4 ms·
It's a good point that the low market cap could lead people to try to buy a controlling supply. I explain in the other comment why I think it wouldn't be profit
by msall 8y ago
It's a good point that the low market cap could lead people to try to buy a controlling supply. I explain in the other comment why I think it wouldn't be profitable on a pump-and-dump basis. On the basis of control and trust, maybe there still needs to be some assumption that at least 51% is being held by various parties, enough so that the market trusts the network to not manipulate. I need to think about that more. I'm really glad you brought it up.
As for network effects, I find that to be a super interesting question. Because you're right, there are definitely certain levels of trust that existing networks have earned, and there's a good argument for why that creates friction and earns those networks the ability to charge a premium. I personally don't think that extra friction is long lasting. I'd expect that if there were indeed a new solution that accomplished the same thing at half the price, it would get attention and the market would gravitate to it fairly quickly (maybe not within weeks or months, but years? maybe it depends on the timeframe you want to consider, and the level of improvement it provides). But it's a really good point, and something I think about a lot.
- rytill 8y agoIf you look at it from a utility perspective and discount the network effect, at a certain point, it becomes economically incentivized sharding. "We accept any of the 2021 or prior World Bank approved ETH forks." Your multi-wallet client automatically chooses the one with the lowest transaction fees (also economically regulated).