The Token Effect(blog.ycombinator.com)
blog.ycombinator.com
The Token Effect
https://blog.ycombinator.com/the-token-effect
161 comments
There are many points there:
1 - Regulation. You can do ICOs and Token Sales legally. If your tokens are not securities, you can do ICOs open to everyone. If your tokens are considered securities, you can do so on Coinlist.
2 - Tokens natively track the value of the network. For these networks, its value is not tracked by company shares. Ethereum is a good example of this. Ethereum Foundation is a non-profit and all the value accrues to the token. You can also do a hybrid system or none. Depends on your specific use case.
3 - Funding. Internet Bug Bounty is a good example of this https://internetbugbounty.org/. If TCP/IP would have been able to capture a billionth of a cent for every request things it wouldn;t be needed. Maybe, our infrastructure would be really different today.
1 - Regulation. You can do ICOs and Token Sales legally. If your tokens are not securities, you can do ICOs open to everyone. If your tokens are considered securities, you can do so on Coinlist.
2 - Tokens natively track the value of the network. For these networks, its value is not tracked by company shares. Ethereum is a good example of this. Ethereum Foundation is a non-profit and all the value accrues to the token. You can also do a hybrid system or none. Depends on your specific use case.
3 - Funding. Internet Bug Bounty is a good example of this https://internetbugbounty.org/. If TCP/IP would have been able to capture a billionth of a cent for every request things it wouldn;t be needed. Maybe, our infrastructure would be really different today.
1. You've always been able to crowdsource if you want to go through legal hoops.
2. I'm not sure how you can say Filecoin's token is tracking the non-existent network. Even Ethereum is a bad example. All the Enterprise Ether announcements will use a private implementation of Ethereum. So how is that value accruing in ETH, other than people getting confused by misleading PR and thinking banks are actually going to be transacting on the public Ethereum chain so they should buy ETH?
3. What do you mean if "TCP/IP" would capture money for every request? Why not UTF-8 or ASCII capturing value for every character written? InternetBugBounty seems like a very bad example. Their examples of "The Internet" bugs are issues in Bash, TLS, and ImageMagick -- all very much not TCP/IP. That's like saying BTC's market cap should have prevented Ethereum's DAO bug.
Not trying to be mean, I just don't see how this makes any sense.
2. I'm not sure how you can say Filecoin's token is tracking the non-existent network. Even Ethereum is a bad example. All the Enterprise Ether announcements will use a private implementation of Ethereum. So how is that value accruing in ETH, other than people getting confused by misleading PR and thinking banks are actually going to be transacting on the public Ethereum chain so they should buy ETH?
3. What do you mean if "TCP/IP" would capture money for every request? Why not UTF-8 or ASCII capturing value for every character written? InternetBugBounty seems like a very bad example. Their examples of "The Internet" bugs are issues in Bash, TLS, and ImageMagick -- all very much not TCP/IP. That's like saying BTC's market cap should have prevented Ethereum's DAO bug.
Not trying to be mean, I just don't see how this makes any sense.
To expand on point 3- I think finding a "natural" business model for protocol development is pretty fantastic. HTTP needs work, and we've known it for years. But when we tried to fix it... well, mostly large corporations with skewed incentives are driving the effort, so what you'd expect happens.
Tokens offer a different path to funding important infrastructure.
Right now, tokens clearly aren't doing a great job tracking underlying utility, so I won't make that claim. I do think that will improve as the space matures though.
Tokens offer a different path to funding important infrastructure.
Right now, tokens clearly aren't doing a great job tracking underlying utility, so I won't make that claim. I do think that will improve as the space matures though.
Again, if TCP/IP captured money, how would that fund HTTP - they are not related (ETH doesn't fund random tokens on top of the Ethereum blockchain, so why would the TCP/IP people getting money give it to other protocols?). There is already enough lock-in with protocols due to inertia and politics. Adding money to it seems like it wouldn't improve things. If anything, it seems like it'd only make things worse. BitTorrent got money and that didn't seem to help them very much.
Tokens offer a different path, mostly because you can buy and sell them so freely. It's link pink sheets on steroids.
Tokens offer a different path, mostly because you can buy and sell them so freely. It's link pink sheets on steroids.
I wasn't suggesting TCP/IP funding should be used to fund HTTP, I was just using HTTP as an example.
Though there is something interesting there- protocols with funding sharing with others built atop to increase network effects.
Though there is something interesting there- protocols with funding sharing with others built atop to increase network effects.
What incentive did Google have that skewed HTTP2 vs smaller sites?
I doubt protocol development is hampered by funding. The real impediment is adoption, and you can't escape the large corporations there: if Chrome and Edge and Safari don't accept your HTTP changes, what's the point?
Your point 2 is very nicely worded, and maybe a fundamental concept of tokens, but one I had not heard marketed as such up until now...the token is a method of tracking the value of the network.
Interestingly enough I had always considered the token concept similar to the corporate structure of a non-profit, that is there are: incorporators (the ico/smart contract authors); members that usually buy into the non profit (token holders); but there is otherwise no ownership of a nonprofit entity. Though I have never seen nonprofit membership artificially limited in the hopes of the membership rate increasing and for purposes of reselling the membership in secondary markets. It does begin to muddy the waters, but the framing of network value is a very interesting concept.
Interestingly enough I had always considered the token concept similar to the corporate structure of a non-profit, that is there are: incorporators (the ico/smart contract authors); members that usually buy into the non profit (token holders); but there is otherwise no ownership of a nonprofit entity. Though I have never seen nonprofit membership artificially limited in the hopes of the membership rate increasing and for purposes of reselling the membership in secondary markets. It does begin to muddy the waters, but the framing of network value is a very interesting concept.
If TCP/IP would have been able to capture a billionth of a cent for every request
Cryptocurrencies haven't been able to do micropayments, this kind of system just isn't possible. Proponents will go on about payment channels such as lightning, but these have been 'just around the corner' for several years now and their effectiveness/practicality is highly debatable.
Cryptocurrencies haven't been able to do micropayments, this kind of system just isn't possible. Proponents will go on about payment channels such as lightning, but these have been 'just around the corner' for several years now and their effectiveness/practicality is highly debatable.
The Sia network has been happily doing micropayments (covering 4mb of storage at a time) for over a year. At times, the total number of micropayments on the network has been estimated to eclipse 100 transactions per second (all off-chain via payment channels).
This technology is deployed if you know where to look for it.
This technology is deployed if you know where to look for it.
I didn't know about this important feature in Sia. I'd appreciate if you expanded on this somewhere; in your blog or documentation.
>but these have been 'just around the corner' for several years now
That's because it took the Bitcoin community several years to agree to activate SegWit, which is required for the lightning network to work. SegWit is finally locked in and will be activated on August 23.
That's because it took the Bitcoin community several years to agree to activate SegWit, which is required for the lightning network to work. SegWit is finally locked in and will be activated on August 23.
The important point isn't the micropayments, it's providing some sort of funding channel for an important piece of infrastructure that otherwise languishes.
but the micropayments point still stands.
In practice the model proposed for TCP/IP would not work because it's a decentralized crypto-currency.
In which case you're talking about consumables that have a high enough unit cost to "pay the price" of a single crypto txn.
Turns out we have this already! It's called bitcoin. Maybe you don't want to change your prices all the time so a new coin could be good on that end (letting markets manage the service cost). But that's just mental gymnastic, especially since ultimately everyone is pooling from fiat for a while (who's getting their salary in BTC or ETH?)
In practice the model proposed for TCP/IP would not work because it's a decentralized crypto-currency.
In which case you're talking about consumables that have a high enough unit cost to "pay the price" of a single crypto txn.
Turns out we have this already! It's called bitcoin. Maybe you don't want to change your prices all the time so a new coin could be good on that end (letting markets manage the service cost). But that's just mental gymnastic, especially since ultimately everyone is pooling from fiat for a while (who's getting their salary in BTC or ETH?)
If you use a token for the protocol, and the value goes up, and the developers have token holdings- they've made money. No micropayments necessary to use tokens to fund development.
Also, plenty of companies in the space pay salaries in BTC and ETH. Check out BitWage for a provider.
Also, plenty of companies in the space pay salaries in BTC and ETH. Check out BitWage for a provider.
If you work for Coinbase, you can collect your salary in BTC
Can you negotiate that your salary be denominated in BTC though? So that even if the value of BTC goes up you get the same BTC in the account every month?
I think it never works like that, pricing is done in other currencies. Also in webshops that accept btc as payment the prices are never in btc.
> And how are tokens on the Ethereum network capturing value in other networks? How is Filecoin better off with its own money versus people bidding for storage in Bitcoin, Monero, or Ethereum directly
Filecoin is to be a purpose-built tool which will provide a distributed way to make the guarantees rather than paying a single provider or using an expensive and still trust-requiring escrow service.
Things like proof of storage, refunds with an extra payment for failing to prove storage and a completely distributed storage pricing model will be built in with Filecoin in a way that could only be done by a single provider using another cryptocurrency.
Filecoin is to be a purpose-built tool which will provide a distributed way to make the guarantees rather than paying a single provider or using an expensive and still trust-requiring escrow service.
Things like proof of storage, refunds with an extra payment for failing to prove storage and a completely distributed storage pricing model will be built in with Filecoin in a way that could only be done by a single provider using another cryptocurrency.
On the TCP/IP analogy: it seems wrong to me. The people producing the bitcoin protocol and the ethereum protocol aren't making money from the value that they are creating. It's the miners (people running nodes) who get value from the value created, right? So in this case, no one developing the protocol is getting value directly from the value created still, just like with TCP/IP.
I think the TCP/IP analogy is fuzzy at best. As for why these projects need their own currencies, it's not really that weird, it's just another way of thinking about it all.
They're called Local Currencies and are pretty common. They definitely help to create strongly knit communities in particular when the communities revolve around certain ideals or requirement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_currency
It's really exciting to see the different components for decentralized apps come together. Bitcoin promised programmable money, and it sort of is, but Ethereum is so much more accessible (for better or for worse).
With Ethereum we have decentralized compute. With IPFS we get decentralized storage. Cryptographic keys give us self-sovereign identity. Build tools like Truffle make it easy to get started (think create-react-app for Ethereum). And libraries like Zepplin are helping standardize secure patterns.
And, to top it off, using web3.js we can write UIs _in the browser_ using JavaScript and the libraries we're already familiar with (Angular, React, Vue).
By the way, [shameless plug], if you're a web developer and you're looking to get started programming cryptocurrency and distributed apps, I have some introductory tutorials here => https://newline.co/
With Ethereum we have decentralized compute. With IPFS we get decentralized storage. Cryptographic keys give us self-sovereign identity. Build tools like Truffle make it easy to get started (think create-react-app for Ethereum). And libraries like Zepplin are helping standardize secure patterns.
And, to top it off, using web3.js we can write UIs _in the browser_ using JavaScript and the libraries we're already familiar with (Angular, React, Vue).
By the way, [shameless plug], if you're a web developer and you're looking to get started programming cryptocurrency and distributed apps, I have some introductory tutorials here => https://newline.co/
Could we agree that everyone who writes anything about crypto puts at the end of his/her post a disclaimer telling us if he/she is invested in tokens discussed in that post and if yes what is the share in their portfolio.
You know, if I was invested in eg IPFS I would post night and day in all forums subtle not too obvious hints how great IPFS is (pump) and then I would dump them.
Or to be clear, any discussion about crypto might be motivated by financial incentives which makes a meaningful technical discussion quite hard.
Let's start with @jashmenn, are you invested in Ethereum and IPFS?
Edit: downvoters please explain why
You know, if I was invested in eg IPFS I would post night and day in all forums subtle not too obvious hints how great IPFS is (pump) and then I would dump them.
Or to be clear, any discussion about crypto might be motivated by financial incentives which makes a meaningful technical discussion quite hard.
Let's start with @jashmenn, are you invested in Ethereum and IPFS?
Edit: downvoters please explain why
> Edit: downvoters please explain why
I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that you would suggest any ICO investor might let their financial position influence the way they talk about cryptocurrencies. These people are visionary investors who selflessly pour their resources into ICOs, not mere speculators looking to make a quick buck on a greater fool. /s
You make a really good point. I'm genuinely excited about blockchains and cryptocurrencies, but it's so hard to find writing about it that isn't thinly veiled asset pumping.
I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that you would suggest any ICO investor might let their financial position influence the way they talk about cryptocurrencies. These people are visionary investors who selflessly pour their resources into ICOs, not mere speculators looking to make a quick buck on a greater fool. /s
You make a really good point. I'm genuinely excited about blockchains and cryptocurrencies, but it's so hard to find writing about it that isn't thinly veiled asset pumping.
> Could we agree that everyone who writes anything about crypto puts at the end of his/her post a disclaimer telling us if he/she is invested in tokens discussed in that post and if yes what is the share in their portfolio.
No? That seems like a silly question. If I'm the kind of person to hype something so that I benefit at your expense, then I'm unlikely to be the kind of person to tell you about the trap I set.
> Or to be clear, any discussion about crypto might be motivated by financial incentives which makes a meaningful technical discussion quite hard.
In general, anything dealing with other humans introduces ambiguity of motive. A good technical argument should deal with concrete facts, which can be verified and evaluated on their own terms, independent of the motive of the person that provided them. Take it as a given that you can't completely trust anyone else's motives.
No? That seems like a silly question. If I'm the kind of person to hype something so that I benefit at your expense, then I'm unlikely to be the kind of person to tell you about the trap I set.
> Or to be clear, any discussion about crypto might be motivated by financial incentives which makes a meaningful technical discussion quite hard.
In general, anything dealing with other humans introduces ambiguity of motive. A good technical argument should deal with concrete facts, which can be verified and evaluated on their own terms, independent of the motive of the person that provided them. Take it as a given that you can't completely trust anyone else's motives.
> You know, if I was invested in eg IPFS I would post night and day in all forums subtle not too obvious hints how great IPFS is (pump) and then I would dump them.
Credibility is much more apparent than you may think on sites like HN/Reddit. Shameless self-promotion without any substance won't get you far.
Fortunately software doesn't live or die on name recognition via random posts on social media but on whether people actually find it useful.
If this was someone's plan to make money on their investments they are wasting their time. Unless, maybe, they are a minor celebrity with a lot of reach.
Disclaimers on whether you own some tokens in a company is of marginal interest to me (authoring news stories is another matter), I'll judge the value of it by the proposition being made. Otherwise I'm pretty sure anyone who's been on the internet for a long enough time knows better than to take any recommendation at face value from comment threads. And being an investor is a sign of confidence, it doesn't automatically mean you are deluded by the idea or are only motivated in pumping it up for a cheap profit.
Either way if someone's plan is to engage in pump and dump schemes they'll always be at a high risk of being in a race to the bottom trying to exit before everyone else with the same half-baked idea of getting rich quick. It's not as clever as you make it out to be. There is always a far higher probability that they were the actual 'bigger fool' in any scheme than they people they hoped to recruit.
Credibility is much more apparent than you may think on sites like HN/Reddit. Shameless self-promotion without any substance won't get you far.
Fortunately software doesn't live or die on name recognition via random posts on social media but on whether people actually find it useful.
If this was someone's plan to make money on their investments they are wasting their time. Unless, maybe, they are a minor celebrity with a lot of reach.
Disclaimers on whether you own some tokens in a company is of marginal interest to me (authoring news stories is another matter), I'll judge the value of it by the proposition being made. Otherwise I'm pretty sure anyone who's been on the internet for a long enough time knows better than to take any recommendation at face value from comment threads. And being an investor is a sign of confidence, it doesn't automatically mean you are deluded by the idea or are only motivated in pumping it up for a cheap profit.
Either way if someone's plan is to engage in pump and dump schemes they'll always be at a high risk of being in a race to the bottom trying to exit before everyone else with the same half-baked idea of getting rich quick. It's not as clever as you make it out to be. There is always a far higher probability that they were the actual 'bigger fool' in any scheme than they people they hoped to recruit.
>Credibility is much more apparent than you may think on sites like HN/Reddit. Shameless self-promotion without any substance won't get you far.
Then why is the comment at the top of this thread, which says nothing of substance (for the HN crowd at least), the top voted comment so far?
Then why is the comment at the top of this thread, which says nothing of substance (for the HN crowd at least), the top voted comment so far?
It's not necessary when you consider the much simpler alternative: just assume that everybody is lying for their own profit.
> Edit: downvoters please explain why
Maybe because there is no "investing in IPFS". I mean there is Filecoin on top of IPFS, but you can love IPFS even if you don't give a damn about Filecoin, as it has been a well maintained project for the last ~2(?) years.
Disclaimer: I don't hold any file coin, but I enjoyed using IPFS for some hobby projects.
Maybe because there is no "investing in IPFS". I mean there is Filecoin on top of IPFS, but you can love IPFS even if you don't give a damn about Filecoin, as it has been a well maintained project for the last ~2(?) years.
Disclaimer: I don't hold any file coin, but I enjoyed using IPFS for some hobby projects.
Yes, that is it! That is why the Ethereum website looks so different than other opensource software project websites. It's the speculation.
May I ask why you are asking for my email address. My first impression when someone is asking for my email to download something for "free" is that he is a lying piece of cr*p and he just wants to spam me later on.
That's cynical. If someone spent their time making quality things people enjoy, they can charge whatever currency they'd like. If that currency is an email address so that you can be contacted later in hopes of selling you paid products or earning through referrals, then that's their prerogative. It doesn't make them a _lying piece of crap_.
If you use a catchall, create an address for that service. It it does something you don't like, cancel later.
If you use a catchall, create an address for that service. It it does something you don't like, cancel later.
I'm not disagreeing with that but a clean disclosure is missing. It's like paying for an item that you don't know the price of by putting your credit card details. I don't think you'd do that.
[deleted]
An email address is not a credit card. It isn't private information. Do you really think the amount of spam you will receive will change at all if you give one extra person your email address?
> An email address is not a credit card. It isn't private information.
You don't know what email address I'm giving you; I generate single-use emails for just about everything I sign up for, so when I start getting spam for it - like I actually did about 20 minutes ago - I can go straight to the source and start asking whether they got hacked, or sold me out.
You don't know what email address I'm giving you; I generate single-use emails for just about everything I sign up for, so when I start getting spam for it - like I actually did about 20 minutes ago - I can go straight to the source and start asking whether they got hacked, or sold me out.
> That's cynical.
So is not trusting the Federal Wallet Inspector on the subway.
So is not trusting the Federal Wallet Inspector on the subway.
Email addresses aren't currency. Unless you sell to spammers at least.
[email protected] usually works.
I think the old "you are the product" quote applies...
It takes 0 time to use a fake email
That's the sleazy part. It looks like you need an email to get a "pdf download link" but if you read the reviews a little down you'll understand that it is just another newsletter but disguised in a "course".
[redacted]
> I mean, you're not wrong.
So why give a 20 lines explanation of what you provide instead of correcting the error. This could have been done more cleaner: Have all the free courses available on-site. Have the purchase page available on-site too and from the free courses. Clean. Simple. No BS.
So why give a 20 lines explanation of what you provide instead of correcting the error. This could have been done more cleaner: Have all the free courses available on-site. Have the purchase page available on-site too and from the free courses. Clean. Simple. No BS.
[deleted]
You don't get decentralized compute with ethereum.
I didn't find any materials on your website? I got some email messages, wasted 5 minutes of my time.
> These communities are built on strong network effects – where, according to Metcalfe’s law, the value of the network is exponentially increased by the number of users who participate.
It's not exponential! Heck, the footnote is citing an article which correctly says the effect is quadratic in the first sentence.
I know this may be a lost cause in the general media, but to see this misuse of terms in this context is really frustrating.
It's not exponential! Heck, the footnote is citing an article which correctly says the effect is quadratic in the first sentence.
I know this may be a lost cause in the general media, but to see this misuse of terms in this context is really frustrating.
Yeah, that bugged me, too. I wonder if it would be better if Metcalfe's law were stated "the value of a network is proportional to the number of links."
(At least this isn't a case of talking about the "knee" of an exponential curve! When I taught calculus, I tried demonstrating how rescaling the y-axis shifts the curve horizontally, moving the "knee".)
(At least this isn't a case of talking about the "knee" of an exponential curve! When I taught calculus, I tried demonstrating how rescaling the y-axis shifts the curve horizontally, moving the "knee".)
Yeah, a lot of otherwise intelligent people are tripped up by the term "exponential, as in "Hey, the 2 is an exponent, so it must be exponential, right?"
That's actually a cool explanation for why some people might think this is correct. Let's teach them that 1 is an exponent, too ;)
I want to believe.
It looks so attractive. And is right up my "theory of the firm" alleyway.
But there are two issues kind of intertwined. The current crop of businesses - both coin based and normal, are about allocation of scarce resource (bedrooms, taxis, hard drive space)
Now that is really all about ownership of scarce resource.
The fact that Airbnb users make money by selling rooms they don't actually have ownership of (i.e. They don't have full rights to sell, either cos it's their rented apartment or cos local law says hotel rooms need fire extinguishers) is kind of glossed over in this egalitarian rush. If the "real" owners got their full allocation this would be a boring story of more efficient returns to capital.
Almost all of the internet is like this - YouTube does not pay IP owners, Google does not pay me for my blog writing.
Perhaps coins will more accurately reward the owners of these resources - paid to blog, paid to drive taxis, paid to own IP rights - but this is just solidifying the status quo.
This leads to my second point - that those with nothing cannot grow in a world where rewards are efficiently returned to owners. Filecoin rewards those who are already rich enough to own a hard drive and electricity. And if the economics work those who own a data centre.
Without some egalitarian system built in, yes even government redistribution, then I can't see how tokens and coins can do anything but make Pikkety more right - more returns to the owners of capital.
If coins are just another currency, then they are just another way to measure capital - and I can't see how that is going to make the world into my utopia
But I do want to believe.
My fear I suppose is that for all their libertarian roots, coins are traceable and vastly favour the top billion humans right now - and we are solidifying the status quo - it's not as bad a world as it has been, but I don't want to be stuck with it.
It looks so attractive. And is right up my "theory of the firm" alleyway.
But there are two issues kind of intertwined. The current crop of businesses - both coin based and normal, are about allocation of scarce resource (bedrooms, taxis, hard drive space)
Now that is really all about ownership of scarce resource.
The fact that Airbnb users make money by selling rooms they don't actually have ownership of (i.e. They don't have full rights to sell, either cos it's their rented apartment or cos local law says hotel rooms need fire extinguishers) is kind of glossed over in this egalitarian rush. If the "real" owners got their full allocation this would be a boring story of more efficient returns to capital.
Almost all of the internet is like this - YouTube does not pay IP owners, Google does not pay me for my blog writing.
Perhaps coins will more accurately reward the owners of these resources - paid to blog, paid to drive taxis, paid to own IP rights - but this is just solidifying the status quo.
This leads to my second point - that those with nothing cannot grow in a world where rewards are efficiently returned to owners. Filecoin rewards those who are already rich enough to own a hard drive and electricity. And if the economics work those who own a data centre.
Without some egalitarian system built in, yes even government redistribution, then I can't see how tokens and coins can do anything but make Pikkety more right - more returns to the owners of capital.
If coins are just another currency, then they are just another way to measure capital - and I can't see how that is going to make the world into my utopia
But I do want to believe.
My fear I suppose is that for all their libertarian roots, coins are traceable and vastly favour the top billion humans right now - and we are solidifying the status quo - it's not as bad a world as it has been, but I don't want to be stuck with it.
>vastly favour the top billion humans right now
I see it more as favouring the most intelligent. The real $$$ isn't in day-trading, it's in figuring out which cryptos have future merit. That means reading white-papers and distinguishing good ideas from hype.
It's a return to what investment is supposed to be: figuring out which ideas are worth capital.
I see it more as favouring the most intelligent. The real $$$ isn't in day-trading, it's in figuring out which cryptos have future merit. That means reading white-papers and distinguishing good ideas from hype.
It's a return to what investment is supposed to be: figuring out which ideas are worth capital.
VCs are, or at least hire, some of the most intelligent people, and the best in the world have a hit rate barely in double percentage digits.
Saying that the poorest billion in the world just need to be more intelligent and suddenly will be crypto-rich is ... well actually quite offensive.
The real and genuine divides between the richest and poorest in the world will not be bridged by coins, no matter their other benefits.
Saying that the poorest billion in the world just need to be more intelligent and suddenly will be crypto-rich is ... well actually quite offensive.
The real and genuine divides between the richest and poorest in the world will not be bridged by coins, no matter their other benefits.
(I totally appreciate any and all references to Coase!)
Oh oh oh - I've got a whole chapter in my (real soon now honest) book on Coase - I am trying to demonstrate some firm size curve based on ease of organising / planning inside and outside firms - things like blockchain must have an effect on that curve
Can you please comment on the criticisms levied against the filecoin ICO [1].
[1]: https://medium.com/token-economy/the-analysis-filecoin-doesn...
[1]: https://medium.com/token-economy/the-analysis-filecoin-doesn...
TL;DR summary of that article: The price is too high for several reasons (pre-ICO investors, Filecoin creators' allocations, etc).
My take: $200M worth of investors in the ICO disagree with that assessment.
My take: $200M worth of investors in the ICO disagree with that assessment.
For example, in Filecoin you earn tokens by lending your unused hard drive space. In summary, tokens coordinate efforts in the network and motivate responsible participation.
Why not just earn dollars? Theory of pricing arbitrage already takes into account coordination irrespective of the currency. What is the distinct advantage of earning Filecoin tokens over dollars?
Ok so lets just say I bought Filecoin (I didn't). How do I liquidate my position? Do I just need to find a buyer like every other security or can Filecoin buy it back?
In other words, is it currency or a bond?
These ICOs provide a sizable improvement in terms of liquidity. Unlike traditional companies, you can represent the value of your assets in terms of tokens that are liquid and tradeable from day one.
Apparently not, I looked through this filecoin sale file [1] and it has a vesting period for investors! Now don't that beat all? So it's an asset of some kind, it doesn't make clear in what class of asset it is. That looks suuuuper fishy to me but maybe I'm missing something.
When I got into Bitcoin when it first came out I thought it was a great concept, but had no future as a legitimate international currency because of politics. This crypto currency wave takes that into overdrive and I'm not exactly sure where the value is behind it.
Or maybe I'm just totally missing the value here, I would love to see it explained better than this article does.
[1]https://coinlist.co/static/media/Filecoin-Sale-Economics.0ae...
Why not just earn dollars? Theory of pricing arbitrage already takes into account coordination irrespective of the currency. What is the distinct advantage of earning Filecoin tokens over dollars?
Ok so lets just say I bought Filecoin (I didn't). How do I liquidate my position? Do I just need to find a buyer like every other security or can Filecoin buy it back?
In other words, is it currency or a bond?
These ICOs provide a sizable improvement in terms of liquidity. Unlike traditional companies, you can represent the value of your assets in terms of tokens that are liquid and tradeable from day one.
Apparently not, I looked through this filecoin sale file [1] and it has a vesting period for investors! Now don't that beat all? So it's an asset of some kind, it doesn't make clear in what class of asset it is. That looks suuuuper fishy to me but maybe I'm missing something.
When I got into Bitcoin when it first came out I thought it was a great concept, but had no future as a legitimate international currency because of politics. This crypto currency wave takes that into overdrive and I'm not exactly sure where the value is behind it.
Or maybe I'm just totally missing the value here, I would love to see it explained better than this article does.
[1]https://coinlist.co/static/media/Filecoin-Sale-Economics.0ae...
>Why not just earn dollars? Theory of pricing arbitrage already takes into account coordination irrespective of the currency. What is the distinct advantage of earning Filecoin tokens over dollars?
There is no counterparty risk of Filecoin not paying out - since the payment mechanism is embedded in the smart contract that is immutable.
>Ok so lets just say I bought Filecoin (I didn't). How do I liquidate my position? Do I just need to find a buyer like every other security or can Filecoin buy it back?
You sell it on an exchange for another currency like BTC or USD
There is no counterparty risk of Filecoin not paying out - since the payment mechanism is embedded in the smart contract that is immutable.
>Ok so lets just say I bought Filecoin (I didn't). How do I liquidate my position? Do I just need to find a buyer like every other security or can Filecoin buy it back?
You sell it on an exchange for another currency like BTC or USD
I can see the value, it is a peer to peer dropbox that pays you in a token that can be used for speculation and immediate liquidity, think about this to sell a US stock to usd takes 7 business days, to sell a crpytocurrency to usd takes up to 3 business days on coinbase, sometimes same day or you can trade the token and hold in a bitcoin or ether within minutes
it is a peer to peer dropbox that pays you in a token that can be used for speculation and immediate liquidity
Ok, but dollars can also be used for speculation and immediate liquidity. Why is a corporate run token system better than the cash coming from the US Banking system? I mean practically, not philosophically.
sell a US stock to usd takes 7 business days
T+3 is usually just 3. So I don't know what second tier brokerage you're using but I can ACH stock liquidation cash from a vanguard account in 3 days.
Ok, but dollars can also be used for speculation and immediate liquidity. Why is a corporate run token system better than the cash coming from the US Banking system? I mean practically, not philosophically.
sell a US stock to usd takes 7 business days
T+3 is usually just 3. So I don't know what second tier brokerage you're using but I can ACH stock liquidation cash from a vanguard account in 3 days.
The point of cryptocurrencies is they are robust in the face of malicious action by any individual party. If the United States sank into the Atlantic Ocean, Filecoin would still work exactly as designed everywhere else. If it were built around a USD bank account, a simple change in the terms of service for the bank could shut the service down completely.
Who is the account holder? The Filecoin inventors? What happens if someone blackmails them for the account password? What happens if they die?
To build Filecoin on USD you'd have to put all your trust in the Filecoin corporation.
The point of cryptocurrencies is you don't have to put your trust in any single entity.
Who is the account holder? The Filecoin inventors? What happens if someone blackmails them for the account password? What happens if they die?
To build Filecoin on USD you'd have to put all your trust in the Filecoin corporation.
The point of cryptocurrencies is you don't have to put your trust in any single entity.
> to sell a US stock to usd takes 7 business days
On Fidelity or Schwab it takes 3, unless I'm confused
On Fidelity or Schwab it takes 3, unless I'm confused
worst case scenario crptocurrency is 3 days, best case is 1 hour, to sell a US stock in the worst case is 7 days, best case is 3
It only takes the trade date + 3 days to settle a stock trade.
it took me 7 days on the Robinhood app not to settle but get the USD into my bank account
>Why not just earn dollars? Theory of pricing arbitrage already takes into account coordination irrespective of the currency. What is the distinct advantage of earning Filecoin tokens over dollars?
A decentralized trustless blockchain can't interact with dollars.
A decentralized trustless blockchain can't interact with dollars.
Ok, this is an interesting argument.
Basically here is how I interpret the logic:
1. Filecoin wants to take advantage of unused storage by distributing data to it
2. To incentive the storage holder, they want to pay them
3. They want to ledger payment to storage holders through blockchain
4. Since you obviously can't do blockchain with dollars, they needed(?) to create their own digital currency
What I am getting hung up on, and is the crux of your argument, is why they want to pay through a decentralized trustless blockchain. Why for the average storage holder, would blockchain based digital currency be better than just getting a few cents per MB used.
If you said, they are anarchists (the good kind) that want to democratize currency, and are doing it on the back of a useful case, ok that's a great argument and one we can make. However that can't have been the pitch for the 200M they raised.
Basically here is how I interpret the logic:
1. Filecoin wants to take advantage of unused storage by distributing data to it
2. To incentive the storage holder, they want to pay them
3. They want to ledger payment to storage holders through blockchain
4. Since you obviously can't do blockchain with dollars, they needed(?) to create their own digital currency
What I am getting hung up on, and is the crux of your argument, is why they want to pay through a decentralized trustless blockchain. Why for the average storage holder, would blockchain based digital currency be better than just getting a few cents per MB used.
If you said, they are anarchists (the good kind) that want to democratize currency, and are doing it on the back of a useful case, ok that's a great argument and one we can make. However that can't have been the pitch for the 200M they raised.
It would be relatively straight-forward (technically anyway) to make a regular business around matching up consumers willing to pay and others with hard drive space willing to host for money.
But the benefit of a trustless decentralized system is that it can run without depending on a company. Once it's going, you as a user don't have to worry about the company going out of business, making changes to try to squeeze profit out, or getting bought out by a company who doesn't care about keeping the system running. You don't have to worry that it will get censored: you don't have to worry the company may decide they don't like content with nudity being hosted through it, that the company decides content has to all be reviewed for copyright infringement, that the company gets pressured legally to not do business with your country, that the company closes its APIs and cuts off your business built around helping others use the system in specific ways, etc. A system completely fragile to the whims of a single company can never become a standard like HTTP.
(Though obviously right now the company is pretty central as the system doesn't exist yet. They're necessary to get it developed, make the tooling, do marketing to get the initial users in, and throw man-hours at making sure the system is good. Maybe they'll code in a small fee that goes toward themselves and people will accept it. Once the system is working in a fully decentralized way, people could choose to move to a fork that disables the fee if people thought the company was taking too much or was pushing for bad changes.)
But the benefit of a trustless decentralized system is that it can run without depending on a company. Once it's going, you as a user don't have to worry about the company going out of business, making changes to try to squeeze profit out, or getting bought out by a company who doesn't care about keeping the system running. You don't have to worry that it will get censored: you don't have to worry the company may decide they don't like content with nudity being hosted through it, that the company decides content has to all be reviewed for copyright infringement, that the company gets pressured legally to not do business with your country, that the company closes its APIs and cuts off your business built around helping others use the system in specific ways, etc. A system completely fragile to the whims of a single company can never become a standard like HTTP.
(Though obviously right now the company is pretty central as the system doesn't exist yet. They're necessary to get it developed, make the tooling, do marketing to get the initial users in, and throw man-hours at making sure the system is good. Maybe they'll code in a small fee that goes toward themselves and people will accept it. Once the system is working in a fully decentralized way, people could choose to move to a fork that disables the fee if people thought the company was taking too much or was pushing for bad changes.)
> you as a user don't have to worry about ... the company gets pressured legally to not do business with your country
Still the country can pressure you not to do business with the network, e.g. if you happen to live there, e.g. because they don't like your way of thinking.
Still the country can pressure you not to do business with the network, e.g. if you happen to live there, e.g. because they don't like your way of thinking.
Existing financial infrastructure isn't very conducive to micropayments...? So rather than trying to hack a solution using existing infrastucture, blockchains (filecoin) provide a tailor-made solution to this problem.
Apple (PayPal) would disagree.
Actually, check what the former COO of Paypal said here about blockchains
https://cointelegraph.com/news/paypal-ex-coo-bitcoin-crypto-...
https://cointelegraph.com/news/paypal-ex-coo-bitcoin-crypto-...
as i read it, his point is about centralization, not micro payments
blockchain - decentralized (.)payments paypal, many others - centralized (.)payments
nothing disruptively new here re: payment part, just the decntralized part
blockchain - decentralized (.)payments paypal, many others - centralized (.)payments
nothing disruptively new here re: payment part, just the decntralized part
The merchant on a sub-$1.00 transaction would disagree -- after Apple & PayPal extracted their fees (esp. if transaction used CreditCard).
they batch their transactions. not hypothetical... i ran merchant gateways for many of them
Fair enough, but in that case wouldn't it be more convenient to earn Ethereum proper?
> Ethereum took the Bitcoin concept one step further.
Smart contracts, escrow and dispute mediation ARE already possible with Bitcoin with CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY.
And there haven't been has many issues in Bitcoin core than in Ethereum.
Smart contracts, escrow and dispute mediation ARE already possible with Bitcoin with CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY.
And there haven't been has many issues in Bitcoin core than in Ethereum.
Bitcoin's smart contracts are pretty much limited to multisig transactions, time-locked transactions, and transactions that unlock when given the input text that hashes to a certain value. The only state that Bitcoin transactions can "read" on the blockchain is whether their inputs are spent already (and they read that by failing if their inputs are already spent). Compared to Ethereum, Bitcoin only supports a couple special cases. Ethereum allows arbitrary smart contracts. With Ethereum, you could almost trivially reimplement Namecoin without needing a separately-mined blockchain. You could make a decentralized prediction market (Augur and Gnosis are two projects working on this) out of smart contracts on the Ethereum chain that include systems to reward people who supply correct real-world data to the on-chain Ethereum smart contracts. Both of those use-cases are far beyond the special cases that Bitcoin supports.
Ethereum allows arbitrarily smart but also arbitrarily stupid and even malicious contracts. It's worth pointing it out because the hype boys won't.
Last time I've checked you couldn't write applications on bitcoin blockchain and mostly that's why Ethereum is so popular.
so what can Bitcoin do that Ethereum can't? I feel it must be able to do something better to justify a higher market cap than ethereum, when Ethereum adds more features faster and the marketcap reacts, past flaws would not matter too much
>when Ethereum adds more features faster
Bitcoin's conservative rate of change is one of its big features, plus the network effects of its existing userbase. Bitcoin users are less likely to lose money because of an issue in Bitcoin or because of reliance on a fragile contract encouraged by the Bitcoin software. The Bitcoin network is less likely to have its transaction history rolled back, or have significant changes made to its money supply which could strongly affect the value of present bitcoins.
Bitcoin's conservative rate of change is one of its big features, plus the network effects of its existing userbase. Bitcoin users are less likely to lose money because of an issue in Bitcoin or because of reliance on a fragile contract encouraged by the Bitcoin software. The Bitcoin network is less likely to have its transaction history rolled back, or have significant changes made to its money supply which could strongly affect the value of present bitcoins.
both prices are built from speculation so both are extremely high risk, bitcoin's conservative rate of change caused the dominance from 80% to around %50. New features, developers and institutional support will be more important in the long run, maybe not to an bitcoin maximalist but for the normal investor
also Ethereum doesn't have an hardcoded cap limit.
bitcoin digital scarcity is overrated, ethereum has the record for most transactions in a day and surpassed bitcoin in volume, better signs of potential than an arbitrary cap limit
Not for store of value / protection against currency debasement.
exactly.
by the way Ethereum scalability problems are much greater than Bitcoin.
by the way Ethereum scalability problems are much greater than Bitcoin.
Ethereum has a faster confirmation time, if it shows to become a better developer platform, a lot of money will be thrown at the scalability problems, for example a solution from Microsoft https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/announcing-microsoft-...
A faster block time isn't without its own issues. I've been running the Ethereum client for most hours of the day and I can't remember the last time I've actually had its blockchain caught up and in sync.
the market determines the prices, thats like saying a company with a finite number of shares has protection from currency debasement
Bitcoin is arguably better as a store of value because its surface attack area is smaller.
You are right. They are indeed possible. It's a question of how appropriate it is for every use case. This must be addressed on an use case basis.
You can probably write Facebook in a low-level language but it may not be the best choice...
You can probably write Facebook in a low-level language but it may not be the best choice...
Bitcoin's script is not turing-complete so there are smart contracts that are definitely not possible to do with it.
The fact the Securities and Exchange Commission is seriously looking at ICO tokens is, to me at least, additional proof that this technology is here to stay.
That said, the SEC has also said that in many cases these ICO tokens can be classified as securities, and therefor going forward, could be subject to all the same laws and regulations [0]. This turns ICO's from something a startup can offer fairly easily, to something that requires a team of expensive lawyers to do properly.
Maybe Lawyers should take note that this could be a promising opportunity for future business?
[0] https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2017-131
That said, the SEC has also said that in many cases these ICO tokens can be classified as securities, and therefor going forward, could be subject to all the same laws and regulations [0]. This turns ICO's from something a startup can offer fairly easily, to something that requires a team of expensive lawyers to do properly.
Maybe Lawyers should take note that this could be a promising opportunity for future business?
[0] https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2017-131
The ICO phenomenon is, in some sense, diametrically opposed to venture capital.
Both are fundraising mechanisms: one sells liquid tokens on the open market, the other sells illiquid shares to VCs.
Does YC plan to address competition from tokens, and if so, how?
Both are fundraising mechanisms: one sells liquid tokens on the open market, the other sells illiquid shares to VCs.
Does YC plan to address competition from tokens, and if so, how?
1 - In the short term, I don't think ICOs are a solution for every kind of company. Just for protocols and networks.
2 - Great investors provide more than just access to capital.
My point of view is similar to Fred Wilson's. More here http://avc.com/2017/06/icos-and-vcs/
2 - Great investors provide more than just access to capital.
My point of view is similar to Fred Wilson's. More here http://avc.com/2017/06/icos-and-vcs/
> Great investors provide more than just access to capital.
Like what?
Like what?
High-level problem solving the startup isn't capable of on its own.
Tokens will allow for increased liquidy. However, the greater liquidy comes @ a premium, & will increase the price of the asset.
There is an important distinction between most tokens and shares - shares mean direct ownership in a company, tokens don't.
If you had shares in Company X and it got acquired, you would be entitled to a share of the sale price.
If you have tokens in FileCoin, EOS, whatever - and they sell the underlying company or IPO - your tokens might have appreciated independently of that, but you get 0% of the underlying company sale.
So a company issuing tokens, compared to VC funding, is essentially getting free money with few strings attached.
If you had shares in Company X and it got acquired, you would be entitled to a share of the sale price.
If you have tokens in FileCoin, EOS, whatever - and they sell the underlying company or IPO - your tokens might have appreciated independently of that, but you get 0% of the underlying company sale.
So a company issuing tokens, compared to VC funding, is essentially getting free money with few strings attached.
I think YC was anticipating this. Creating StartupSchool and other programs increasingly targeted to contribute as consultants and educators rather than as investors. In addition, it is still necessary to have great and respectful names on the list of advisors of any ICO, if it is a long term plan, startups will still need people that could show the best way to create a company.
It is as revolutionary as the share company was 400 years ago.
Game over, illiquid equity.
Game over, illiquid equity.
I've been toying with the idea of using tokens as an in-game currency in my MMORPG. The problem is that the normal currency is inflationary due to monsters dropping it as loot. I do have sinks to control inflation but I'm thinking that the tokens should be tied to a fix value.
What is fixed and scarce however is land (you can claim plots and build houses, shops etc). Would having a server with land tied to a token make sense or is it a bad idea?
What is fixed and scarce however is land (you can claim plots and build houses, shops etc). Would having a server with land tied to a token make sense or is it a bad idea?
In a game ideally you want money sinks that scale such as auction transaction costs.
If A is worth 10x in an auction you pay 10x as much in fees. This works best if players buying and selling is a regular part of game play such as a complex crafting system where sub components are traded and someone can focus on making them.
Alternatively, professions can have some useful waste for another profession. ie: Making an epic sword needs 10 blue and makes 5 green, an epic boot needs 10 green and makes 5 blue. Meanwhile you get 1 red and 1 blues per ore. So, now your weapon makers and your armor makers will be trading their waste. Downside is guilds can become self sufficient.
PS: As an analogy, the USD has value because people must pay taxes on value created in USD. This instantly creates trillions of dollars worth of demand each and every year and continues to scale with the economy.
If A is worth 10x in an auction you pay 10x as much in fees. This works best if players buying and selling is a regular part of game play such as a complex crafting system where sub components are traded and someone can focus on making them.
Alternatively, professions can have some useful waste for another profession. ie: Making an epic sword needs 10 blue and makes 5 green, an epic boot needs 10 green and makes 5 blue. Meanwhile you get 1 red and 1 blues per ore. So, now your weapon makers and your armor makers will be trading their waste. Downside is guilds can become self sufficient.
PS: As an analogy, the USD has value because people must pay taxes on value created in USD. This instantly creates trillions of dollars worth of demand each and every year and continues to scale with the economy.
I think it's a cool idea, though I'd be worried about exploits finding a way to game things, and effectively drain the cryptocurrency coffers. Do you think this can be prevented? - I was thinking it would be cool to see a roguelike where each life is purchased with crypto, and perhaps the more you put into your character's life (0.1 eth vs 1.0 eth, for example) the greater the loot drops, which include crypto currencies.
Take a look at https://decentraland.org/ ;)
Thank you! The site is down but I read a blog post and it sounds a lot like what I have in mind.
"It is a decentralized network of millions of computers"
Really now?
Really now?
Figure of speech. The number of nodes right now is closer to 25K
https://www.ethernodes.org/network/1
https://www.ethernodes.org/network/1
Ah. Well then, I am a millionare (in a manner of speaking).
[deleted]
I'm happy to answer any follow-up questions here.
Why do you think tokens make any sense? They seem like the equivalent of gift certificates for specific shops, and just as inconvenient. My money can buy everything, do you think that creating lots of different currencies for specific tasks is really a benefit?
Most countries also create their own currencies and monetary policies. It's worth asking, "Why do they do that?" I'm guessing the answer to that question probably has a lot of analogies relevant to cryptocurrencies.
But some countries also unified their currencies: USD replaced state currencies and EUR replaced most European currencies.
Are there any concrete uses of a blockchain that have clear advantages than to using a standard database other than cryptocurrencies?
"Factom technology secures data for private and public organizations by publishing encrypted data or a cryptographically unique fingerprint of the data to Factom’s immutable, distributed Blockchain"
https://factom.com/
the immutability, is unique.
"Harmony is a new blockchain base document technology that works with your existing imaging or document management solution to create a secure, transparent, unalterable record for the final loan documents." https://www.factom.com/products/harmony
This still has a currency, Factoid or something. I don't know that anyone has created a consensus mechanism that doesn't use a coin
the immutability, is unique.
"Harmony is a new blockchain base document technology that works with your existing imaging or document management solution to create a secure, transparent, unalterable record for the final loan documents." https://www.factom.com/products/harmony
This still has a currency, Factoid or something. I don't know that anyone has created a consensus mechanism that doesn't use a coin
I think one of the clearer use cases is digital identity. uPort, Blockstack and Civic are some of the companies that are trying to address this need.
Keybase is also addressing that need, but with a traditional database.
gpg already solves that as well, again without blockchains.
Blockchains do no more for identity gpg. Whether they're more or less usable is debatable.
gpg already solves that as well, again without blockchains.
Blockchains do no more for identity gpg. Whether they're more or less usable is debatable.
Is Keybase resilient against the country's government in which it resides? How does it achieve this with a traditional database?
The merkle tree's root is pushed to Bitcoin's blockchain.
It is resilient to tampering as far as you trust gpg.
It achieves this because cryptographic signatures exist fine without blockchains
It achieves this because cryptographic signatures exist fine without blockchains
You don't see any other issues? Ppl being centralised, servers (ETH has ~24k nodes), nothing like that?
The gpg web of trust might be a better example, but it's a moot point either way.
The claim I'm refuting is that digital identity was impossible before the blockchain (Edit: or more difficult, either way, point stands). Digital identity is a cryptographic thing and a distributed thing. That doesn't mean it needs a blockchain.
People have been proving digital ownership and identities for longer than the blockchain, and the blockchain brings nothing new or interesting to the table in terms of identity.
The claim I'm refuting is that digital identity was impossible before the blockchain (Edit: or more difficult, either way, point stands). Digital identity is a cryptographic thing and a distributed thing. That doesn't mean it needs a blockchain.
People have been proving digital ownership and identities for longer than the blockchain, and the blockchain brings nothing new or interesting to the table in terms of identity.
I just reread the root comment:
> Are there any concrete uses of a blockchain that have clear advantages than to using a standard database other than cryptocurrencies?
Seems you're refuting something no one said, as far as I can tell.
Edit:
> Digital identity is a cryptographic thing and a distributed thing
How is it distributed? I assumed it was some company's servers -- maybe in multiple data centres around the world. But nothing like 24k nodes (& possibly more in the future).
---
Edit (reply to your edit):
I think the claim is that the identity system will be more resilient, not that it will be easier to implement. Censorship resistance.
I'd imagine it'll be harder to implement & cost more. A trade-off.
Which is along the lines of what I originally asked,
> Is Keybase resilient against the country's government in which it resides?
You said that gpg was. But didn't mention the computers. I asked about the servers & the ppl. (We didn't talk about the team).
The need wasn't specified. I'm presuming it's censorship resistance. Governments can't meddle with identities. Wipe someone off the face of the earth.
> Are there any concrete uses of a blockchain that have clear advantages than to using a standard database other than cryptocurrencies?
Seems you're refuting something no one said, as far as I can tell.
Edit:
> Digital identity is a cryptographic thing and a distributed thing
How is it distributed? I assumed it was some company's servers -- maybe in multiple data centres around the world. But nothing like 24k nodes (& possibly more in the future).
---
Edit (reply to your edit):
I think the claim is that the identity system will be more resilient, not that it will be easier to implement. Censorship resistance.
I'd imagine it'll be harder to implement & cost more. A trade-off.
Which is along the lines of what I originally asked,
> Is Keybase resilient against the country's government in which it resides?
You said that gpg was. But didn't mention the computers. I asked about the servers & the ppl. (We didn't talk about the team).
The need wasn't specified. I'm presuming it's censorship resistance. Governments can't meddle with identities. Wipe someone off the face of the earth.
Are there any plans to incubate coin networks in the way startups are currently incubated?
Nothing concrete yet...
I think Science may be an incubator[0].
[0] https://science.tokenhub.com/2017/08/03/startup-incubator-sc...
Edit: stephengillie, can't currently use reply. Think I'm being throttled b/c of my VPN.
I guess Bing is your friend here! I've not been keeping an eye out for that particular type of thing (soz).
[0] https://science.tokenhub.com/2017/08/03/startup-incubator-sc...
Edit: stephengillie, can't currently use reply. Think I'm being throttled b/c of my VPN.
I guess Bing is your friend here! I've not been keeping an eye out for that particular type of thing (soz).
This is an incubator running an ICO to raise funds.
Since blockchains appear to be the future of both transactions and applications, I was wondering if any incubators will offer advice, coaching, and support for a Blockchain-as-a-(Platform|Service) startup. Like the Lyft to Etherium's Uber-like presence.
Since blockchains appear to be the future of both transactions and applications, I was wondering if any incubators will offer advice, coaching, and support for a Blockchain-as-a-(Platform|Service) startup. Like the Lyft to Etherium's Uber-like presence.
Let's say a ton of people lose a bunch of money on highly speculative businesses that raise money using ICOs. What is the right response to this? "Tough luck"? Regulation?
How is this any different than the wild west days of stock sales prior to the regulations that came about during the great depression in the US?
How is this any different than the wild west days of stock sales prior to the regulations that came about during the great depression in the US?
ICOs, in general, are really immature. The market is being exuberant and the majority of projects in the space may fail. Many people are taking advantage of the current status.
The ecosystem will eventually mature and follow some guidelines learned in the past decades by angels and VCs i.e Doing a small seed round first, proving you are building something people want and then, if you achieve your milestones, you can get to a series A and so on.
The ironic thing is that these milestones and progressive rounds are easier to achieve and track with tokens. If the milestone is not met, the smart contract automatically returns the funds to investors.
The ecosystem will eventually mature and follow some guidelines learned in the past decades by angels and VCs i.e Doing a small seed round first, proving you are building something people want and then, if you achieve your milestones, you can get to a series A and so on.
The ironic thing is that these milestones and progressive rounds are easier to achieve and track with tokens. If the milestone is not met, the smart contract automatically returns the funds to investors.
>If the milestone is not met, the smart contract automatically returns the funds to investors.
That can't work that way. The only way the smart contract can return the funds is if they are locked somehow, but what's the point of raising money then? People raise money to spend them, so they by definition don't have that money and it can't be returned, much less "automatically".
That can't work that way. The only way the smart contract can return the funds is if they are locked somehow, but what's the point of raising money then? People raise money to spend them, so they by definition don't have that money and it can't be returned, much less "automatically".
Do you happen to know a startup working on making it easy to list securities as tokens?
What is your view of Hyperledger Fabric vs Ethereum in terms of their approach to smart contracts, networks, and trust?
Hyperledger is not designed to be a public ledger. It's comparable to private instances of Ethereum.
Will the crypto system look more biological over time as the loops bias toward certain characteristics & the information processing increases?
What do you think will happen wrt token sales & US regulation, in the near term?
What do you think will happen wrt token sales & US regulation, in the near term?
I think Coinlist and SEC approved token sales are the way to go, at least in the near term. Long term, there is the worry that excessive regulation would cripple innovation in these areas. Many companies in the space are already located in Singapore or in the Crypto Valley (Switzerland).
[deleted]
> It is a decentralized network of millions of computers that execute code at the same time.
There are currently less than 30k ethereum nodes. And it is not clear if they are all "full nodes" (ie: verify the transactions). Millions is two orders of magnitude exaggeration.
There are currently less than 30k ethereum nodes. And it is not clear if they are all "full nodes" (ie: verify the transactions). Millions is two orders of magnitude exaggeration.
There are an estimated 3,000,000 gpus performing Etherum mining today. Most of those aren't verifying any smart contracts, but they are running code for Etherum nonetheless
The number of mining equipment doesn't translate to a number of nodes. It could be a single person and as we seen in bitcoin mining turned out to be "very" (like in a few hands) centralized.
The article says that email doesn't receive much funding but many companies have invested a lot in email.
Can someone convince me that this article isn’t hype? What’s so good about ethereum that it can be compared to the internet? Is the shift from centralized to decentralized going to bring me tangible benefits?
yes .. but! we also simply need a better form of currency.
While bitcoin has its implementation issues and politics, it solves that problem in a way that wasn't solved before.
A better token for Cash is incredibly valuable in and of itself.. dare I say it revolutionary.
[ I say "largely solves", because a) small blocksize and data management issues are preventing it from scaling now and in the medium term and b) a linear blockchain might not scale beyond every user on the planet buying coffee... or it might, we haven't really begun to optimize it, imo ]
While bitcoin has its implementation issues and politics, it solves that problem in a way that wasn't solved before.
A better token for Cash is incredibly valuable in and of itself.. dare I say it revolutionary.
[ I say "largely solves", because a) small blocksize and data management issues are preventing it from scaling now and in the medium term and b) a linear blockchain might not scale beyond every user on the planet buying coffee... or it might, we haven't really begun to optimize it, imo ]
I still don't get why people consider bitcoin a suitable form of currency. It has a fixed supply, so its value is going to vary wildly - depending on demand. That's the opposite of what you want from a currency (where your main goal is price stability).
Some people see that as a feature - a deflationary rare resource, which a government can't simply print more of.
If I just want to send funds from A to B, the current value of bitcoin in fiat [ USD / GBP / JPY ] is less important than being able to exchange it for the local fiat at each end.
If I hold those funds for a while at B - your absolutely right, extreme volatility is a concern. I would argue that as more people use bitcoin the volatility will go down [ large trades will be able to move the market far less, as the market will be so much larger ]
If I just want to send funds from A to B, the current value of bitcoin in fiat [ USD / GBP / JPY ] is less important than being able to exchange it for the local fiat at each end.
If I hold those funds for a while at B - your absolutely right, extreme volatility is a concern. I would argue that as more people use bitcoin the volatility will go down [ large trades will be able to move the market far less, as the market will be so much larger ]
> If I just want to send funds from A to B, the current value of bitcoin in fiat [ USD / GBP / JPY ] is less important than being able to exchange it for the local fiat at each end.
Do you mean using bitcoin as an intermediary to send value across the globe; Ie. by exchanging your local currency to bitcoin and then sending it to the receiver (who might exchange it again)? I think for such a use case the traditional banking systems are superior.
> Some people see that as a feature - a deflationary rare resource, which a government can't simply print more of.
The problem with deflationary resources is that most people will never want to spend them - making them unusable as a medium of exchange. If you look at bitcoin forums, they are full of posts cautioning other users to hodl (hold on to their coins and not sell them). But if bitcoin is not used as a medium of exchange then what is it used for? Other blockchains (like ethereum described in the blog) imho offer much more interesting features.
Do you mean using bitcoin as an intermediary to send value across the globe; Ie. by exchanging your local currency to bitcoin and then sending it to the receiver (who might exchange it again)? I think for such a use case the traditional banking systems are superior.
> Some people see that as a feature - a deflationary rare resource, which a government can't simply print more of.
The problem with deflationary resources is that most people will never want to spend them - making them unusable as a medium of exchange. If you look at bitcoin forums, they are full of posts cautioning other users to hodl (hold on to their coins and not sell them). But if bitcoin is not used as a medium of exchange then what is it used for? Other blockchains (like ethereum described in the blog) imho offer much more interesting features.
(Thin sans-serif grey body font means you hate your reader's eyes.)
Bit late to the game but better now than never.
[deleted]
Thanks to the orange-on-tan color and the extremely thing font the footnote marks are nearly invisible
[deleted]
And how are tokens on the Ethereum network capturing value in other networks? How is Filecoin better off with its own money versus people bidding for storage in Bitcoin, Monero, or Ethereum directly? And why should the value of Filecoin tokens spike up? How is having a speculative token beneficial for accurately pricing storage?
The liquidity aspects are just companies jumping around regulations. Nothing stops startups from listing all their shares on a website and letting anyone buy/sell/trade them. Well except for the legality aspect!
I say this as someone about to do a cryptocurrency fundraiser in the adult services space. Though we aren't issuing tokens, but shares - we take payment in cash or other cryptocoins. The main benefit is easily being able to crowdfund and return dividends while avoiding legal hurdles.