3 ms·

You're missing the point. Blockchain tokens are worse than centralized alternatives in most ways, so if the integrity of a financial security is codified throug

You're missing the point. Blockchain tokens are worse than centralized alternatives in most ways, so if the integrity of a financial security is codified through law then there is no need to pay the expensive costs to also have it codified as a blockchain token, especially because the law is the ultimate arbiter of the security's qualities and capabilities not a blockchain. A blockchain is useful when it can establish consensus rules around a system that is not controlled by a centralized authority, but if a centralized authority is already necessary to recognize the asset, the cost of decentralized consensus is unnecessary and thus wasted.

gomox 8y ago
There is not much that is centralized about "the law", and "the law" isn't really a mechanism for modeling and trading securities. To some extent, by the same logic, the Internet is inherently a centralized platform (because it's governed by law as well) and would therefore be better if replaced by AOL. I looked at your comment history and it seems you are assuming that people with a so called "pro blockchain" angle are all missing the point. I assure you not everyone in the space is an idiot, and you might be missing some points yourself.
- root_axis 8y ago
  > There is not much that is centralized about "the law" Perhaps, but the SEC is pretty centralized, when two people can't come to an agreement then securities law enforced by the legal system determines the outcome of the dispute not smart-contract rules enforced by blockchain consensus. > * I assure you not everyone in the space is an idiot, and you might be missing some points yourself.* I don't think they're idiots, I think they're financially and emotionally invested in a fascinating technology that's not very useful. I don't think anything is wrong with that, and maybe one day I'll be proven wrong, but I have worked in this space (backend engineer for an exchange) and continue to follow it closely but skeptically and with good reason if you're intellectually honest about the track record of this industry.

gomox 8y ago

There is not much that is centralized about "the law", and "the law" isn't really a mechanism for modeling and trading securities. To some extent, by the same logic, the Internet is inherently a centralized platform (because it's governed by law as well) and would therefore be better if replaced by AOL. I looked at your comment history and it seems you are assuming that people with a so called "pro blockchain" angle are all missing the point. I assure you not everyone in the space is an idiot, and you might be missing some points yourself.

root_axis 8y ago
> There is not much that is centralized about "the law" Perhaps, but the SEC is pretty centralized, when two people can't come to an agreement then securities law enforced by the legal system determines the outcome of the dispute not smart-contract rules enforced by blockchain consensus. > * I assure you not everyone in the space is an idiot, and you might be missing some points yourself.* I don't think they're idiots, I think they're financially and emotionally invested in a fascinating technology that's not very useful. I don't think anything is wrong with that, and maybe one day I'll be proven wrong, but I have worked in this space (backend engineer for an exchange) and continue to follow it closely but skeptically and with good reason if you're intellectually honest about the track record of this industry.