11 ms·

Here is a free tip if you want to do it anyway. DON'T CREATE ANOTHER F**ING TOKEN! Build you product on an existing reliable fast and cheap blockchain that fit

by noxer 5y ago

Here is a free tip if you want to do it anyway. DON'T CREATE ANOTHER F**ING TOKEN! Build you product on an existing reliable fast and cheap blockchain that fits your needs. Focus on the product not the price of tokens on said DLT. You dont need a token. No, really you dont. Your tokens only use case is likely to transfer value and guess which token can do this better than yours? All of them! Simply because they already have adoption/liquidity/fiat on-ramps etc. etc. You also instantly gain a community simply by using a token that has a community already. And you avoid lots of legal problems. Here are some companies that did/do this: coil.com sologenic.org gatehub.net forte.io raisedinspace.com (Very biased (they all use XRPL.org) because I simply dont know other projects. But you get the point, every DLT that actually works in a useful way should have people building on top - if not its probably garbage tech)

reedjosh 5y ago
Only downside is you can't inflate the supply for unique purposes. For example PeakD.com inflates hive to give content creators tips based on likes. Edit: I thought this was legitimate reasoning behind having your own token. I don't mean it in an inflammatory way. Please explain why you disagree.
- noxer 5y ago
  I dont think this is a downside at all. If you build on a existing blockchain you ofc need funding rather than "printing" you own funding. It may be harder but also less of a legal risk. BTW Coil.com pays content creators based on user interaction. Its however not self printed money its form actual user who want to support content creator rather than ad-companies. Ofc coil itself runs on funding money like any other startup nothing wrong with that. Also a project can ask the team behind the DLT they want to use and possibly get some of their reserves. Its in their interest that the DLT is used for something. Actual devs who build something are worth way more than the thousands of people who just buy something because Elon Musk tweets about it. And btw at the same time a dev can still bet on price gains or the token they use. I see no moral problem with that. If your product actually creates demand that moves the price up and you bet on that you own it.
  - reedjosh 5y ago
    The nice thing about "printing" vs funding for things like this is that you don't need users to sign up or transfer funds to be able to tip content providers. That said I do prefer the Coil.com model as I love crowd funded ad free media content, and I _do_ pay for it. : )
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  > Edit: I thought this was legitimate reasoning behind having your own token. I don't mean it in an inflammatory way. Please explain why you disagree. Because you don't need to create a token at all to tip creators, inflationary or otherwise. If you want to use crypto, just use an existing blockchain. Or don't use crypto and just create a centralized market that pays out at certain thresholds. Blockchain solutions aren't actually cheaper than centralized solutions, they just hide all of the costs elsewhere in transaction fees and mining payouts. The only reason to create an all-new token is to have something to sell to people under the guise of enabling value. It was a bad trick when car washes sold car wash tokens instead of letting you pay for car washes directly, and it's a bad trick when crypto companies make you buy their tokens instead of just buying the service directly.
  - reedjosh 5y ago
    > Because you don't need to create a token at all to tip creators, inflationary or otherwise. But if you don't do it through inflationary means, then consumers have to actually send tips and or have accounts. (for better or worse) Inflation is a nice way to build incentives into the currency's structure. Further, Hive has no transaction fees as that's funded via inflation as well. I do like the idea of a streaming value for value service wherein I have a wallet that I top up from time to time, but there are many models that are viable here.
anonymoushn 5y ago
Alright, so I make a two-sided market on chain, and the fees I charge accrue to... me? This seems like a similarly large legal headache to having them accrue to token holders! I am probably obligated to make sure that all users of my protocol are not Kim Jong Un, right?
- noxer 5y ago
  Take a look at Sologenic. Sologenic is a fronted for the DEX. AFAIK they have no legal obligation to limit who is using it at all. The DEX as as its name says is decentral, they can not control it. They just make software that lets users use it. They can also not directly take fees because the DEX does not have fees (you make things decentral to remove the lurking middlemen who takes the fee) IDK how Sologenics business model looks like (they are pretty new) but I assume they will make certain features in their apps cost something. Possibly can be payed directly with crypto. KYC rules usually dont apply for such stuff. Fiat on-ramps have to deal with that. Hence using an existing system that already has the infrastructure is preferable.
  - anonymoushn 5y ago
    I'm not necessarily sold on the idea of making products without business models. My lawyers so far have told me somewhat different things from "if it's all crypto then you have no KYC obligations"
    - noxer 5y ago
      I'm sure they have one but these days you offer something for free first to gain users and make you product as premium as possible so you can actually expect someone to pay for it. >"if it's all crypto then you have no KYC obligations" Yes, its not that simple but this thread is not legal advice anyway
  - ska 5y ago
    > KYC rules usually dont apply for such stuff. Fiat on-ramps have to deal with that. I think it would be a very risky bet to assume this will remain the state long term. It's not even the state now, overall. Similarly: > The DEX as as its name says is decentral, they can not control it. It is possible to construct situations where a business is not technically capable of meeting its legal obligations. The usual solution to this is that the business changes, not the obligation.
ghayes 5y ago
Another good example would be a project like Uniswap on Ethereum that existed for a long time without a token. To your point precisely, Uniswap v1 was similar to the Bancor project but explicitly removed the token/tokenomics. The simplified launch made the protocol better for both them and their users.
- noxer 5y ago
  Hmm whats the UNI token for then?
  - anonymoushn 5y ago
    It's a governance token, meaning you can use it to participate in non-binding votes about what the developers do.
    - noxer 5y ago
      Ah cool thx, BTW you can swap on the XRPL DEX too, however you can only swap "issued currencies" (IOUs) so you need to trust some counterpart (like gatehub or another exchange) to actually hold the asset behind it until you withdraw. The benefit is that is extremely fast and cheap even slow assets like BTC can be swapped just as fast as all others (in a few seconds).
    - intotheabyss 5y ago
      It's a governance token today, but it will likely become a capital asset earning revenue from the Uniswap protocol at some point.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      So like a twitter poll?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- wmf 5y ago
pjc50 5y ago
> You dont need a token. No, really you dont. Your tokens only use case is likely to transfer value Other way round: transferring value to yourself is the only use case. If you take a second to look in the mirror and see the wreckage of previous startups in this space, you'll see that - as pointed out in the OP thread - 99% of the community is there for the pump and dump. For all the practical purposes, distributed solutions end up worse than centralised ones. Except possibly for censorship resistance, which means you have the problem of attracting people who want to use it because they've been banned from other services.
- noxer 5y ago
  Sounds to me as if you dont have any "blockchain project" ideas. That's fine do something else. If whatever you every wished to crate does not profit form this tech, it probably really just does not profit form it. Nothing wrong with that. It would be a shame to slap blockchain on a cool project that doesn't need it.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    No it's not that, there's not a single blockchain based solution that achieves better results than a classical solution. Not a single one. Never has been. Not in 14 years. I'm open to one showing up! But, well, it hasn't. And that's because there's a huge fundamental cost to trustlessness, decentralization and permissionlessness that substantially no project actually benefits from.
    - noxer 5y ago
      The post above has a list of companies who build on top of such a decentral permission-less system that apparently has no benefits. Start with coil.com what they do it not possible with the financial system. They enable users to stream money to content creator in real time with fractions of cents per second. A central system would not make any sense. It must be p2p and there must be a ledger to "settle the transactions" Its not impossible to make it central it just not lucrative in any way. But if the middlemen is removed it doesn't have to be lucrative for that middlemen anymore and it turns out to be almost free because you just need to send p2p data packages to stream money. Its called interledger protocol (ILP) its not a blockchain its a protocol but like I said above you need to settle somehow and which bank or financial system lets you settle fractions of cents? No one because there is no money to be made from this so a system that does not generate money for the owner (a decentral system) works best.
Far_Pig 5y ago
I suspect in the not-so-distant future, every company will have their own token, much like they have their own domain/website today.
- noxer 5y ago
  That's exactly what we dont need. 99% would use the token to move value (pay for something) and we really dont need a bazillion different tokens for that. Also most tokens are not stable and thus not very desirably for payment.
  - earnesti 5y ago
    I don't have problem having gazillions of tokens, I just don't use them. There isnt need and in the long run companies will just write them off like many other hyped IT projects.
    - noxer 5y ago
      No one will, that's the point. Imagine you would have to pay Netflix with Netflix token and on eBay you would have to pay with eBay token. The current financial system is already annoying, we re dont have to make it worse.
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  Companies already have loyalty points and gift cards and rewards programs long before blockchain. No consumers want to have to deal with tokens and blockchain to interact with a company. Consumers will always do what's easiest and cheapest. Blockchain solutions are inherently more difficult, more expensive, and more risky (for the consumer) than just breaking out your credit card and getting paid 2% cashback to spend your money.
- croshan 5y ago
  And why would a company need to have a decentralized token?
  - 5y ago
vallas 5y ago
XRPL doesn't even have their landing page copyright updated
marton78 5y ago
Not necessarily. For example, https://gains.farm https://gains.farm has a valid and novel use case: decentralised (i.e. on chain) leverage trading. Tokens you win are minted, tokens you lose are burnt.
swiley 5y ago
Isn't XRP centralized?
- noxer 5y ago
  XRP is the token Its called XRPL and its not centralized since years.
austin_king 5y ago
> Here are some companies that did/do this: coil.com gatehub.net forte.io ^ This is a bit silly of a counterexample given that these 3 companies are all able to exist from the significant XRP investments from Ripple. > You dont need a token. No, really you dont. Your tokens only use case is likely to transfer value That's rather untrue. Token use cases have proliferated through the advent of DeFi (decentralized finance). This would be a more accurate take during the 2017 ICO bubble but the space has matured a great deal. There are valid use cases now such as governance, fee sharing, derivatives, etc. > But you get the point, every DLT that actually works in a useful way should have people building on top - if not its probably garbage tech) This communicates OP's lack of familiarity with the crypto space. A vast majority of the tokens launched today are launched on top of the Ethereum blockchain. They're not trying to create better tokens for the transfer of value, they're trying to create tokens to help manage decentralized financial services. They're not even DLTs, they're smart contract applications. It's rather easy to mock the crypto space and have an oversimplified perspective like this, most people will nod along. However, it's a bit sad to see people on a forum like this make such charged statements oversimplifying the work of others as "garbage tech."

by noxer 5y ago

reedjosh 5y ago

Only downside is you can't inflate the supply for unique purposes. For example PeakD.com inflates hive to give content creators tips based on likes. Edit: I thought this was legitimate reasoning behind having your own token. I don't mean it in an inflammatory way. Please explain why you disagree.

noxer 5y ago
I dont think this is a downside at all. If you build on a existing blockchain you ofc need funding rather than "printing" you own funding. It may be harder but also less of a legal risk. BTW Coil.com pays content creators based on user interaction. Its however not self printed money its form actual user who want to support content creator rather than ad-companies. Ofc coil itself runs on funding money like any other startup nothing wrong with that. Also a project can ask the team behind the DLT they want to use and possibly get some of their reserves. Its in their interest that the DLT is used for something. Actual devs who build something are worth way more than the thousands of people who just buy something because Elon Musk tweets about it. And btw at the same time a dev can still bet on price gains or the token they use. I see no moral problem with that. If your product actually creates demand that moves the price up and you bet on that you own it.
- reedjosh 5y ago
  The nice thing about "printing" vs funding for things like this is that you don't need users to sign up or transfer funds to be able to tip content providers. That said I do prefer the Coil.com model as I love crowd funded ad free media content, and I _do_ pay for it. : )
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> Edit: I thought this was legitimate reasoning behind having your own token. I don't mean it in an inflammatory way. Please explain why you disagree. Because you don't need to create a token at all to tip creators, inflationary or otherwise. If you want to use crypto, just use an existing blockchain. Or don't use crypto and just create a centralized market that pays out at certain thresholds. Blockchain solutions aren't actually cheaper than centralized solutions, they just hide all of the costs elsewhere in transaction fees and mining payouts. The only reason to create an all-new token is to have something to sell to people under the guise of enabling value. It was a bad trick when car washes sold car wash tokens instead of letting you pay for car washes directly, and it's a bad trick when crypto companies make you buy their tokens instead of just buying the service directly.
- reedjosh 5y ago
  > Because you don't need to create a token at all to tip creators, inflationary or otherwise. But if you don't do it through inflationary means, then consumers have to actually send tips and or have accounts. (for better or worse) Inflation is a nice way to build incentives into the currency's structure. Further, Hive has no transaction fees as that's funded via inflation as well. I do like the idea of a streaming value for value service wherein I have a wallet that I top up from time to time, but there are many models that are viable here.

anonymoushn 5y ago

Alright, so I make a two-sided market on chain, and the fees I charge accrue to... me? This seems like a similarly large legal headache to having them accrue to token holders! I am probably obligated to make sure that all users of my protocol are not Kim Jong Un, right?

noxer 5y ago
Take a look at Sologenic. Sologenic is a fronted for the DEX. AFAIK they have no legal obligation to limit who is using it at all. The DEX as as its name says is decentral, they can not control it. They just make software that lets users use it. They can also not directly take fees because the DEX does not have fees (you make things decentral to remove the lurking middlemen who takes the fee) IDK how Sologenics business model looks like (they are pretty new) but I assume they will make certain features in their apps cost something. Possibly can be payed directly with crypto. KYC rules usually dont apply for such stuff. Fiat on-ramps have to deal with that. Hence using an existing system that already has the infrastructure is preferable.
- anonymoushn 5y ago
  I'm not necessarily sold on the idea of making products without business models. My lawyers so far have told me somewhat different things from "if it's all crypto then you have no KYC obligations"
  - noxer 5y ago
    I'm sure they have one but these days you offer something for free first to gain users and make you product as premium as possible so you can actually expect someone to pay for it. >"if it's all crypto then you have no KYC obligations" Yes, its not that simple but this thread is not legal advice anyway
- ska 5y ago
  > KYC rules usually dont apply for such stuff. Fiat on-ramps have to deal with that. I think it would be a very risky bet to assume this will remain the state long term. It's not even the state now, overall. Similarly: > The DEX as as its name says is decentral, they can not control it. It is possible to construct situations where a business is not technically capable of meeting its legal obligations. The usual solution to this is that the business changes, not the obligation.

ghayes 5y ago

Another good example would be a project like Uniswap on Ethereum that existed for a long time without a token. To your point precisely, Uniswap v1 was similar to the Bancor project but explicitly removed the token/tokenomics. The simplified launch made the protocol better for both them and their users.

noxer 5y ago
Hmm whats the UNI token for then?
- anonymoushn 5y ago
  It's a governance token, meaning you can use it to participate in non-binding votes about what the developers do.
  - noxer 5y ago
    Ah cool thx, BTW you can swap on the XRPL DEX too, however you can only swap "issued currencies" (IOUs) so you need to trust some counterpart (like gatehub or another exchange) to actually hold the asset behind it until you withdraw. The benefit is that is extremely fast and cheap even slow assets like BTC can be swapped just as fast as all others (in a few seconds).
  - intotheabyss 5y ago
    It's a governance token today, but it will likely become a capital asset earning revenue from the Uniswap protocol at some point.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    So like a twitter poll?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
wmf 5y ago

pjc50 5y ago

> You dont need a token. No, really you dont. Your tokens only use case is likely to transfer value Other way round: transferring value to yourself is the only use case. If you take a second to look in the mirror and see the wreckage of previous startups in this space, you'll see that - as pointed out in the OP thread - 99% of the community is there for the pump and dump. For all the practical purposes, distributed solutions end up worse than centralised ones. Except possibly for censorship resistance, which means you have the problem of attracting people who want to use it because they've been banned from other services.

noxer 5y ago
Sounds to me as if you dont have any "blockchain project" ideas. That's fine do something else. If whatever you every wished to crate does not profit form this tech, it probably really just does not profit form it. Nothing wrong with that. It would be a shame to slap blockchain on a cool project that doesn't need it.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  No it's not that, there's not a single blockchain based solution that achieves better results than a classical solution. Not a single one. Never has been. Not in 14 years. I'm open to one showing up! But, well, it hasn't. And that's because there's a huge fundamental cost to trustlessness, decentralization and permissionlessness that substantially no project actually benefits from.
  - noxer 5y ago
    The post above has a list of companies who build on top of such a decentral permission-less system that apparently has no benefits. Start with coil.com what they do it not possible with the financial system. They enable users to stream money to content creator in real time with fractions of cents per second. A central system would not make any sense. It must be p2p and there must be a ledger to "settle the transactions" Its not impossible to make it central it just not lucrative in any way. But if the middlemen is removed it doesn't have to be lucrative for that middlemen anymore and it turns out to be almost free because you just need to send p2p data packages to stream money. Its called interledger protocol (ILP) its not a blockchain its a protocol but like I said above you need to settle somehow and which bank or financial system lets you settle fractions of cents? No one because there is no money to be made from this so a system that does not generate money for the owner (a decentral system) works best.

Far_Pig 5y ago

I suspect in the not-so-distant future, every company will have their own token, much like they have their own domain/website today.

noxer 5y ago
That's exactly what we dont need. 99% would use the token to move value (pay for something) and we really dont need a bazillion different tokens for that. Also most tokens are not stable and thus not very desirably for payment.
- earnesti 5y ago
  I don't have problem having gazillions of tokens, I just don't use them. There isnt need and in the long run companies will just write them off like many other hyped IT projects.
  - noxer 5y ago
    No one will, that's the point. Imagine you would have to pay Netflix with Netflix token and on eBay you would have to pay with eBay token. The current financial system is already annoying, we re dont have to make it worse.
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
Companies already have loyalty points and gift cards and rewards programs long before blockchain. No consumers want to have to deal with tokens and blockchain to interact with a company. Consumers will always do what's easiest and cheapest. Blockchain solutions are inherently more difficult, more expensive, and more risky (for the consumer) than just breaking out your credit card and getting paid 2% cashback to spend your money.
croshan 5y ago
And why would a company need to have a decentralized token?
- 5y ago

vallas 5y ago

XRPL doesn't even have their landing page copyright updated

marton78 5y ago

Not necessarily. For example, https://gains.farm https://gains.farm has a valid and novel use case: decentralised (i.e. on chain) leverage trading. Tokens you win are minted, tokens you lose are burnt.

swiley 5y ago

Isn't XRP centralized?

noxer 5y ago
XRP is the token Its called XRPL and its not centralized since years.

austin_king 5y ago

> Here are some companies that did/do this: coil.com gatehub.net forte.io ^ This is a bit silly of a counterexample given that these 3 companies are all able to exist from the significant XRP investments from Ripple. > You dont need a token. No, really you dont. Your tokens only use case is likely to transfer value That's rather untrue. Token use cases have proliferated through the advent of DeFi (decentralized finance). This would be a more accurate take during the 2017 ICO bubble but the space has matured a great deal. There are valid use cases now such as governance, fee sharing, derivatives, etc. > But you get the point, every DLT that actually works in a useful way should have people building on top - if not its probably garbage tech) This communicates OP's lack of familiarity with the crypto space. A vast majority of the tokens launched today are launched on top of the Ethereum blockchain. They're not trying to create better tokens for the transfer of value, they're trying to create tokens to help manage decentralized financial services. They're not even DLTs, they're smart contract applications. It's rather easy to mock the crypto space and have an oversimplified perspective like this, most people will nod along. However, it's a bit sad to see people on a forum like this make such charged statements oversimplifying the work of others as "garbage tech."