4 ms·

> creating a digital scarcity to act as functional proxy for human productivity, thus money, is hampered by every new shitcoin This seems contradictory to me.

by tveita 9y ago

> creating a digital scarcity to act as functional proxy for human productivity, thus money, is hampered by every new shitcoin This seems contradictory to me. Anyone can create a cryptocurrency like Bitcoin. If people exercising that ability hurts scarcity, is there really any scarcity in the first place? It sounds like you want to simulate scarcity through a gentleman's agreement, but it's not clear why the the creators of these "shitcoins" would cooperate.

RichardHeart 9y ago
All currencies are an agreed upon abstraction of estimated future value. Some are less gentlemanly than others (inflation gives more value to the people that receive the money first in the money multiplier cycle.) Inflating digital scarcity by creating endless new liquidity pools which are not fungible with the largest liquidity pool reduces consensus, liquidity, and cooperation. The trade is in the hopes that the other projects create something useful and good beyond their liquidity/currency value. So far, they've caused more harm than good. You can fork technolgy and lower margins to 0, you can't fork network effect/adoption which is why VC's care so very much for network effect in their investments. It's one of the few ways to beat a billion dollars out of a capitalist society built to reduce margins and pricing power over time. Thus, it's amazing that digital scarcity is working at all, it was tried and failed before with Chaumian cash, this one is working, but it could driven to failure be endless fragmentation, or at least slowed greatly. Speaking a common language is great. Fungibility is great. If you are building awesome tech, do it, you don't need a "new" token to side step fundraising regulations. This idea that you can avoid securities law by offering securities but calling them "coins" is pretty silly.

by tveita 9y ago

RichardHeart 9y ago

All currencies are an agreed upon abstraction of estimated future value. Some are less gentlemanly than others (inflation gives more value to the people that receive the money first in the money multiplier cycle.) Inflating digital scarcity by creating endless new liquidity pools which are not fungible with the largest liquidity pool reduces consensus, liquidity, and cooperation. The trade is in the hopes that the other projects create something useful and good beyond their liquidity/currency value. So far, they've caused more harm than good. You can fork technolgy and lower margins to 0, you can't fork network effect/adoption which is why VC's care so very much for network effect in their investments. It's one of the few ways to beat a billion dollars out of a capitalist society built to reduce margins and pricing power over time. Thus, it's amazing that digital scarcity is working at all, it was tried and failed before with Chaumian cash, this one is working, but it could driven to failure be endless fragmentation, or at least slowed greatly. Speaking a common language is great. Fungibility is great. If you are building awesome tech, do it, you don't need a "new" token to side step fundraising regulations. This idea that you can avoid securities law by offering securities but calling them "coins" is pretty silly.