4 ms·

With the advent of hardware wallets, and so many competing wallets/interfaces out there (tailored to different user bases), I feel it makes little sense for the

With the advent of hardware wallets, and so many competing wallets/interfaces out there (tailored to different user bases), I feel it makes little sense for the Ethereum Foundation to pour their own (human) resources into this. They will support the ecosystems as necessary though, e.g. Metamask got funding way back in 2016.

eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 6y ago
> I feel it makes little sense for the Ethereum Foundation to pour their own (human) resources into this. Well, they received $ 18.3 million in crowdfunding [1], so I would dare to say it's not only "their" resources but also the resources of the community which they're spending, isn't it? Given that the central thing a user needs to use a cryptocurrency is the wallet it would seem a bit weird to collect $ 18M from their users to develop a cryptocurrency and then not develop the software which the users need to use the currency? I mean they're a non-profit organization, if they don't hand anything out for the $ 18.3 M then they have profited quite a bit by taking in money but not delivering effectively usable goods from it? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-funded_crowdfunding_projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-funded_crowdfu...
- PretzelPirate 6y ago
  It’s odd to accuse the Ethereum Foundation of not delivering and it would be hard to back that claim. Developing yet another Ethereum wallet when there are so many on the market would be a waste. It’s better for the foundation to provide a list of high quality wallets that already exist.
  - eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 6y ago
    > It’s odd to accuse the Ethereum Foundation of not delivering and it would be hard to back that claim. It's actually quite easy: I opened the websites of all the 24 wallets they list and checked the imprint of each. None says it was developed by the foundation. > Developing yet another Ethereum wallet when there are so many on the market would be a waste. > It’s better for the foundation to provide a list of high quality wallets that already exist. What would you think of me if I raised $18M to build a non-profit children's hospital and then used it to instead build a website which lists children's hospitals which were built by other people, most of which being for-profit companies, some even proclaiming themselves as registered in shady tax-haven countries, and most not even clearly showing where their company is registered?
    - brian_cloutier 6y ago
      A better analogy would be, it's a fully-functioning hospital but they don't provide their own shuttle service, you have to arrange transportation to the hospital yourself.
    - Sargos 6y ago
      The Ethereum Foundation's purpose is to fund and coordinate the building of the protocol and infrastructure surrounding it. That does include funding of wallet developers which it has done in the past but it's better for the ecosystem and decentralization if there are lots of high quality wallets instead of one default wallet everyone uses.
    - DennisP 6y ago
      They delivered ETH1 on July 30 2015, with several clients including Geth which is still popular today. That covered their promise to presale investors. They also made the Mist wallet/GUI, which was ultimately abandoned because competitors were better. Now they've delivered the first part of ETH2 today.
- pietjepuk88 6y ago
  I guess I shouldn't have put the "human" in parentheses. I did give an example of how the EF is spending their money on development of the ecosystem though, hoping that'd make it clear what I meant. I even chose a grant to a wallet as the example. I personally prefer the role of the EF as a facilitator more than monolithic employer. And they can (and do) do facilitate in more ways than just handing out grants. It's just they experience has shown that helping out this way for wallet development (or even more generically software development) works better. To add, they did start out providing the software as you say. After a certain point though, their efforts were outpaced by community effort or business opportunities arising in the Ethereum ecosystem. At this point it took a while for them to figure out what new role to take on with their ("our") funds, eventually settling on what they're doing now.
  - eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 6y ago
    Thanks for your further reply! :) > It's just they experience has shown that helping out this way for wallet development (or even more generically software development) works better. Does it really work better from the perspective of a user though? Because as a user I am now sitting in front of 24 websites which look equally "meh" in terms of trustworthiness (fancy design and huge claims), each of them trying to get me to hand out money to their software (that's what a wallet is about!), and almost all of them seemingly being for-profit companies which avoid listing their address. A single 1 well-known website (EDIT: I meant wallet, not website) of a non-profit would "work better" for me as a user in terms of trusting my choice to keep my money safe. (If I had any, not buying ETH in this situation :) > To add, they did start out providing the software as you say. After a certain point though, their efforts were outpaced by community effort or business opportunities arising in the Ethereum ecosystem. Do you notice that you're actually arguing in favor of my point? :) You say that their efforts were "outpaced", i.e. they failed. That's not a good thing to yield for $ 18 M :(
    - literallycancer 6y ago
      How does being a non-profit make their product more secure?
  - 6y ago

eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 6y ago

> I feel it makes little sense for the Ethereum Foundation to pour their own (human) resources into this. Well, they received $ 18.3 million in crowdfunding [1], so I would dare to say it's not only "their" resources but also the resources of the community which they're spending, isn't it? Given that the central thing a user needs to use a cryptocurrency is the wallet it would seem a bit weird to collect $ 18M from their users to develop a cryptocurrency and then not develop the software which the users need to use the currency? I mean they're a non-profit organization, if they don't hand anything out for the $ 18.3 M then they have profited quite a bit by taking in money but not delivering effectively usable goods from it? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-funded_crowdfunding_projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-funded_crowdfu...

PretzelPirate 6y ago
It’s odd to accuse the Ethereum Foundation of not delivering and it would be hard to back that claim. Developing yet another Ethereum wallet when there are so many on the market would be a waste. It’s better for the foundation to provide a list of high quality wallets that already exist.
- eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 6y ago
  > It’s odd to accuse the Ethereum Foundation of not delivering and it would be hard to back that claim. It's actually quite easy: I opened the websites of all the 24 wallets they list and checked the imprint of each. None says it was developed by the foundation. > Developing yet another Ethereum wallet when there are so many on the market would be a waste. > It’s better for the foundation to provide a list of high quality wallets that already exist. What would you think of me if I raised $18M to build a non-profit children's hospital and then used it to instead build a website which lists children's hospitals which were built by other people, most of which being for-profit companies, some even proclaiming themselves as registered in shady tax-haven countries, and most not even clearly showing where their company is registered?
  - brian_cloutier 6y ago
    A better analogy would be, it's a fully-functioning hospital but they don't provide their own shuttle service, you have to arrange transportation to the hospital yourself.
  - Sargos 6y ago
    The Ethereum Foundation's purpose is to fund and coordinate the building of the protocol and infrastructure surrounding it. That does include funding of wallet developers which it has done in the past but it's better for the ecosystem and decentralization if there are lots of high quality wallets instead of one default wallet everyone uses.
  - DennisP 6y ago
    They delivered ETH1 on July 30 2015, with several clients including Geth which is still popular today. That covered their promise to presale investors. They also made the Mist wallet/GUI, which was ultimately abandoned because competitors were better. Now they've delivered the first part of ETH2 today.
pietjepuk88 6y ago
I guess I shouldn't have put the "human" in parentheses. I did give an example of how the EF is spending their money on development of the ecosystem though, hoping that'd make it clear what I meant. I even chose a grant to a wallet as the example. I personally prefer the role of the EF as a facilitator more than monolithic employer. And they can (and do) do facilitate in more ways than just handing out grants. It's just they experience has shown that helping out this way for wallet development (or even more generically software development) works better. To add, they did start out providing the software as you say. After a certain point though, their efforts were outpaced by community effort or business opportunities arising in the Ethereum ecosystem. At this point it took a while for them to figure out what new role to take on with their ("our") funds, eventually settling on what they're doing now.
- eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 6y ago
  Thanks for your further reply! :) > It's just they experience has shown that helping out this way for wallet development (or even more generically software development) works better. Does it really work better from the perspective of a user though? Because as a user I am now sitting in front of 24 websites which look equally "meh" in terms of trustworthiness (fancy design and huge claims), each of them trying to get me to hand out money to their software (that's what a wallet is about!), and almost all of them seemingly being for-profit companies which avoid listing their address. A single 1 well-known website (EDIT: I meant wallet, not website) of a non-profit would "work better" for me as a user in terms of trusting my choice to keep my money safe. (If I had any, not buying ETH in this situation :) > To add, they did start out providing the software as you say. After a certain point though, their efforts were outpaced by community effort or business opportunities arising in the Ethereum ecosystem. Do you notice that you're actually arguing in favor of my point? :) You say that their efforts were "outpaced", i.e. they failed. That's not a good thing to yield for $ 18 M :(
  - literallycancer 6y ago
    How does being a non-profit make their product more secure?
- 6y ago