3 ms·
The post does kind of explain that. In the centralized world with a thin protocol layer that captures little value and a fat application layer that captures a
by furyofantares 9y ago
The post does kind of explain that.
In the centralized world with a thin protocol layer that captures little value and a fat application layer that captures a lot, we see far, far more development in the application layer. When you invert where the most value is captured, you invest where the most work is done.
That said, all sorts of open source projects have shown that there are plenty of people willing to sacrifice their ability to capture value if it means they can produce even more value that is instead captured by users.
- api 9y agoThat's a nice hypothesis. We are now almost a decade into cryptocurrency. Where is the evidence that this hypothesis is true? Don't get me wrong. I want to believe. I want a decentralized trust-free ubiquitous computing future. I want an alternative to conventional VC to fund startups. I want an alternative to adware/surveillanceware to fund products and services. That's why I am saying "put up or shut up" and calling BS on this mania. It's sucking all the air out of the room and if this really is a totally vapid value-free bubble its collapse is going to be a disaster.
- iman453 9y agoIsn't end user adoption driver by the application layer though. If the application layer developers aren't incentivized and don't build things on the protocol layer, what's the point of the protocol layer?