3 ms·

Bitcoin is an example of a coin 'left on the market' in such a state that the original author maybe does not 'exist' anymore. If the codebase is open source, if

by nadam 9y ago

Bitcoin is an example of a coin 'left on the market' in such a state that the original author maybe does not 'exist' anymore. If the codebase is open source, if there is a decentralized autonomous organization behind the project, or even just some kind of community, then the protocol can live on. Cryptotokens will not be companies. They will be some combination of companies, religions, protocols, memes... (Maybe churches are similar?) Reading the comments here I find that what most people do not understand is that the fact that 99% of ICO-s at the moment are crap does not really matter. What matters is the innovation that the 1% of the cryptotokens bring. If you follow the spce closely, you will see that there is plenty of innovation in the space both technical both organizational (like the DAO of DASH). Some years later dumb investors will give up investing in the space and only the sophisticated projects remain with sophisticated smart contracts and oracle networks so that for smart people I think there will be even more guarantees than in today's venture investing. And the real win will be the awful amount of middlemen eliminated. (All kind of lawyers, VCs, accredited investors, etc...). Venture funding will finally become meritocrtic, and not the privilege of some already well connected rich people.

QAPereo 9y ago
This sounds like typical utopian thinking, "Most of the present is an atrocity, but the future will be bright and perfect, so no sacrifice is too great today!" Who cares if 99% of ICO's are scams, and people get ripped off if it drives innovation you believe will change the world?
- nadam 9y ago
  Not bright and perfect, just more efficient and meritocratic in most regards. (Similar to pre-internet vs. post internet: we made progress with the internet, and we will make even more progress with blockchain tech.) The reason that so many people are ripped off with scammy ICOs is that they were not allowed to invest into early stage stuff up until now, and they are extremely thirsty because of that. I don't think the solution is to filter by the old model. I don't think that filtering by any means is morally correct: people above 18 years should not be disallowed to invest into whatever they want. Our moral obligation is to warn them and teach them, but it is not ok to forcefully disallow them. Especially because some of them might be actually smarter then some of the VCs out there.
  - CryptoPunk 9y ago
    >>I don't think that filtering by any means is morally correct: people above 18 years should not be disallowed to invest into whatever they want. Our moral obligation is to warn them and teach them, but it is not ok to forcefully disallow them. Especially because some of them might be actually smarter then some of the VCs out there. Very well put. The temptation to regulate really represents the temptation to force one's will on other people (for their own good of course) using political means.
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    This seems really great, but the reality is that centuries of market failures can be traced to herds of people making foolish decisions. 2008 has been at least partially attributed to the repeal of Glass-Steagal. You can look at how successful multilevel marketing schemes are even today. Opening this stuff up more is just going to lead to a fragile economy. If those people are actually smarter than the VCs, they can probably find some other way to sustain themselves than ask for $30 million without having anything to show, which shows a lack of imagination. I don't think that filtering by any means is morally correct: people above 18 years should not be disallowed to invest into whatever they want. The main problem is that's never been true and never will be true in any economy which has the smallest amount of oversight, and for good reason.
  - subroutine 9y ago
    Specifically we are talking about ICO, not generalities of blockchain innovation. I want to make that clear. So first, I think you are making our point for us. Left completely unregulated, ICO is inticing people into making terrible investment choices. And lets be honest, people are not investing in in these companies because they care deeply about their success, and have been pitched with a complete business plan, a go-to-market strategy, show promising traction. They are doing it because they think they can make a quick buck. It’s just a matter of time before the SEC steps in an imposes the necessary regulations.

by nadam 9y ago

QAPereo 9y ago

This sounds like typical utopian thinking, "Most of the present is an atrocity, but the future will be bright and perfect, so no sacrifice is too great today!" Who cares if 99% of ICO's are scams, and people get ripped off if it drives innovation you believe will change the world?

nadam 9y ago
Not bright and perfect, just more efficient and meritocratic in most regards. (Similar to pre-internet vs. post internet: we made progress with the internet, and we will make even more progress with blockchain tech.) The reason that so many people are ripped off with scammy ICOs is that they were not allowed to invest into early stage stuff up until now, and they are extremely thirsty because of that. I don't think the solution is to filter by the old model. I don't think that filtering by any means is morally correct: people above 18 years should not be disallowed to invest into whatever they want. Our moral obligation is to warn them and teach them, but it is not ok to forcefully disallow them. Especially because some of them might be actually smarter then some of the VCs out there.
- CryptoPunk 9y ago
  >>I don't think that filtering by any means is morally correct: people above 18 years should not be disallowed to invest into whatever they want. Our moral obligation is to warn them and teach them, but it is not ok to forcefully disallow them. Especially because some of them might be actually smarter then some of the VCs out there. Very well put. The temptation to regulate really represents the temptation to force one's will on other people (for their own good of course) using political means.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  This seems really great, but the reality is that centuries of market failures can be traced to herds of people making foolish decisions. 2008 has been at least partially attributed to the repeal of Glass-Steagal. You can look at how successful multilevel marketing schemes are even today. Opening this stuff up more is just going to lead to a fragile economy. If those people are actually smarter than the VCs, they can probably find some other way to sustain themselves than ask for $30 million without having anything to show, which shows a lack of imagination. I don't think that filtering by any means is morally correct: people above 18 years should not be disallowed to invest into whatever they want. The main problem is that's never been true and never will be true in any economy which has the smallest amount of oversight, and for good reason.
- subroutine 9y ago
  Specifically we are talking about ICO, not generalities of blockchain innovation. I want to make that clear. So first, I think you are making our point for us. Left completely unregulated, ICO is inticing people into making terrible investment choices. And lets be honest, people are not investing in in these companies because they care deeply about their success, and have been pitched with a complete business plan, a go-to-market strategy, show promising traction. They are doing it because they think they can make a quick buck. It’s just a matter of time before the SEC steps in an imposes the necessary regulations.