3 ms·
Sure, but it's kind of like saying that FTP looked like it would be a useful protocol in 1985, and an early draft of RFC 959 should have been adequate to raise
by krrrh 9y ago
Sure, but it's kind of like saying that FTP looked like it would be a useful protocol in 1985, and an early draft of RFC 959 should have been adequate to raise gobs of money. In the end FTP added a lot of value to the internet, but it doesn't mean that the folks who wrote the reference implementations would have known what to do with the equivalent of $1B.
- nicpottier 9y agoSure, but there's a weird / interesting aspect to these ICOs here as well, in that the valuation of the coin is also what will drive adoption of the providers. Since miners will be paid in coin to validate providers and providers will also be paid in coins, then there needs to be some value associated with it. The ICO in this case kind of bootstraps the value of the coin in a way that is needed in order to bring on miners and providers. So in a way the value being raised is a bit like capital costs that the network will "spend" to bootstrap and verify the network. Don't get me wrong, this is a lot of money to raise, but saying this is totally nuts without taking into account that the model is very different (and interesting!) is not giving credit where its due. Will it work? Who knows and certainly most startups fail, but it isn't a foregone conclusion.