3 ms·
The upside is that the wealthy have an incentive to keep the currency functional, otherwise their wealth is lost. The downside is that "functional" isn't exact
by kevincox 6y ago
The upside is that the wealthy have an incentive to keep the currency functional, otherwise their wealth is lost.
The downside is that "functional" isn't exactly a high bar. For example reducing block rewards to encourage deflation would disproportionately help the wealthy so they may push it even if it isn't ideal for the average person.
- ashtonkem 6y agoThe same argument has been made about monarchies; no rational king would ruin the kingdom for his son. A quick perusal of the history books makes a mockery of that theory. Turns out humans aren’t perfectly rational, and handing a huge amount of control to a tiny number of rich people is a fantastic way to discover that while any given rich person might be smart and what not, there’s a non trivial chance that their heir is an idiot and will ruin whatever they’re given. This is entertaining for personal fortunes, but not so funny when they control a currency.
- inter_netuser 6y agoIf the wealthy can rig the game in the favour and fleece the rest - they'll do it. We've seen this throughout history. That's what PoS will do to small holders. They will be nothing but tiny shareholders with no anti-dilutive protections and zero legal recourse. I'd much rather deal with a centralized entity where at least I have a some body of law I can rely on.
- inter_netuser 6y agoThe fact the wealthy can change anything in a system - is already a red flag. A system like that is definitely not decentralized.