3 ms·
I find this article naively optimistic (which may be unsurprising given how much Andreessen Horowitz is invested in the crypto space). I don't see how anybody
by pattusk 6y ago
I find this article naively optimistic (which may be unsurprising given how much Andreessen Horowitz is invested in the crypto space).
I don't see how anybody can delude themselves to think that blockchain is about giving control back to the users, or that it is somehow democratic.
Just look at the distribution of the supply for any token. You'll have the top 1% of wallets controlling > 80% of the supply. Dev keeping half the supply to themselves. Even airdrops to users like Uniswap did don't prevent someone from buying up most of the supply. Crypto and governance tokens give you plutocracy, not democracy.
And that's not even mentioning the issue around access to the code (see Blockstream)
- undefined1 6y agoI'm curious what you all think about Nano? No ICO, no fees, no mining. https://nano.org/ https://nano.org/
- wyager 6y agoPower law distributions are inevitable and necessary in organic scale-free networks. Any change to a scale-free system that would make it no longer obey a power law would also render it useless. Democracy (uniform distribution of some resource) only makes sense in narrow contexts. In any financial system, a uniform resource distribution is highly unstable and will stabilize to a power law distribution in the absence of massive deadweight loss inducing distortions. This is completely independent of whether or not some shitcoin uses a scammy premine or some other initial allocation strategy.