telegram there is a lot | of people talking about the price but I don't feel like | it diminishes the usefulness of the project. I asked | questions about editing, the admins helped me out and I | was able to use the platform. | berkes wrote: | How is this any different from the "web tech" space at large? | Where investors will push towards "data-hoarding", privacy- | invasion, dark patterns and/or addictiveness or other | psychological "abuse", more often than not? | aabhay wrote: | It's not that different? That's why the dot com bust | happened | throwaway_kufu wrote: | Because these crypto companies are generally deliberately | marketing themselves as the democratic solution to the | original problem through this new decentralized technology. | Then when their private discord and telegram groups get | exposed for pump and dump scams, their go to defense rings | of your comment "so what, it's the way it's always been" | grey-area wrote: | It could not be more different, to pick one example from | web tech with a similar name: | | Cryptocurrencies: Efforts to make useful tools are driven | out, speculation and fraud are rife. | | Cryptography: Used to secure billions of web transactions | every day on the web with very little fraud. | jcbrand wrote: | Cryptography is not web tech. | grey-area wrote: | This website is being served to you using cryptography | right now (tls). | | I took web tech to mean the technology used to serve the | web - the differences with cryptocurrencies are manifold, | the principal one being that billions of people use the | web every day to perform important functions, compared to | cryptocurrencies where most users are simply speculating | on prices. | nwiswell wrote: | I think GP's point is this: | | 1) You cannot have cryptocurrency without the web, so it | is web tech. | | 2) Computational cryptography long predates the web. It | would be more accurate to say "the web is cryptography | tech", if anything. | tnzm wrote: | That's why it's the investment space that needs disruption | - which is why crypto is met with so much pushback on HN. A | year ago, crypto-related stories made front page much less | often, if at all. | verdverm wrote: | 2017 was very different. Crypto type stories frequented | the front page with technical marvels. Then a few things | happened... 1) we evaluated 2) this scamconomy arose 3) | the bubble burst. | | I was excited then, when it was new to me, but then I | learnt the truth about blockchain | tinyhouse wrote: | Because people here try to understand the technology and | its usage before riding the hype train. Most people | investing in Ether for example have no idea what it even | means. But when you ask them they would spit answers like | "it's going to revolutionize finance..". When you ask | them how, they have no answer. When you ask them for | specific applications that they know of outside of the | stupid NFT, they send you to Google. Yesterday someone on | Youtube gave an example about a fridge that will order | you eggs and milk when they run out, and everything will | be done on the blockchain. | | Not a crypto hater. I even invest for fun and because you | cannot deny the opportunity to make money rn. But don't | expect people to ride the train blindly. I do think that | crypto isn't going anywhere. But the current valuation of | these coins is just absurd rn. | intotheabyss wrote: | There are plenty of useful applications on Ethereum. | Maker, Compound, Aave, dYdX, Synthetix, UMA, Uniswap to | name very few. | tinyhouse wrote: | Thanks. I will take a look. | notJim wrote: | IMO these things are basically driven by speculation as | well. From what I can tell, they mainly provide liquidity | for financial institutions. Financial institutions are | interested in crypto so that they can make money trading | it. IMO there is very little actual utility here. | arberx wrote: | Very actual utility here? | | What's utility to you? Is buying a in-game COD skin | utility? Or how about roblox bucks? How about the | trillion dollar derivatives market? | | All those things easily disrupted by DeFi. | hanniabu wrote: | Why don't you be transparent and tell us the service? | ipaddr wrote: | In many cases it is very useful. In this case does it really | matter who? It could apply to almost all cryto projects. | hanniabu wrote: | Yes it does because he's saying "I swear guys this was | definitely a good idea no need to confirm what I say" and | then continues to bash crypto because it wasn't getting any | traction. So his argument is just based on his opinion that | it was a great idea, meanwhile most ideas are garbage. | alephu5 wrote: | This seems like it should be labeled as some kind of social | law: Any blockchain will always converge towards a speculation | vehicle. | | In much the same way, social networks almost always seem to | become hookup platforms. | fuzzybear3965 wrote: | SkyNet/SiaSky? | notJim wrote: | > They're buying them to horde so they can resell to other | speculators when the price goes up. | | It's almost like all interest in cryptocurrency is driven by | greed and speculation. I've been learning more about it, and | I'm pretty convinced this is the case. Go into any crypto | space, and all people are talking about is yield, price action, | how much their tokens have grown etc. I think the only thing | I've seen that isn't purely about speculation is NFTs, oddly | enough, which seem to be basically a fad. | wmf wrote: | _Few people are buying the utility tokens to pay for the | service. They're buying them to hoard so they can resell to | other speculators_ | | That's not a utility token. If you want to create a true | utility token, make it stable and you won't have to worry about | speculation. | zaphar wrote: | This is impossible. If it can be traded it can be speculated. | The value of any tradable asset is determined by how much | someone is willing to trade for it and by nothing else. There | is no way to make it stable other than to make it impossible | to trade. | [deleted] | maxwell wrote: | What if asset issuers ("crypto manufacturers") imposed | contractual price ceilings/floors? | | Probably more realistic with exchanges ("authorized | resellers") than individual traders. | | https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition- | guidance/guide-a... | extr wrote: | Sounds like Chainlink | kayhi wrote: | or filecoin | PragmaticPulp wrote: | Like the OP Twitter thread said: It's universal across | every crypto project that issues their own tokens. | | There's no reason to force customers to buy a brand new | token invented out of thin air just to pay for a service | that could be otherwise purchased with real money or | Ethereum. | monkeydust wrote: | Perhaps their initial approach was not the right one i.e. was | the public token the right method to maximize the value of | their actual offering? Maybe they need to rethink given what | you have said. | | I know of a very similar company (might even be the same one) | the telegram forum they have setup is just full of people | speculating what will / might happen ...will it go to the | moon... etc.. They have now moderated that out but still main | reason people join the group to start with. | p4bl0 wrote: | For those who thought this was n interesting link about starting | to work on cryptology related project: it's not | | This has nothing to do with _crypto_ it is yet another thread | about scam energy-wasting fake money. | henvic wrote: | Society is losing the opportunity to create a lot of wealth | because people are investing in silly proof-of-work (or: | energy/resource wasting) ideas. It's awful, and I guess we're | only going to see this over once Bitcoin is surpassed by Dogecoin | (I'm sure this will happen), and then Dogecoin gets surpassed by | any other stupid shitcoin out there. | | The idea of cryptocurrency is interesting, but the idea of having | no back at all makes no sense. Wasting energy is not creating | wealth. | jkepler wrote: | Except that Proof-of-work isn't wasted energy: it secures the | bitcoin network/system by making it prohibitively expensive to | attack, as well as provides a means to confirm groups of | transactions in a decentralized manner. Bitcoin provides a real | final settlement layer alternative to fiat central banks, and | that's globally significant. | | Plus there is the bisq project, a peer-to-peer bitcoin/fiat | exchange that has decentralized their governance using a token | that's colored bitcoin, rather than building on Ethereum. | | Regarding the energy consumption of monetary networks, what's | the real cost of the petrodollar system? Don't forget to | include the US military costs fighting wars to force oil- | producing nations to sell oil denominated in dollars, as well | as all the banking, financial advisors, and physical security | (Brinks) that prop up the central banking/fiat monetary | standards. | pfisch wrote: | You realize doge coin is still worth less than 10% of btc by | marketcap? | | Not sure I would count on that prediction. | | I mean is gme going to surpass apple? | henvic wrote: | 10% over something that is pure speculation and has no value | whatsoever seems like really high. If anything, this just | makes me feel confident about my prediction. | mikeodds wrote: | You could reach out to the polymarket team on discord and | they might be happy to setup a prediction market for this | | https://polymarket.com/ | | They're crypto based but unfortunately (/s) no token | spottybanana wrote: | > It's awful, and I guess we're only going to see this over | once Bitcoin is surpassed by Dogecoin (I'm sure this will | happen), and then Dogecoin gets surpassed by any other stupid | shitcoin out there. | | Just pointing out that both Doge and BTC are proof of work and | consume energy in similar style with the mining process. | henvic wrote: | Yes, like most if not all current cryptos: it's either stupid | energy waste or fraud. | andxor wrote: | Not true, most stuff launching these days is either PoS or | migrating. | timdaub wrote: | This account is talking about how many things in Crypto are non- | credible but at the same time they also just "blab" their opinion | on Twitter without any factual backing. | Luker88 wrote: | As someone interested in all of cryptography, I cringe every | single time when we call blockchain "crypto". | | Sure, there's cryptography in it. But you don't call a mail or | http server "crypto". There's similar tech in git, we don't call | it "crypto", we call it VCS. | | Calling this "crypto" is just trying to add a mystic aura for | stuff people don't understand, to further muddy the waters. | | We have a word for this technology. It's not "crypto". It's | blockchain. | | Sure, it's your shorthand for "cryptocoin" or "cryptovalue". | Which are again newspeak for blockchain, and we could argue that | given its limits and usage of the last years they should be | called crypto-investment, at best. | | Which is still like ordering a pizza and forcefully referring to | it only as "food". I want a pepperoni-food please. | | Sorry for the rant, but it really feels like it's just a way to | further embellish something with dubious values like the post | points out | ccamrobertson wrote: | Regardless of the "crypto" shorthand, blockchains are distinct | from cryptocurrencies. A cryptocurrency can exist without using | a blockchain to record balance changes, and likewise, a | blockchain can exist which is not used for recording accounts | or spendable outputs. | | The "crypto" shorthand emerged from the cryptocurrency side, | which by and large, uses cryptographic primitives in order to | spend and receive value. One further bit worth adding is that | the market demand for cryptocurrencies broadly has directed | massive amounts of resources towards the development of novel | cryptographic primitives. | steveEnix wrote: | This is a very prescriptive approach to language, as in | prescribing meaning to words. It's a philosophy of fixed | meaning that does not allow language to evolve. The alternative | camp would be descriptive, as in allow language to evolve and | define its rules based on how people actually use it. At the | end of the day it's not one or the other, but a balance... your | objection seems rather attached to the usage you know. | | Recognizing this dichotomy is useful when thinking about shared | values, such as programming styles, ethics, and money. DFW's | Consider the Lobster has an essay called "Authority and | American Usage" that covers it well, originally printed here: | https://harpers.org/wp-content/uploads/HarpersMagazine-2001-... | avindroth wrote: | Crypto sounds way cooler and can be prepended to things much | more easily. It's a social market out there. | [deleted] | baby wrote: | Heh, I think that ship has sailed and it's a waste of time to | argue over the real meaning "crypto" should have | sadfasf122 wrote: | Cryptocurrency - therefore crypto for short. | | /thread. | vmception wrote: | Its called context. | | A new one was created to convey a shared concept (aka the | purpose of language) and will always be more popular than the | thing you invested way too much time into to change. | | It'll sting at first but time to accept that and update your | lexicon. | jyriand wrote: | It's like people will create their own desired footpaths over | fields when the sidewalks are not in the right place, so it | seems the word "crypto" is just a shortcut because there aren't | any shorter words to describe blockchain. | munchbunny wrote: | As someone who works on stuff that involves cryptography but | not cryptocurrency, I agree, but at this point I consider it a | lost cause. Cryptocurrencies have taken over so much of the | popular imagination that even when I say "cryptography" I get | responses like "oh you mean like Bitcoin?" | eppsilon wrote: | Kind of like when you use the word "hacker" (as in HN) with a | non-technical person. They always assume you mean the black | hat kind. | pattusk wrote: | > 16. And my personal pet peeve is that, by and large, most of | crypto actually does want Bitcoin to die. Perhaps not in a "I | want Bitcoin to go to zero", but in a, "Bitcoin doesn't do | anything and so I want its value to be rightly distributed to my | project, which has real utility". | | This is the most frustrating thing about crypto and has been | since at least 2016. Most of the projects with the highest market | cap in the space either don't do anything, don't plan on doing | anything and don't have any purpose. | | And then you have a myriad of projects that are rewriting the | traditional finance playbooks. Or blockchain infrastructure | projects that are laying the foundations of what could be a fully | decentralized and anonymous web. And they're worth a 100th of | DOGE's market cap. Granted, they might still very well be grossly | overvalued. Especially at this stage of the bull market. But the | fact that there's such assymetry with projects that are at best | vaporware and at worse outright scams is by far the most | frustrating part of crypto. | ignoramous wrote: | > _Most of the projects with the highest market cap in the | space either don 't do anything, don't plan on doing anything | and don't have any purpose._ | | The second most valued crypto-currency is Ethereum. And the | entire ecosystem around it does plan on doing _a lot_ of | things, starting with decentralised finance. | | There are also efforts to layer a network on top of Bitcoin in | a bid to counter-act Ethereum. And competing networks like Diem | (Facebook, Spotify, Uber...), CENTRE (Coinbase / Circle...), | Stellar (Stripe...) that aim to replace the current payments | infrastructure. | | Then there are cross-chains like Polkadot, Cosmos, Polygon et | al that try to make all of these disparate blockchains inter- | programmable. | | Agree that pump and dump schemes seem like the norm, but that's | like saying Internet has no utility and is crap because there's | porn, spam, and malware all around. | pattusk wrote: | I said most because indeed most of the innovation, both | technical and cultural originates from Ethereum. But DOGE, | XRP, ADA, LTC, BCH, TRON, ETC. EOS, NEO, BSV are all in the | top 25 and have nothing to show for it despite being some of | the oldest players in the space. The L2 projects on Bitcoin | are not new and they've never brought anything revolutionary. | And I think BTC is fine without L2, it's a very different | philosophy from ETH and I can respect that. I just don't | think it does or will ever deliver the typeof value that ETH | and the projects hosted on it do. | | Polygon, Cosmos or other innovative L1 projects like | Avalanche, Algorand or HBAR all sit at 9 digit mcap - which | is certainly very high but still annoyingly low when you | consider that DOGE is worth 77 billion dollars and BSC, whose | sole purpose is to make scams out of ETH projects and run | them on a centralized chain, sits close to 100 billion | dollars. | pjc50 wrote: | > BSC, whose sole purpose is to make scams out of ETH | projects and run them on a centralized chain, sits close to | 100 billion dollars | | Scams are big business, but that just illustrates how | delusional and bubbly these are; is BSC, a thing I'd never | heard of before, really of equivalent value to .. Square? | Lockheed Martin? Target? AirBnB? AMD? NTT? Uber? | | https://companiesmarketcap.com/page/2/ | ithinkinstereo wrote: | BSC is a Eth competitor by Binance. | | Gas costs in ETH have been at historical highs, making it | uneconomical for players under 5-6 figures of capital to | do basic transactions, let alone yield-farm / manage | positions, so various DeFi dApps have moved over to less | congested chains like BSC and Solana. | | Sure, lots of scam projects due to cheaper deployment | costs (again low gas fees vs Eth), but legitimate | projects too: see PancakeSwap, which started out as a Uni | clone, but has arguable expanded to offer more / | different set of features. | | Speaking more broadly, yes, we're in a crazy bubble, but | that's really the case across all asset classes at the | moment due to rampant central bank printing. Scams are | proliferating in equities too, see SPACS. | | Not to trot out the "this time is different" meme, but | unlike the '17/'18 cycle, you have far fewer whitepaper | copy-pasta scam ICOs and way more legitimate projects; | with real teams, real users, real use-cases. Plus, | institutions are actually ape-ing in, so take that for | what you will. | | IMO pace of development and adoption will only accelerate | from here on the back of an already "mature" internet and | mobile ecosystem + generational familiarity/acceptance of | digital value in the youth. | | As someone who grew up during the transition from analog- | digital, crypto gives me mega 90s/00s internet vibes, | especially the feeling of inevitability around the DeFi | space. | 1experience wrote: | There is no rationale here to be found, You are comparing | an insane bubble (Doge, etc.) to a regular bubble | (Avalanche, etc.). | | People have completely lost the value of money, do you | realize how much money is $4.5 billion? | | In 2007 Apple had a market cap of 80 billion and a P/E | ratio of 26, it had revolutionary products on the market | that were clearly going to change an entire industry while | at the same time bringing in steady revenue, can you | imagine how much it would be worth today in this bubble? | teachingassist wrote: | This is describing many of the same political problems as you get | in any decentralised organisation, such as community volunteers. | | But, it must be worse to deal with when you have profit as a | motivator rather than social benefit. | | Sounds like a recipe for burn-out and a risk to mental health. | noxer wrote: | Here is a free tip if you want to do it anyway. DON'T CREATE | ANOTHER F**ING TOKEN! | | Build you product on an existing reliable fast and cheap | blockchain that fits your needs. Focus on the product not the | price of tokens on said DLT. | | You dont need a token. No, really you dont. Your tokens only use | case is likely to transfer value and guess which token can do | this better than yours? All of them! Simply because they already | have adoption/liquidity/fiat on-ramps etc. etc. You also | instantly gain a community simply by using a token that has a | community already. | | And you avoid lots of legal problems. | | Here are some companies that did/do this: | | coil.com | | sologenic.org | | gatehub.net | | forte.io | | raisedinspace.com | | (Very biased (they all use XRPL.org) because I simply dont know | other projects. But you get the point, every DLT that actually | works in a useful way should have people building on top - if not | its probably garbage tech) | marton78 wrote: | Not necessarily. For example, https://gains.farm has a valid | and novel use case: decentralised (i.e. on chain) leverage | trading. Tokens you win are minted, tokens you lose are burnt. | anonymoushn wrote: | Alright, so I make a two-sided market on chain, and the fees I | charge accrue to... me? This seems like a similarly large legal | headache to having them accrue to token holders! I am probably | obligated to make sure that all users of my protocol are not | Kim Jong Un, right? | noxer wrote: | Take a look at Sologenic. Sologenic is a fronted for the DEX. | AFAIK they have no legal obligation to limit who is using it | at all. The DEX as as its name says is decentral, they can | not control it. They just make software that lets users use | it. They can also not directly take fees because the DEX does | not have fees (you make things decentral to remove the | lurking middlemen who takes the fee) IDK how Sologenics | business model looks like (they are pretty new) but I assume | they will make certain features in their apps cost something. | Possibly can be payed directly with crypto. KYC rules usually | dont apply for such stuff. Fiat on-ramps have to deal with | that. Hence using an existing system that already has the | infrastructure is preferable. | anonymoushn wrote: | I'm not necessarily sold on the idea of making products | without business models. My lawyers so far have told me | somewhat different things from "if it's all crypto then you | have no KYC obligations" | noxer wrote: | I'm sure they have one but these days you offer something | for free first to gain users and make you product as | premium as possible so you can actually expect someone to | pay for it. | | >"if it's all crypto then you have no KYC obligations" | | Yes, its not that simple but this thread is not legal | advice anyway | ska wrote: | > KYC rules usually dont apply for such stuff. Fiat on- | ramps have to deal with that. | | I think it would be a very risky bet to assume this will | remain the state long term. It's not even the state now, | overall. | | Similarly: | | > The DEX as as its name says is decentral, they can not | control it. | | It is possible to construct situations where a business is | not technically capable of meeting its legal obligations. | The usual solution to this is that the business changes, | not the obligation. | Far_Pig wrote: | I suspect in the not-so-distant future, every company will have | their own token, much like they have their own domain/website | today. | noxer wrote: | That's exactly what we dont need. 99% would use the token to | move value (pay for something) and we really dont need a | bazillion different tokens for that. Also most tokens are not | stable and thus not very desirably for payment. | earnesti wrote: | I don't have problem having gazillions of tokens, I just | don't use them. There isnt need and in the long run | companies will just write them off like many other hyped IT | projects. | noxer wrote: | No one will, that's the point. Imagine you would have to | pay Netflix with Netflix token and on eBay you would have | to pay with eBay token. The current financial system is | already annoying, we re dont have to make it worse. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | Companies already have loyalty points and gift cards and | rewards programs long before blockchain. | | No consumers want to have to deal with tokens and blockchain | to interact with a company. | | Consumers will always do what's easiest and cheapest. | Blockchain solutions are inherently more difficult, more | expensive, and more risky (for the consumer) than just | breaking out your credit card and getting paid 2% cashback to | spend your money. | croshan wrote: | And why would a company need to have a decentralized token? | noxer wrote: | No one said they should. But they can offer something and | get payed with one that's usually the use case of the | token. And it does not require a new token. | pjc50 wrote: | > You dont need a token. No, really you dont. Your tokens only | use case is likely to transfer value | | Other way round: transferring value to yourself is _the only | use case_. | | If you take a second to look in the mirror and see the wreckage | of previous startups in this space, you'll see that - as | pointed out in the OP thread - 99% of the community is there | for the pump and dump. For all the practical purposes, | distributed solutions end up worse than centralised ones. | Except possibly for censorship resistance, which means you have | the problem of attracting people who want to use it because | they've been banned from other services. | noxer wrote: | Sounds to me as if you dont have any "blockchain project" | ideas. That's fine do something else. If whatever you every | wished to crate does not profit form this tech, it probably | really just does not profit form it. Nothing wrong with that. | It would be a shame to slap blockchain on a cool project that | doesn't need it. | arcticbull wrote: | No it's not that, there's not a single blockchain based | solution that achieves better results than a classical | solution. Not a single one. Never has been. Not in 14 | years. I'm open to one showing up! But, well, it hasn't. | | And that's because there's a huge fundamental cost to | trustlessness, decentralization and permissionlessness that | substantially no project actually benefits from. | swensel wrote: | Bitcoin is a worldwide network storing $1 trillion in | value without a central party or government. That has | never happened before. Are you sure you're just not open | to considering the technology at all? | | Ethereum is another one to look more into. Smart | contracts are doing things that no classical solution has | ever done. Have you done a deep dive on how the | technology of Bitcoin or Ethereum actually work? | | FWIW, I think plenty of the altcoin tokens are garbage, | but some of the top players, like Bitcoin and Ethereum, | are doing things that classical solutions simply do not | allow today. | anonymouse008 wrote: | > No it's not that, there's not a single blockchain based | solution that achieves better results than a classical | solution. Not a single one. Never has been. Not in 14 | years. I'm open to one showing up! But, well, it hasn't. | | Mind helping me with my assumptions?? | | From what I see, the classical solutions assume the | central authority will always exist and provide its | services at reasonable prices, that the authority will be | benevolent and just, and the central authority is usually | single purpose. | | Regarding survival, crypto space has a similar assumption | that at least some people will run nodes - but I like | it's robustness to being 'killed off' because only a few | people need to participate in mining or validating. | | Regarding benevolence, I think there are plenty of | examples of hostility towards users in the payments space | specifically. | | Regarding single purpose, blockchains are fairly | interesting as they allow for any purpose that's signed | with the participating parties. Which is a wildly open | means of coordination amongst groups -- which is also why | blockchains look a lot like currency at outset, because | currencies have been the tool for eons to coordinate | human efforts. | | But looking at it closer, a lot of the world runs on IFFT | logic, which seems ripe for smart contracts - the only | issue is the interoperability between traditional world | and blockchain world to become like Daniel Suarez's | Dameon. | noxer wrote: | ILP is (could be) the "interoperability between | traditional world and blockchain" but only for | payment/money/value We dont really know yet what else | there might be. NFTs is the current hype but who knows | what/if that will turn out to be in the future. | [deleted] | tjs8rj wrote: | I'm jaded with the crypto-scammery too, but isn't lower | fees with 24/7 instant transactions the selling point? | (For low fees think Binance not Coinbase). | noxer wrote: | The post above has a list of companies who build on top | of such a decentral permission-less system that | apparently has no benefits. | | Start with coil.com what they do it not possible with the | financial system. They enable users to stream money to | content creator in real time with fractions of cents per | second. A central system would not make any sense. It | must be p2p and there must be a ledger to "settle the | transactions" | | Its not impossible to make it central it just not | lucrative in any way. But if the middlemen is removed it | doesn't have to be lucrative for that middlemen anymore | and it turns out to be almost free because you just need | to send p2p data packages to stream money. | | Its called interledger protocol (ILP) its not a | blockchain its a protocol but like I said above you need | to settle somehow and which bank or financial system lets | you settle fractions of cents? No one because there is no | money to be made from this so a system that does not | generate money for the owner (a decentral system) works | best. | mtnGoat wrote: | Re: coil.com, what they do is entirely possible on a | centralized system. cam sites have been using token based | internal payment systems based on minutes viewed, tips, | etc at sub $0.01 levels for 20+ years now. and until the | tubes came along, all sides profited handsomely. | | source: i helped build some. | noxer wrote: | That not what coil does. | | Coils is just payment provider for web monetization. You | can use another (probably none exist so far) and more | importantly you can use web monetization outside of coil | owned platforms. | | The cam site thing maybe look similar on the surface but | its not. It only works in very limited full controlled | closed system. It can not scale to the web. You would | need 100+ subscriptions in the end that not the goal. Or | you would need one overlord that has the monopoly on web | monetization and everyone is forced to use g$$gle. | Obviously bad for all kinds of reasons like privacy, | competition, censorship etc etc. | | Web monetization puts a payment pointer into the HTML | meta tag The browser reads this and streams money there. | See https://webmonetization.org/docs/getting-started | e12e wrote: | > you can use web monetization outside of coil owned | platforms. | | Like you can use PayPal to sell (access to) digital | assets? Or patron? | | I'm not sure which part of the core value proposition of | coil has anything to do with blockchain? | | And small wonder: crypto/chains allows us to transfer | trust (eg, I trust i can buy milk for my dollar, I buy | bitcoin for a dollar, I give you bitcoin, if you can sell | bitcoin for a dollar, we trust that I have given you the | opportunity to buy milk). | | This could also go via bank transfer, or hybrid systems | like PayPal,stripe or vipps[1]. | | I see some benefit to "magic crypto cash on the | interwebz"- but untraceable tender is generally not what | chains facilitate. Quite the opposite. | | When you realize crypto currency can go two ways: perfect | taxation (billionaires and corporations will fight it, to | the death), or: perfect money laundring/tax evasion | (government will fight it, to the death) - the crypto | future looks quite distant. | | [1] a Norwegian bank owned platform for instant digital | settlement: https://vipps.no | mtalantikite wrote: | > Start with coil.com what they do it not possible with | the financial system. They enable users to stream money | to content creator in real time with fractions of cents | per second. A central system would not make any sense. | | I'm sorry, what? Genuinely curious about what the use | case is here, I've never heard of this before. I pay | based on the amount of time I consume? | noxer wrote: | Currently Coil costs you 5 bucks a month and its | distributed to the content creators that you consume on | the basis of how long you consume them. The Creator must | have a web monetization enabled website [1] to | participate. And you need either an add-on or a browser | that has it integrated. The creator can show/hide content | based on whether you stream money or not (kinda like a | paywall) | | Its obviously intentional very simplified ATM because its | rather new. There is long way to go before we can | actually pay for exactly what we consume. | | [1] https://webmonetization.org/ | | Old (2018) but fun: A Raspberry Pi ILP power switch | (Turns on a light if money is streamed) | https://xrpcommunity.blog/raspberry-pi-interledger-xp- | powers... | arcticbull wrote: | > The post above has a list of companies who build on top | of such a decentral permission-less system that | apparently has no benefits. | | Correct. | | > Start with coil.com what they do it not possible with | the financial system. They enable users to stream money | to content creator in real time with fractions of cents | per second. A central system would not make any sense. It | must be p2p and there must be a ledger to "settle the | transactions" | | Any wallet could offer the same thing. PayPal could offer | it. But they don't because nobody wants micropayments. | Nobody's ever actually wanted micropayments, it's | something they think they do, but in reality, they do | not. This comes up from time to time. One of the crypto | folks actually wrote a really good paper on it, I'll dig | it up. | | You just build up the balance until it's over $1 and | ACH/RTP it. Those transaction methods cost $0.0033 in | bulk. | | Further, this is just revisiting whether people are | willing to pay for content online. They are not. They | would rather be subjected to ads and not pay anything. | noxer wrote: | >Any wallet could offer the same thing. | | No, its not a wallet at all its a protocol like TCP but | for money. If you are interested go read about it first. | There is no point in arguing about something you dont | know what it is. | | >PayPal could offer it | | Yes, they could but its not lucrative and if it would be | they would not be interested in using a public | interoperable protocol where everyone can offer the same | service and compete. | | So you have some sites that use PayPal and other sites | use 15 other payment companies. You just recreated | subscription hell. Its completely missing the point. If | its decentral and standardized all systems work together. | If I have the wrong token or currency the decentral | system finds a way to swap them so I can use any services | no matter what "wallet" or currency I use. I cold stream | Netflix and Amazon Prime and only pay what I watch and | when I watch. | | Also why would I want PayPal to know whom I stream money? | If its central its impossible to hide such data. If its | p2p no third party know what content I pay for. That's | how it should be. | | >Nobody's ever actually wanted micropayments | | We already have it.... its called ads. Ever page load, | every click, every interaction and every data collected | about you is a form of inefficient micropayment. One that | does not respect your privacy, tires to maximize the time | you waste and tries to trick you into buying stuff you | dont need. And the cost of that is slapped onto the | product you may buy. | | Don't you think there are tons of people out there who | would rather not annoy their visitors with ads? They | would rather have them pay a few fraction of a cent | directly to them without the ad-mafia taking a huge junk | out of the revenue. And dont you think there are people | who would rather pay a few fraction of a cent than see | ads or block ads knowing that the content creator does | not get paid then? | | >Further, this is just revisiting whether people are | willing to pay for content online. They are not. They | would rather be subjected to ads and not pay anything. | | That's your personal opinion. The facts are not on your | side. People already pay to not see ads its just | cumbersome because every service needs a subscription or | pro app or whatever. It does not scale to the number or | services the average user wants to use. And it hardly | adjust to the actual use. Its objectively just so much | worse than if you could stream for what you use in real | time. | | You could go a long way without ads for a few bucks if | you would replace them with the actual revenue they | create. Only if your time is worthless you would rather | watch a 15 second ad than pay 1/10 cent or whatever to | not see it. | reedjosh wrote: | > People already pay to not see ads its just cumbersome | because every service needs a subscription or pro app or | whatever. | | People will pay if it's a frictionless payment of a small | amount reflective of the value gained. Netflix did this | with movies, Spotify with music, `crypto with | everything?` if the tech and business models are worked | out. | pjc50 wrote: | Spotify and Netflix do the exact opposite: fixed cost. | People _hate_ having a taxi meter running. | noxer wrote: | You can still have fixed cost/flat rates whatever. The | key point is that you can use any service you want and | they have to actually compete with the price and content. | This is not the case now. You are locked-in or you | overpay if you have multiple subscriptions. | noxer wrote: | Imagine how awesome it would be if you could search for a | movie choose the service that current has the best | cost/byte ratio for your location (they can make this | variable to manage load). Then you start streaming. No | registering needed. Not even a login. | | After 10 min you notice the film sucks so you stop the | stream. You only payed for the first 10 min. | | Totally friction-less ofc. You could watch on a random TV | anywhere and stream the money from your phone. | | Sounds like sci-fi but we have all the key tech needed | for this. | marcus_holmes wrote: | this sound great. I'd cancel my Netflix sub and go for | this in an instant. | | Now go pitch it to the 50+ copyright owners that you'd | need to convince to make this happen. | | Strong hint: it's not going to happen. The people who own | the content you want to stream like this have no | incentive to make it work like this. | | If they could go back in time and say "no" to Spotify, | they would. | arcticbull wrote: | It sounds not very compelling. Id rather give Netflix | $50/mth and not worry about any of that. | | [edit] not to mention, content creators don't price their | movies in dollars per byte haha, they price it based on | what they think people will pay. This is part of the | reason all you can eat is much more enjoyable. | noxer wrote: | I think you didn't get the bigger picture. Its not for | streaming a movie is for everything on the web. Why would | you pay 50 for Netflix if you can just consume content | wherever you want for 50 bucks instead. They can still | offer you a flat rate if they want. The option to pay | what you use doesn't take the option to pay upfront or | whatever away. There is no doubt they will lure you into | using the same service somehow but that's kind | irrelevant. The goal is to have the choice and that you | can pay/support the small fishes too. The one you would | never make a subscription for. Same with donation. You | probably dont have Wikipedia or hacker news subscription. | But leaving a few cents for free content ever month would | probably be a good idea to keep it free. | | Its not "all you can eat" is "you can eat where you want" | you never missed that because it was always like that you | never needed a subscription for certain food or | restaurant chains. You just go and eat wherever you want | and they all expect you to pay what you ordered or | whatever deal they offer. This system makes it far more | likely you go eat somewhere new and far more likely that | you eat spaghetti where you like it the most and pizza | somewhere ease. Web content should work the same. | zaphar wrote: | This conversation is odd. Someone says there are no real | world use cases. Someone else says yes there is and poses | one. Former person points out that in fact that example | just makes their point for them. The counter is well | there _has_ to be some use case because there are | theoretically an infinite number of them. We just have to | find one from that set. | | This example right here. It presumes that content | creators will happily just bypass distributors like | Netflix. I find that unlikely because it ignores what | Netflix actually provides for content creators. | | 1. Funding in some cases. | | 2. Discovery and a ready audience. | | 3. Availability of content to your audience. | | Content creators have little motivation to not use | Netflix or Disney+ or whatever other service. Those | services have little motivation to use crypto streaming | payments. And frankly most consumers don't care enough to | create an incentive for the creators by voting with their | wallet. | arcticbull wrote: | Sorry for the confusion what I meant was this is | achievable today, but instead people opt to avoid | micropayments and instead want to watch ads + get the | content free, or pay for an all you can eat model. | Everyone's thought about micropayments. For decades. | They've tried it many times. There's no technological | reason today that micropayments couldn't be adopted | overnight. They reason they aren't is because people | don't _want_ them. | | There's a mass grave of micropayments startups, and I bet | you anything it's not because they couldn't figure out | how to debit and credit fractions of a unit. | | People don't want to continuously make judgements about | whether they're getting good value for money in their | content - especially their entertainment content. | lottin wrote: | "Streaming money" doesn't sound like sci-fi at all. It | just sounds like something I absolutely would try to | avoid at all costs. | noxer wrote: | Well there can still be option to pay full at once. Not | quite sure what you gain from this but if you can stream | you can also stream all once. | arcticbull wrote: | > Don't you think there are tons of people out there who | would rather not annoy their visitors with ads? | | No, I don't. I mean I think they would if it didn't cost | them anything but I firmly believe when given the | decision between being vaguely annoyed by ads vs. ponying | up the cash, they'll do the former substantially all the | time. | | Nick Szabo has a great paper on it. [1] Trust me when I | say this is almost certainly the _only_ thing Nick Szabo | and I agree on. | | [1] | https://nakamotoinstitute.org/static/docs/micropayments- | and-... | jaggs wrote: | Cough...Patreon. | e12e wrote: | Patron kinda proves the point that no-one wants | _micropayments_ (and that small /threshold payments work | fine in a centralized system)? | arcticbull wrote: | Exactly my point :) that's not micropayments that's full | on payments and you subscribe monthly! | megameter wrote: | Exactly - a good use of a decentralized ledger doesn't | leave so much room for speculative profit motives. | | However, my own investment thesis is that the "crypto" | market is ultimately destined to march towards that | useful and unprofitable outcome, kicking and screaming | the whole way, by dint of the long-term market survivors | being the civically oriented perennials. But this is a | long journey, maybe another decade or two in the making(a | epochal shift in tech). It will continue to have ups and | downs. | noxer wrote: | The goal was to remove the middlemen to make stuff | cheaper/unbiased/fair/private. The token prices going up | an down is indeed just a side effete of speculation. but | will definitely go away over time its not solving any | problem and it hides the tech because people just see the | money. | reedjosh wrote: | > there's not a single blockchain based solution that | achieves better results than a classical solution | | The following | | > trustlessness, decentralization and permissionlessness | | Are better results. | | But I do admit, that they come at _performance_ trade- | offs. | marcus_holmes wrote: | but they don't achieve any of those, either. | | All of them rely on a centralised authority, as can be | seen with the bitcoin & ethereum forks - if something | goes bad, the people in control will step in and make it | better. That means there are people in control. This is | not trustless, decentralised or permissionless. | reedjosh wrote: | There's degrees in everything. | | Permissionless--nobody can stop a transaction from taking | place because of ideology. | | Decentralised--the miners and the software devs have to | agree on something to make a hard change. This has | happened so rarely as to be a non-issue. When it does | happen, the currency forks and those that want to use it | can do so as they please. | | BTC became LiteCoin, BCH, and BSV from hard protocol | forks. | | Ethereum forked from Ethereum Classic. | | Hive forked from Steamit as Tron tried a hostile | takeover. | | Trustless -- Here trustless really mean visibility. I can | verify everything is correct in the chain myself. I don't | have to believe there are gold bars in a vault somewhere, | but to a degree it also means I can trust there's no | central authority that may be ponzi-ing or ready to abuse | the protocol. | baby wrote: | Honestly you don't know what you're talking about. What | do you mean better results? What's your metric? In terms | of security it does achieve better result. | Kiro wrote: | HN's hypocrisy: constantly complaining about centralisation | but dismissing attempts of freeing people from said | centralisation at the same time. | wmf wrote: | In practice, crypto does not free people from | centralization. That's one of the problems highlighted by | this thread. | arberx wrote: | Centralization is a spectrum. | arberx wrote: | What do you expect from Big Tech engineers? Honestly most | peoples livelihoods are generated by working on extremely | centralised, monopolistic services. | pinkybanana wrote: | > > You dont need a token. No, really you dont. Your tokens | only use case is likely to transfer value | | > Other way round: transferring value to yourself is the only | use case. | | Everyone needs money. These tho claims are contradictory. If | by creating tokens you can transfer value to yourself, it is | clear use case and thats why people will keep creating | tokens. | Fede_V wrote: | That's exactly right. I've seen zero products where the | blockchain is a compelling value ad, with the exception of: | | - it makes it easier to raise capital by claiming that what | you are doing involves crypto, because then you get crypto- | type valuations | | - you can get money from people who want to speculate | eightysixfour wrote: | I, personally, think Handshake is an interesting value add. | Decentralized ICANN on a blockchain, mainly because I can't | think of a better method to decentralize TLD management. | | The negative is a lot of the TLDs sold on Handshake were | sold to early interested parties, many of which were | speculators. Unfortunately, other than an ICANN run | solution, I can't think of a way to solve this since you | need critical mass to make it fair, but can't get critical | mass without having everything running. | | Maybe they should have restricted the character length of | the TLDs that were available to be auctioned at any given | time based on the number of mined coins so more valuable | TLDs wouldn't come available until, ideally, more people | were onboarded to the service. Not sure there's a great | solution there. | dogecoinbase wrote: | I've never been able to get over Handshake basing their | domain-claiming system on DNSSEC -- and when they | launched they couldn't even claim their _own domain_ | because .org was still signed with a RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1 | key: https://github.com/handshake-org/hsd/issues/399 | | It, uh, didn't inspire a lot of confidence. | ghayes wrote: | Another good example would be a project like Uniswap on | Ethereum that existed for a long time without a token. To your | point precisely, Uniswap v1 was similar to the Bancor project | but explicitly removed the token/tokenomics. The simplified | launch made the protocol better for both them and their users. | noxer wrote: | Hmm whats the UNI token for then? | anonymoushn wrote: | It's a governance token, meaning you can use it to | participate in non-binding votes about what the developers | do. | noxer wrote: | Ah cool thx, BTW you can swap on the XRPL DEX too, | however you can only swap "issued currencies" (IOUs) so | you need to trust some counterpart (like gatehub or | another exchange) to actually hold the asset behind it | until you withdraw. The benefit is that is extremely fast | and cheap even slow assets like BTC can be swapped just | as fast as all others (in a few seconds). | arcticbull wrote: | So like a twitter poll? | intotheabyss wrote: | It's a governance token today, but it will likely become | a capital asset earning revenue from the Uniswap protocol | at some point. | wmf wrote: | Didn't Uniswap get eaten by others precisely because the | others could use their tokens to create usage incentives? | austin_king wrote: | > Here are some companies that did/do this: coil.com | gatehub.net forte.io | | ^ This is a bit silly of a counterexample given that these 3 | companies are all able to exist from the significant XRP | investments from Ripple. | | > You dont need a token. No, really you dont. Your tokens only | use case is likely to transfer value | | That's rather untrue. Token use cases have proliferated through | the advent of DeFi (decentralized finance). This would be a | more accurate take during the 2017 ICO bubble but the space has | matured a great deal. There are valid use cases now such as | governance, fee sharing, derivatives, etc. | | > But you get the point, every DLT that actually works in a | useful way should have people building on top - if not its | probably garbage tech) | | This communicates OP's lack of familiarity with the crypto | space. A vast majority of the tokens launched today are | launched on top of the Ethereum blockchain. They're not trying | to create better tokens for the transfer of value, they're | trying to create tokens to help manage decentralized financial | services. They're not even DLTs, they're smart contract | applications. | | It's rather easy to mock the crypto space and have an | oversimplified perspective like this, most people will nod | along. However, it's a bit sad to see people on a forum like | this make such charged statements oversimplifying the work of | others as "garbage tech." | swiley wrote: | Isn't XRP centralized? | noxer wrote: | XRP is the token Its called XRPL and its not centralized | since years. | vallas wrote: | XRPL doesn't even have their landing page copyright updated | reedjosh wrote: | Only downside is you can't inflate the supply for unique | purposes. | | For example PeakD.com inflates hive to give content creators | tips based on likes. | | Edit: I thought this was legitimate reasoning behind having | your own token. I don't mean it in an inflammatory way. Please | explain why you disagree. | noxer wrote: | I dont think this is a downside at all. If you build on a | existing blockchain you ofc need funding rather than | "printing" you own funding. It may be harder but also less of | a legal risk. | | BTW Coil.com pays content creators based on user interaction. | Its however not self printed money its form actual user who | want to support content creator rather than ad-companies. Ofc | coil itself runs on funding money like any other startup | nothing wrong with that. | | Also a project can ask the team behind the DLT they want to | use and possibly get some of their reserves. Its in their | interest that the DLT is used for something. Actual devs who | build something are worth way more than the thousands of | people who just buy something because Elon Musk tweets about | it. | | And btw at the same time a dev can still bet on price gains | or the token they use. I see no moral problem with that. If | your product actually creates demand that moves the price up | and you bet on that you own it. | reedjosh wrote: | The nice thing about "printing" vs funding for things like | this is that you don't need users to sign up or transfer | funds to be able to tip content providers. | | That said I do prefer the Coil.com model as I love crowd | funded ad free media content, and I _do_ pay for it. : ) | PragmaticPulp wrote: | > Edit: I thought this was legitimate reasoning behind having | your own token. I don't mean it in an inflammatory way. | Please explain why you disagree. | | Because you don't need to create a token _at all_ to tip | creators, inflationary or otherwise. | | If you want to use crypto, just use an existing blockchain. | Or don't use crypto and just create a centralized market that | pays out at certain thresholds. Blockchain solutions aren't | actually cheaper than centralized solutions, they just hide | all of the costs elsewhere in transaction fees and mining | payouts. | | The only reason to create an all-new token is to have | something to sell to people under the guise of enabling | value. It was a bad trick when car washes sold car wash | tokens instead of letting you pay for car washes directly, | and it's a bad trick when crypto companies make you buy their | tokens instead of just buying the service directly. | reedjosh wrote: | > Because you don't need to create a token at all to tip | creators, inflationary or otherwise. | | But if you don't do it through inflationary means, then | consumers have to actually send tips and or have accounts. | (for better or worse) | | Inflation is a nice way to build incentives into the | currency's structure. Further, Hive has no transaction fees | as that's funded via inflation as well. | | I do like the idea of a streaming value for value service | wherein I have a wallet that I top up from time to time, | but there are many models that are viable here. | mosselman wrote: | I see lots of people in the thread, including the author, that | have avatars with glowing eyes. Can someone explain what this is | about? Is this some sub cultural thing? | koalala wrote: | It's the 'laser eyes' meme. | https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/laser-eyes-bitcoin-trend-lase... | mosselman wrote: | Ah thanks :) | mrtksn wrote: | How do you read the content of this website? Everything jumps | around as you scroll. | | https://streamable.com/ymqe1c | [deleted] | minikomi wrote: | https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/bitcoin-laser-... | chrisco255 wrote: | Thread poster is a Bitcoin maximalist, and thinks all crypto | projects that are not Bitcoin are scams. | bearjaws wrote: | "4. You realize that most of the "influencer" network of crypto | is actually a cartel of individuals who all know each other and | collude in pumping the same bags. They all cost around $20k-30k | for a review, btw." | | This is the sad truth about all these people on Youtube / Twitch. | I know two individuals who are sucked into their "shows" and use | what they are saying as gospel. It drives me nuts because they | spout off numbers like "BTC @ 100k" and theres no date given.. I | just respond by saving an even more ridiculous number like "BTC @ | 100bn" | emmap21 wrote: | From user experience, I personally don't see a strong benefit of | crypto. It always looks like a Ponzi Scheme to me. When early | users are people driven by greed than productivity, it is a HUGE | problem. | hanniabu wrote: | Starting about a year ago the token distributions have favored | users. | aabhay wrote: | Exactly. Nassim Taleb calls it an "open ponzi" -- a ponzi that | is openly known | sendbitcoins wrote: | Nassim could argue that its a "greater fool machine", but its | literally not a ponzi. | graeme wrote: | What's the distinction, and do you have a source | formalizing that? | | I had always understood a ponzi as being something paid out | by later investors, and where you had a plausible reason to | believe in increase in value. | | Here the plausible reason is "bitcoin will take over the | financial system and everyone will need it" or "bitcoin | will be the new store of value and everyone will want it". | In either event payout necessarily comes from later | investors. | seibelj wrote: | Taleb has never revealed the details of his investment | portfolio. For someone who screams "I don't care - show me | the returns!" it's interesting that he cannot prove that his | "black swan" strategy has ever been actionable for his own or | anyone's portfolio, how to use his theories to make | significant money vs. normal strategies, and any proof that | his hedge fund made any money during the dot-com crash which | you would figure would be the prime time to make money given | his public persona. | | Taleb got profiled in the New Yorker, his Black Swan book | became popular, and he has rode that and Twitter ever since. | I highly recommend people see him for what he is - a public | figure that is a bullshitter like anyone else - at least | until he shows proof that he is some sort of investor oracle. | He has actively sued people who revealed how much money his | prior fund lost, as those documents are floating around but | he attacks anyone who publicly reveals them. | pdog wrote: | _> It 's interesting that he cannot prove that his "black | swan" strategy has ever been actionable for his own or | anyone's portfolio, how to use his theories to make | significant money vs. normal strategies..._ | | Mark Spitznagel, a cofounder of Empirica (Taleb's old | fund), went on to start Universa which did pretty well with | similar theories (tail-risk strategies and insurance via | options against extreme market risk) in both the 2008-2009 | period and last year, when they booked a huge return. So | there's some evidence that the theories work to produce | uncorrelated (or negatively correlated) returns that | outperform the market[1]. | | [1]: Universa's flagship "Black Swan Protection Protocol" | fund has produced a mean annual return on invested capital | of 76% since the firm was created in 2008. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoinegara/2020/04/13/how-a- | go... | jeffreyrogers wrote: | Someone in the industry has a theory that he made his | initial fortune by being unhedged during Black Monday[0] | and benefiting from being on the "right" side and he's been | coasting on that since then. Obviously hard/impossible to | say, but he is definitely hypocritical when it comes to | things like "skin in the game". | | [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Monday_(1987) | chrisco255 wrote: | I do. I can take out a 6 figure loan in 15 seconds and send it | to anywhere in the world (https://aave.com/). I can deploy | capital, I can participate in liquidity pooling on | decentralized exchanges in a completely permissionless manner | (https://uniswap.org/) (impossible unless you're a Wall Street | insider in the current system), I can lend out currency at | higher market rates to day traders participating in leverage | trading (https://dydx.exchange/) (impossible unless I'm a Wall | Street insider today), I can mint a derivative of a Tesla stock | that follows the price action of Tesla from anywhere in the | world (https://www.synthetix.io/). I can trade 24/7. I can play | a game, earn in-game swag and trade that on an open marketplace | (https://opensea.io/). I can take out crop insurance backed by | a smart contract in an African country that lacks a stable | legal system or currency (https://www.arbolmarket.com/). I can | go on and on... | vmception wrote: | I'm glad you wrote this, my favorite part coming up is when | they pretend a MySQL database would be better for cross chain | yield farming | jude- wrote: | The unspoken truth here is that defi tokens all worthless | until you cash out, and that leaves a paper trail. Hope you | paid your taxes on those trades! | chrisco255 wrote: | I'm not cashing out, I'm staying in the Ethereum ecosystem | for good. And no they're not worthless. USDC for example, | is literally exchangeable for $1. I can literally take out | a six figure loan against crypto holdings and buy a house | with it. I can also pay off high interest credit card debt | and earn yield at the same time. All the other tokens are | liquid and exchangeable 24/7. | jude- wrote: | > USDC for example, is literally exchangeable for $1. | | Thank you for reaffirming my point! The purpose of defi | is to re-distribute dollars from people buying in to | people cashing out, while providing literally no other | goods or services. It's not like people want these tokens | for other purposes -- you buy them so you can sell them | to subsequent participants. | | Despite the deceptive machinations of defi, the act of | selling out leaves a paper trail that exposes you to | liability for income taxes, capital gains taxes, and (if | you wrote the token code) securities regulations. But I | have some good news: if you live in the US, you at least | have until May 17 to file your quarterly estimated taxes. | chrisco255 wrote: | > The purpose of defi is to re-distribute dollars from | people buying in to people cashing out | | Not at all. You didn't read my post above did you? Let me | ask you, if you want to be a market maker for the NASDAQ, | can you do so with $1K in capital? Can you do it 24/7 | from any country in the world? No? Can you loan money to | someone in Thailand in 15 seconds? Can you borrow money | from a pool of lenders from 84 different countries? No? | Can you build an app that plugs into your bank, NASDAQ, | and a video game API without paying anyone any service or | API fees? No?? | | Well you don't get DeFi. So you should study both the | traditional existing system as well as this new one so | you can see quite clearly why this system exists and what | problems it solves. | | Buddy, I'm not worried about taxes on profits vs. losses. | It's no different than stock trading. No one has ever | pretended there isn't a paper trail: of course there is! | It's an open blockchain. But you're running with your pet | theory for why it exists straight over a cliff. | jude- wrote: | Boy, did that touch a nerve! | | Hate to break it to you, buddy, but you can't do these | things with defi tokens either. | | > Let me ask you, if you want to be a market maker for | the NASDAQ, can you do so with $1K in capital? Can you do | it 24/7 from any country in the world? | | If you're implying that NASDAQ won't let me be a market | maker with $1k capital, then why should I believe that | they'll do it if I offer $1k-equivalent of defi tokens | instead? | | Also, I _can_ do this today. I 'd start a market maker | company with my funds and with funds from other like- | minded people. | | > Can you loan money to someone in Thailand in 15 | seconds? | | Show me a defi protocol that lends money, and I'll show | you a protocol that only permits over-collaterialized | loans, backed by other defi tokens that are just as | limited. | | Also, yes -- I can lend money to people in Thailand in 15 | seconds. I simply invest my money in a local bank that | will do it for me. | | > Can you borrow money from a pool of lenders from 84 | different countries? | | Absolutely. Do you understand how banking works? | | > Can you build an app that plugs into your bank, NASDAQ, | and a video game API without paying anyone any service or | API fees? | | I don't know if you've ever tried to actually write | software before, but I can say with 100% confidence that | defi isn't going to open up my bank's APIs, NASDAQ's | APIs, and video games' APIs to me. That's because these | entities make money by charging for API access, and the | existence of defi isn't going to change this. | | Even if each of these entities were realized as defi | contracts, the underlying blockchain miners _still_ | charge me a fee to mutate state within them. | | > Buddy, I'm not worried about taxes on profits vs. | losses. It's no different than stock trading. | | Then you clearly do not understand how tax law or finance | works. I humbly suggest you get familiar with it, and | quickly, lest you end up with completely-avoidable | penalty fees (or in a jail cell). | chrisco255 wrote: | Some research for you: | | https://en.cryptonomist.ch/2020/11/09/uniswap-liquidity- | pool... | | https://docs.aave.com/faq/borrowing | | https://defirate.com/synthetix/ | | https://defi.cx/makerdao-how-does-it-work/ | | As for collateralized loans, they are the norm in | traditional finance, too. When you take out a mortgage, | it's collateralized by the house. When you borrow for a | car, guess what happens if you don't pay? Unsecured, | revolving loans are usually credit cards, with very high | interest rates. | | If you're snarking about the $30B in lending activity on | crypto (up from less than $1B a year ago, on pace to 10x | over the next 12 months), because it's collateralized, | you don't understand what percentage of lending is | collateralized and how big that market is worldwide | (hint: its hundreds of trillions). | | > That's because these entities make money by charging | for API access, and the existence of defi isn't going to | change this. | | The point, for your intentional ignorance, is that the | DeFi system is completely open. Open source, open access, | pluggable, and composable. In that sense DeFi follows the | Unix philosophy. And that is just one reason why DeFi | will take over ever greater portions of the existing | system. It is going to eat traditional finance. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy | | > Then you clearly do not understand how tax law or | finance works. I humbly suggest you get familiar with it, | and quickly, lest you end up with completely-avoidable | penalty fees (or in a jail cell). | | You clearly don't understand that Coinbase just went | public as a company and that many more legal entities | exist fully legally in the crypto ecosystem such as | Gemini, Avanti, Greyscale, Galaxy, Kraken, etc not to | mention overseas entities in Europe and Asia. There's | nothing illegal about participating in crypto. | | I understand how to do addition and subtraction and how | to do FIFO and LIFO. In fact, there's software programs | to automate it. Who woulda thunk it. | jude- wrote: | Then I guess you don't really understand UNIX either. | Software modularity is a necessary part of the UNIX | philosophy, but it's far from the only part. If it was | that simple, then Windows would be UNIX thanks to COM. | | But that's not really the topic at hand. | | > It is going to eat traditional finance. | | Why should I believe this? Even if high transaction fees, | bad UX, and non-existent scalability _weren 't_ | significant barriers to adoption, why should I believe | that traditional finance won't simply co-opt successful | defi projects? | | The fact that traditional finance does not do some things | that defi does has nothing to do with technical | capabilities, and everything to do with legality and | market sizes. There's no grand conspiracy afoot -- | traditional finance would let you do a lot more with your | money than you can right now if it was profitable and | legal. | | If you're telling me that defi is going to "eat | traditional finance" because traditional finance won't | touch unprofitable or illegal activities, then what are | you really saying about defi's prospects? | | > There's nothing illegal about participating in crypto. | | No one said that crypto is illegal. Tax evasion, on the | other hand... | [deleted] | golergka wrote: | Reading that twitter thread, and HN discussion here, I am again | reminded how the whole startup scene looked before dotcom crash: | insane valuations, lots of scammers, and what little utility | there is, it's mostly for illegal means. (If you're saying that | there's no real utility in Bitcoin, you really should google | Hydra). | | But don't you wish you bought Amazon stock right after IPO? | mtnGoat wrote: | its very similar. | | now, as was then, people are investing in tech they don't | understand and in some cases tech that may not even be | buildable. :x | ww520 wrote: | Good point. But for every Amazon back then there were hundreds | of Pets.com. | saalweachter wrote: | Don't forget the corollary: when do you wish you sold the | Amazon stock you purchased at IPO? | dylkil wrote: | wasnt it obvious to some people back then who the real | companies were, and all it took was everyone else catching up | to speed to understand who the real companies were? | throwaway4good wrote: | What if speculation was the use case? ... the only use case ... | 1ark wrote: | Wait until you learn about derivatives and the size of it. | https://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-of-the-worlds-money-and... | user-the-name wrote: | Always treat every single crypto project as a scam. It is one of | the safest bets you can make. Everyone involved is a scammer, | every exchange is untrustworthy, and nobody can be trusted. | | If you're trying to start an honest project in this space, you | really need to ask yourself why you would put yourself in a | situation where you are the only honest person in a room full of | scammers. | berkes wrote: | > If you're trying to start an honest project in this space, | you really need to ask yourself why you would put yourself in a | situation where you are the only honest person in a room full | of scammers. | | This is one reason why I pulled the plug on my startup in the | sphere. In the best case you're disadvantaged by all the | scammers and liers: they can make promises, cut corners, rip | investors where you are being careful, covering all bases, and | trying to put a real case and working sofware out. In the worst | case, your honesty is helping the scammers by adding | credibility to their case. | user-the-name wrote: | Exactly. | | Plus, you run the risk of either getting exploited yourself | by the scammers, or feeling the pressure to act more | dishonestly to keep up. | viraptor wrote: | That's an emotional response going the other way. Why not just | think of the project itself as if the blockchain side of it | never existed? Is there a real product, is there a visible | progress, is the time investment happening in the development | rather than empty announcements? | user-the-name wrote: | "Why not blind yourself to relevant context" is not a really | a great way to make good decisions. | viraptor wrote: | There has to be a better way to address this because "Why | not blind yourself to relevant context" cuts both ways. You | said "Always treat every single crypto project as a scam." | - but if you ignore all blockchain ideas and still see a | healthy and useful product, but ignore it as a scam - | that's also blinding yourself to context. | user-the-name wrote: | Because a scam product will lie to you in order to look | like a healthy and useful product. If you ignore the | hints that it is a scam (that it is a cryptocurrency | project, where 90% or more of all projects are, in fact, | scams), you will be more likely to fall for the lies. | viraptor wrote: | I didn't mean looking at future promises - that's part of | the crypto game. I mean if the project mostly does what | you expect from it now and continues development towards | the rest - why does it matter if people see it as a scam | on the crypto front? You're getting the value you need | out of it. | rapsey wrote: | So many of the smartest people in the world work in the areas of | getting people to click on ads, mining personal information, | finance and crypto. Areas that at best have no social value. It | is quite depressing. | ZephyrBlu wrote: | Crypto has no social value? I'm not in the space, but I think | crypto has immense social value. | hanniabu wrote: | Don't waste your breath dude, HN has become a safe haven for | people that like to bury their head in the sand and shit talk | crypto. Yeah, anybody that's actually knowledgeable in it | know that what they're saying are the same old sad tropes | that the news has been training people to repeat verbatim, | but they've boxed themselves in and they'll die on this hill. | samvher wrote: | Where is a place to get a broader perspective on this? I've | tried subreddits for some of the projects, the | cryptocurrency subreddit, and google and youtube. I have a | lot of difficulty cutting through the noise. (My sense is | that projects like Ethereum could be extremely valuable but | that its value is currently hurt by the speculation on | Ether making transactions far too costly. I'd be very | interested in getting exposed to the "quality" projects | that are out there but it's hard to filter.) | hanniabu wrote: | I've found r/ethereum to be pretty level-headed. | | > Ethereum could be extremely valuable but that its value | is currently hurt by the speculation on Ether making | transactions far too costly | | FYI the price of ETH does not affect the transaction | costs. The fee market is independent. There's solutions | to this in place and more being worked on though. The 3 | biggest contributors will be EIP 1559 which is meant to | level out the fees and make them more predictable, L2 | rollups which scale through sidechains that have the each | of their blocks confirmed on Ethereum's L1 with proofs, | and sharding of L1. Ethereum is currently in a growing | pains phase as these L2 options gain more | traction/adoption, UX for them improves, and all activity | migrates there. The end goal is for a majority of | interaction to occur on L2 with L1 being used mainly for | a settlement layer. | samvher wrote: | Huh, I totally thought transaction fees were set in Ether | and that's why the costs are so high (in fiat of course). | If that's not it, what makes the transactions so | expensive? Lot of competition for limited throughout? | TigeriusKirk wrote: | Yes, it's competition for limited throughput. Especially | with the DeFi boom, fees have been bid higher and higher | to be sure transactions are included in an immediate | block. | | Incidentally, if you're looking to keep up with Ethereum | in particular, the newsletter Week In Ethereum News is an | excellent resource. It's a links-with-descriptve-blurbs | kind of thing. It's still a bit of a firehose if you're | catching up on the space, but just pick a few items that | sound interesting every week. | https://weekinethereum.substack.com/ | reedjosh wrote: | I like https://talesfromthecrypt.libsyn.com/ | | It's ostensibly a BTC podcast, but it's _really_ about | much more including second tier networks, altcoin tech, | and individual autonomy. | | Otherwise, getting involved in the code itself does seem | to be the only avenue I've found for real learning. | | There's an O'Reilly book that has you build a blockchain | from scratch if you're interested. | | I'd welcome other suggestions. | | Oh, also Tezos has most of Ethereum's features, but is | already Proof of Stake. | megameter wrote: | It was easier eight years ago, I would just look at | Bitcointalk threads and be able to make an evaluation | pretty quickly. Small scale, relatively more clued in | folks. Now the scale is a problem. There are so many | projects I know nothing about. | | Nowadays I usually go to /r/cryptocurrency/new for the | firehose. I do not aim to read everything, just check in | and take some notes. What tends to happen on that | subreddit is that some really great posts get made but | never hit frontpage because they're crowded out by | useless memetic content. But you can take individual | great posts and turn those into leads by doing some | additional legwork. I don't usually talk to those users(I | do not want to read comment thread replies and will | completely ignore my Reddit inbox, instead I will monitor | the thread if it interests me) but I will sometimes | browse their post history. | jkepler wrote: | I would add Andreas Antonopoulos's video, as well as the | What Bitcoin Did podcast as good starting points. Also | check out the book, Inventing Bitcoin. | andxor wrote: | What Bitcoin Did is run by a toxic Bitcoin maximalist who | is totally clueless about the tech and is only in it for | the money. | | Check out Bankless and The Daily Gwei. | rapsey wrote: | All the billions that went into it have what to show for? How | has it improved anyones life besides making some early | enthusiasts and lots of criminals rich? How is society better | off? | | Lots of grand ideas that went nowhere because they are | entirely unrealistic and divorced from reality. | twox2 wrote: | Tell that to the Venezuelans that have been able to move | money safely in and out of their country, or the many | artists that went from struggling to be able to make a few | bucks by selling NFTs. | reedjosh wrote: | Indeed. Like a decentralized social network driven not by | ads, but likes that gen coins. | | PeakD.com | | Or a digital currency with the privacy and fungibility of | cash. | | GetMonero.org | | Or an ad free streaming platform. | | Odysee.com | bradmcgo wrote: | I would strongly argue that crypto does present genuine value | to the world... | AlexCoventry wrote: | One perspective on money is that it's a resource-allocation | system. I think more transparent, accountable, reliable | resource allocation potentially has enormous social value. | sktrdie wrote: | Not if you create a system where it's literally impossible to | redistribute wealth. If majority of tokens in a crypto system | are controlled under priv-keys owned by a small % of the | population we'll literally lock ourselves under the control | of those people. Scary thing is that we won't even be able to | vote ourselves out of the potential mess because the private | keys are mathematically secured. Capitalism is going to have | a blast! | tartoran wrote: | Yes, it literally becomes the invisible hand that controlls | the freemarket but it no longer free and no longer a market | if nobody can get in. Ultimately the value we all get is | exchange with eachother at a fair and stable price. The | cryptospace could potentially solve this problem when the | initial gold rush does some damage. In a way the attention | is not bad because more people understand what it is, study | it, become savy, vote legislature and deepen the field | towards the problems that trully need a solution. | | What we want is to basically transfer work/resource tokens | and make it resistant against depreciation. Lets add a | simplistic example I help someone build a house and receive | a fair token for that work. When I need to build a house 20 | years later I pass that token, it retains the value such | that someone accepts it to do the work I did 20 years | prior. Because we're mentally stuck into an outdated | economic model that served ok prior to the digital age our | imaginations aren't creative enough move in the right | direction. My thinking is that a direction will emerge, | let's hope it's as far away from the possibility you talk | about. | throwaway_kufu wrote: | I personally have experienced NFT cartels first hand and would | love to expose it. From pay to play propositions by a "NFT | artist" that's sold millions in NFTs for an invite to an invite | only NFT marketplace, promises of $x/month in sales, to a | prolific "NFT collector" on Twitter confirming being part of the | whole scam by retweeting me upon request of the artist to verify | the authenticity of it all. | | From what I gather no one gives a shit, and their attitude seems | to be we can buy off anyone who challenges us. The irony is the | same people shaking me down for Bitcoin in exchange for an | invitation to the marketplace/inner circle successfully have | collectively called for for banning/suspending of accounts from | various NFT marketplaces openly on Twitter. | | Anyone here in media want to do a story? | yunusabd wrote: | I've been thinking about this, there are so many | crazy/interesting stories in the crypto sphere that you could | fill volumes upon volumes. I wish they were reported more, hope | someone picks you up on your offer. | fumblebee wrote: | > 2. You aim to build a community, but in reality 90% of your | telegram/discord are scammers and people asking why price is | going down/accusations that you and your entire team should go to | jail. | | I'm consistently repulsed by the lack of thoughtful discussion in | crypto communities. For a space littered with intriguing | technology it's endlessly frustrating that there's no HN-like | forum. Instead, any community that started off that way is now | filled with speculators and shillers. | | Take your pick for where to source your news: 1. crypto | influencers on YouTube who are paid to shill, 2. forums likw | Reddit filled with speculators and conmen, 3. pump and dump | groups on Telegram. | | The greed and FOMO on display in the crypto gold-rush is deeply | depressing, and for the majority who join the craze at the peak | of the bull run, it'll surely end in tears. | queuep wrote: | I think this depends on the coin. The IOTA discord is quite | interesting, and people using the tech. Not sure IOTA will be a | thing though, but I still like reading the discussions in the | Discord. | baby wrote: | I've been thinking about forking HN to have crypto discussions, | I really wish there was a board like this which only talked | about technical stuff of crypto | vmception wrote: | Its more so frustrating to me that they become tribal by | necessity! | | You cant discuss flaws in the current design or future design | because people think you are attacking their investment! | [deleted] | hanniabu wrote: | > it's endlessly frustrating that there's no HN-like forum | | There are communities like this, such as the crypto dev | discord, the daily gwei discord, ethereum cat herders discord, | etc. You're just in the wrong communities. That's like spending | time on 4chan and saying "the internet sucks, it's filled with | horrible people and no thoughtful discussions." | chrisco255 wrote: | I do think it's scattered, but certainly there. There are | many high-quality and thoughtful Twitter posters but you | really have to filter. Meanwhile, I think there is room for a | crypto HN since HN is actively hostile to anything positive | towards crypto. | Legogris wrote: | > Take your pick for where to source your news [actual | answers]: | | 1. Newsletters. One basic example is Bitcoin Optech. I've | always been the kind of person who looks at any newsletter just | about long enough to put it in Trash. But I've come to | understand there are plenty of greatly curated and/or written | ones out there. | | 2. Podcasts. I can recommend Unconfirmed and Zero Knowledge, | for example. | | 3. Discord (I know I miss out by not going here but the noise- | to-signal ration and complete lack of | privacy/anonymity/anything like that are both too much. It | makes me a bit sad that this is where the action is even for | infrastructure and supposedly open/freedom-asserting projects.) | | Can be non-trivial to find the good ones for whatever | angle/topic you are interested in, of course. | | > The greed and FOMO on display in the crypto gold-rush is | deeply depressing | | Absolutely agree and I couldn't agree more with the comment | you're replying to. | chromatin wrote: | For podcasts I recommend Uncommon Core (technical) and Up | Only (which despite the name is not just "up only" shilling | and has excellent guests lineups) | steveEnix wrote: | There's no discussion, but the Rekt News feed is consistently | interesting content. Seems HN inspired: | https://feed.rekt.news/day | 55555 wrote: | I started a crypto startup once (don't do it unless you're | Vitalik-tier intelligent) and this is pretty damn accurate. lol | lottin wrote: | Vitalik Buterin, the guy who thinks you can do quantum | computing by running a quantum computer emulator on an ordinary | computer [1]. Doesn't strike me as the sharpest tool to be | honest... | | [1] | https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/127395790524347596... | kybernetikos wrote: | It's interesting that quantum inspired classical algorithms | have been discovered that outperform the previously best | known algorithms, and reduce the likelihood of useful quantum | speedups in those areas. | https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3880 | | I take this tweet as Vitalik saying that a similar thing | could happen for mining (or general search), and while it | would be surprising, it doesn't seem like it is impossible. | lottin wrote: | Considering his background, I don't think he was talking | about algorithms. In the past he became involved in this | project: | | "Quantum computing (QC) is a flexible model of computation | and there are many physical means of implementing it. One | obvious means of implementation is by classical simulation. | In other words, performing QC by running 'quantum software' | on conventional hardware." | | [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20131005014920/http://noosp | heer.... | rodiger wrote: | A random tweet about a concept not being "fundamentally | ridiculous" is an awfully low bar to discredit intelligence. | Have a look at his blog[0] and let me know if that reinforces | your belief. | | Besides, if you read the whole thread you'd know he's | acknowledging that _if_ we could simulate QC classically, | then we 'd be able to have more efficient classical search | algorithms. It's an _if_ that 's likely impossible at scale | but not, by definition, impossible. | | [0] https://vitalik.ca/ | lottin wrote: | It's not just a random tweet. He's had these ideas since | 2013 at least. So here for more details: | https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/buterins-quantum- | quest/ But I'll take a look at his blog, thanks. | proto-n wrote: | > competent observers would likely consider even that on | the high side for a mathematical impossibility | | If the statement made by Vitalik "There's no proof that | efficient classical simulation of QC is impossible" is | indeed the case, then it's the linked blogpost that has | discredited itself mathematically by treating this as | "breaking mathematics" or a "mathematical impossibility". | More like groundbreaking surprise, but there's a big | difference between "unlikely" and "proven to be | impossible" mathematically speaking. | lottin wrote: | The element of controversy isn't whether efficient | quantum simulation is possible, but the idea that by | running such a simulation one would be able to break | cryptography, as if they were using an actual quantum | computer. This is a talk where he makes this claim | https://youtu.be/DkUpZkeqhF4?t=3372 If this isn't | crackpottery of the highest degree I don't what is. | chrisco255 wrote: | A talk from 8 years ago, when he was 18 years old? I | mean, even having a semi-half-baked opinion on quantum | cryptography at 18 is pretty damn impressive. Just | because everything is forever on the internet does not | mean that opinions are forever. | space_rock wrote: | He's a marketing genius for being able to sell garbage to | fools. I'll give him that | [deleted] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-05-06 23:01 UTC)