6 ms·

It's precisely what cryptocurrencies were made for; economy based on math and pre-defined rules, not the whims of corrupt politicians. Being under a country's j

It's precisely what cryptocurrencies were made for; economy based on math and pre-defined rules, not the whims of corrupt politicians. Being under a country's jurisdiction also seems to give the project legal accountability. I really wish this project success, and hope everything they do is audited properly to prevent corruption. I know this goes agains the general sentiment of HN readers, who seem to dislike cryptocurrencies.

didibus 6y ago
I think the HN sentiment is more that when a coin is managed by a single entity, it's no better than a coin managed by the government, might even be worse. And when you see someone creating a new coin without creating new innovative technology around it, it makes you feel they just want to capitalize for their own profit. So in cases like this I think the devil is in the details. It's possible Akoin is pushed as a fair decentralized, efficient currency that isn't designed to make Akon richer, but it might also turn into a hot mess used to make Akon richer and providing no real advantage to people using it.
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  > when a coin is managed by a single entity But then they do invest heavily in a company managed by a single person
- koolba 6y ago
  It’s both better and worse. Better because there’s no mandate to use it. Worse because the destitute has no representation to ever change anything. I don’t know how this will play out, but his best, IMHO, song is aptly titled “Locked Up”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locked_Up_(song) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locked_Up_(song)
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  > I think the HN sentiment is more that when a coin is managed by a single entity, it's no better than a coin managed by the government, might even be worse. To me, at least, it's that blockchains are being shoehorned into use cases that are better suited by other technology. In many cases, the blockchain solution is a worse choice technologically and economically. For example, Bitcoin is a poor substitute for electronic payment networks because the network can only handle a few dozen transactions per second. It's also a poor choice economically, because the transaction fees are more than $25 right now. I've seen posts claiming that Bitcoin would be a great choice for people in 3rd world countries, but they don't acknowledge that the fees alone would cost many multiples of whatever goods they're using BTC to buy.
  - hereme888 6y ago
    I wish people started thinking of other coins ehen thinking crypto. Bitcoin is bulky and far from the most advanced and economically feasible. XRP for example can easily handle all the transactions quickly and extremely cheaply.
- hereme888 6y ago
  Why would he need new innovative tech? Don't you think there's already plenty of that in many crypto coins to make this project happen?
africanboy 6y ago
> economy based on math and pre-defined rules, not the whims of corrupt politicians how is a cryptocurrency made by an American singer after his name, to run (quoting) "a residential and commercial hub, complete with resorts, towering condos, recording studios, a stadium, and e-commerce franchises" better than a stable economy made on decades of political and social progress, that benefit every Senegalese citizen? Wouldn't it be better to finance that progress directly instead of building the SoDoSoPa of Senegal? genuinely curious.
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  Same reasons why a startup is better than a publicly-owned company
  - africanboy 6y ago
    are you saying that startups are the equivalent of SoDoSoPa or that NASA didn't work? for example I've read that Akon financed renewable energy plants in Senegal. That's a great way to help! Building an entire new residential city founded by a single person in his own name for rich people? not so much IMO.
    - cblconfederate 6y ago
      nasa is not a company. I dont see something wrong with startup cities. They are not for everyone nor advertised as such
      - africanboy 6y ago
        > I dont see something wrong with startup cities. They are not for everyone nor advertised as such. Well, if you are building one where The economy of Senegal is driven by mining, construction, tourism, fishing and agriculture, which are the main sources of employment and 75% of the population lives in chronic poverty, maybe there is something more urgent that could be done. Unless you think that UAE and Dubai are a good example of development.
imtringued 6y ago
Usually the country is in trouble and then the currency is in trouble because of that. Cryptocurrency advocates seem to be under the mistaken impression that treating the symptom will magically fix the cause. A government that has the power to destroy everything also has the power to create everything.
- ur-whale 6y ago
  Cryptos is about separating governments and currencies, not about fixing what is wrong with governments (an impossibility if there ever was one). Just like church and state haven been separated in most civilized places, there is absolutely no reason to allow governments to manage or control the means to exchange value between economic entities. If you need proof of that last assertion, all it takes is looking at the history of currency in the last 2000 years, starting with the Romans. Governments can never resist the appeal of the infinite money faucet. Every single mistake they make, every single problem they face, can seemingly be fixed short term by opening the faucet a little wider. Until it all goes to shit, of course. The story of currency debasement leading to societal collapse is as old as money and has repeated itself countless times over the course of history. Cryptos take the sharp tool out of the hand of the retarded child. It's certainly not fixing the fact that the child is retarded, and he can and will certainly find other ways to cut himself, but at least not with that particular tool.
  - FridgeSeal 6y ago
    > Cryptos take the sharp tool out of the hand of the retarded child. And give it to what? The magical hand-of-the-market? An effect that is more or less akin to turning on a firehose and letting it thrash around wildly. The fire doesn’t get put out, but hey, at least that “retarded child” as you so eloquently put it isn’t involved anymore.
dmitriid 6y ago
> It's precisely what cryptocurrencies were made for; economy based on math and pre-defined rules, not the whims of corrupt politicians. Being under a country's jurisdiction You realise that "a country's jurisdiction" is defined by the very same "corrupt politicians" that you rally against, do you?
- hereme888 6y ago
  Yes, you're right. However, cryptocurrencies have the potential to keep those politicians away from messing with it. What I didn't clarify is that I meant all the other gocernment officials that can scrutinize whats happening: judges, lawyers, economists, etc.
  - dmitriid 6y ago
    Ah yes. Because cryptocurrencies exist in a vacuum and are entirely independent of anything else in a country. Including people's ability to buy them (and no, I'm not talking about prohibitions on buying). Besides, let me quote you to you. Emphasis mine: """ Being under a country's jurisdiction also seems to give the project legal accountability. I really wish this project success, and hope everything they do is audited properly to prevent corruption. """ Oh, look, cryptocurrencies are running into a real worl now. The project needs those "corrupt politicians, judges, lawyers, economists etc." to provide it with jurisdiction, legal accountability and auditing.
    - hereme888 6y ago
      No my friend, if a crypto project is audited by the founders, an independent team, and a government team, all in initial agreement, there should be no way for corruption at a later time to change it. That's what I'm talking about. Don't go mixing corrupt people with the non-corrupt.
      - dmitriid 6y ago
        Ah yes. Everyone is corrupt, except the cryptocurrency saints. Notice how you still need: - jurisdiction (provided by "corrupt people") - legal accountability (your words, not mine. Laws are provided by the very same "corrupt people") - auditing (the laws and processes of an audit are also written by the very same "corrupt people")

didibus 6y ago

I think the HN sentiment is more that when a coin is managed by a single entity, it's no better than a coin managed by the government, might even be worse. And when you see someone creating a new coin without creating new innovative technology around it, it makes you feel they just want to capitalize for their own profit. So in cases like this I think the devil is in the details. It's possible Akoin is pushed as a fair decentralized, efficient currency that isn't designed to make Akon richer, but it might also turn into a hot mess used to make Akon richer and providing no real advantage to people using it.

cblconfederate 6y ago
> when a coin is managed by a single entity But then they do invest heavily in a company managed by a single person
koolba 6y ago
It’s both better and worse. Better because there’s no mandate to use it. Worse because the destitute has no representation to ever change anything. I don’t know how this will play out, but his best, IMHO, song is aptly titled “Locked Up”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locked_Up_(song) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locked_Up_(song)
heavyset_go 6y ago
> I think the HN sentiment is more that when a coin is managed by a single entity, it's no better than a coin managed by the government, might even be worse. To me, at least, it's that blockchains are being shoehorned into use cases that are better suited by other technology. In many cases, the blockchain solution is a worse choice technologically and economically. For example, Bitcoin is a poor substitute for electronic payment networks because the network can only handle a few dozen transactions per second. It's also a poor choice economically, because the transaction fees are more than $25 right now. I've seen posts claiming that Bitcoin would be a great choice for people in 3rd world countries, but they don't acknowledge that the fees alone would cost many multiples of whatever goods they're using BTC to buy.
- hereme888 6y ago
  I wish people started thinking of other coins ehen thinking crypto. Bitcoin is bulky and far from the most advanced and economically feasible. XRP for example can easily handle all the transactions quickly and extremely cheaply.
hereme888 6y ago
Why would he need new innovative tech? Don't you think there's already plenty of that in many crypto coins to make this project happen?

africanboy 6y ago

> economy based on math and pre-defined rules, not the whims of corrupt politicians how is a cryptocurrency made by an American singer after his name, to run (quoting) "a residential and commercial hub, complete with resorts, towering condos, recording studios, a stadium, and e-commerce franchises" better than a stable economy made on decades of political and social progress, that benefit every Senegalese citizen? Wouldn't it be better to finance that progress directly instead of building the SoDoSoPa of Senegal? genuinely curious.

cblconfederate 6y ago
Same reasons why a startup is better than a publicly-owned company
- africanboy 6y ago
  are you saying that startups are the equivalent of SoDoSoPa or that NASA didn't work? for example I've read that Akon financed renewable energy plants in Senegal. That's a great way to help! Building an entire new residential city founded by a single person in his own name for rich people? not so much IMO.
  - cblconfederate 6y ago
    nasa is not a company. I dont see something wrong with startup cities. They are not for everyone nor advertised as such
    - africanboy 6y ago
      > I dont see something wrong with startup cities. They are not for everyone nor advertised as such. Well, if you are building one where The economy of Senegal is driven by mining, construction, tourism, fishing and agriculture, which are the main sources of employment and 75% of the population lives in chronic poverty, maybe there is something more urgent that could be done. Unless you think that UAE and Dubai are a good example of development.

imtringued 6y ago

Usually the country is in trouble and then the currency is in trouble because of that. Cryptocurrency advocates seem to be under the mistaken impression that treating the symptom will magically fix the cause. A government that has the power to destroy everything also has the power to create everything.

ur-whale 6y ago
Cryptos is about separating governments and currencies, not about fixing what is wrong with governments (an impossibility if there ever was one). Just like church and state haven been separated in most civilized places, there is absolutely no reason to allow governments to manage or control the means to exchange value between economic entities. If you need proof of that last assertion, all it takes is looking at the history of currency in the last 2000 years, starting with the Romans. Governments can never resist the appeal of the infinite money faucet. Every single mistake they make, every single problem they face, can seemingly be fixed short term by opening the faucet a little wider. Until it all goes to shit, of course. The story of currency debasement leading to societal collapse is as old as money and has repeated itself countless times over the course of history. Cryptos take the sharp tool out of the hand of the retarded child. It's certainly not fixing the fact that the child is retarded, and he can and will certainly find other ways to cut himself, but at least not with that particular tool.
- FridgeSeal 6y ago
  > Cryptos take the sharp tool out of the hand of the retarded child. And give it to what? The magical hand-of-the-market? An effect that is more or less akin to turning on a firehose and letting it thrash around wildly. The fire doesn’t get put out, but hey, at least that “retarded child” as you so eloquently put it isn’t involved anymore.

dmitriid 6y ago

> It's precisely what cryptocurrencies were made for; economy based on math and pre-defined rules, not the whims of corrupt politicians. Being under a country's jurisdiction You realise that "a country's jurisdiction" is defined by the very same "corrupt politicians" that you rally against, do you?

hereme888 6y ago
Yes, you're right. However, cryptocurrencies have the potential to keep those politicians away from messing with it. What I didn't clarify is that I meant all the other gocernment officials that can scrutinize whats happening: judges, lawyers, economists, etc.
- dmitriid 6y ago
  Ah yes. Because cryptocurrencies exist in a vacuum and are entirely independent of anything else in a country. Including people's ability to buy them (and no, I'm not talking about prohibitions on buying). Besides, let me quote you to you. Emphasis mine: """ Being under a country's jurisdiction also seems to give the project legal accountability. I really wish this project success, and hope everything they do is audited properly to prevent corruption. """ Oh, look, cryptocurrencies are running into a real worl now. The project needs those "corrupt politicians, judges, lawyers, economists etc." to provide it with jurisdiction, legal accountability and auditing.
  - hereme888 6y ago
    No my friend, if a crypto project is audited by the founders, an independent team, and a government team, all in initial agreement, there should be no way for corruption at a later time to change it. That's what I'm talking about. Don't go mixing corrupt people with the non-corrupt.
    - dmitriid 6y ago
      Ah yes. Everyone is corrupt, except the cryptocurrency saints. Notice how you still need: - jurisdiction (provided by "corrupt people") - legal accountability (your words, not mine. Laws are provided by the very same "corrupt people") - auditing (the laws and processes of an audit are also written by the very same "corrupt people")