4 ms·

I wish there would be more debate about the equity of a cryptocurrency amongst the tech community. Why should the least well off in society be part of a crypto

I wish there would be more debate about the equity of a cryptocurrency amongst the tech community. Why should the least well off in society be part of a crypto-coin whose supply has been given to early adopters and insiders? Ultimately the social compact of the economy you create will involve everyone, so we should design a coin that solves hard problems, not just narrowly defined ones that conveniently benefit a narrow minority.

pinkybanana 5y ago
> Why should the least well off in society be part of a crypto-coin whose supply has been given to early adopters and insiders? They shouldn't, what Bitcoin is enabling is the ability for whoever to use whatever kind of coin they want. Bitcoin opened the whole pandoras box where anyone can create their own coin if they want. However, for each crypto coin there is clear incentive to make the coin more useful in transactions, both for those more well off and for those less fortunate. Typical BTC holder wants to make BTC useful for everyone, because that adds value for their holdings. That usefulness might add value to those less well-off. If not, they can use something else - in the end there is more choice in the marketplace which should (in theory) benefit everyone.
rawtxapp 5y ago
Bitcoin had by far the fairest distribution and the largest holder (Satoshi) hasn't touched his coins and for all practical purposes they are gone. You just can't replicate the same conditions which lead to it's existence today. From what I've seen, the main purpose of like 90+% of altcoins is to benefit their developers and investors and they'll likely all die and disappear.
Proven 5y ago
> Why should the least well off in society be part of a crypto-coin whose supply has been given to early adopters and insiders? First, it wasn't given, it was largely earned or purchased at market price (in the cases of PoW, Proof of Burn, and ICO, for example). Second, they don't have to be, they chose to be (or not). > I wish there would be more debate about the equity of a cryptocurrency amongst the tech community. There's equity of opportunity, as in any free market. There's no need to discuss this at all, IMO. How come noone feels strongly about fiat money given to Wall Street, or deficitary budget spending that benefits any particular group(s)? They haven't even created anything, and they benefit from it every year by stealing from others. That is 100 times worse because it's outright theft and taxpayers, savers and holders of the currency have no choice but to participate. And you want to debate forced crypto-giveaways, or how to replicate this corruption to the world of cryptocurrencies. Unbelievable.
polynomial 5y ago
> Why should the least well off in society be part of a crypto-coin whose supply has been given to early adopters and insiders? Just taking a stab at it, maybe bc we haven't come up with a notion of how a viable crypto-coin could be started by the least well off, who are -by definition- at a competitive disadvantage in launching successful projects. I'm not saying it's an impossible problem, just that these systems tend to be driven by economies of scale, whether it's new/disruptive, or the product of an older, more established regime. And to be clear, I am not suggesting this with the finality of a foregone conclusion, but merely thinking aloud about the dynamic of the underlying problem.

pinkybanana 5y ago

> Why should the least well off in society be part of a crypto-coin whose supply has been given to early adopters and insiders? They shouldn't, what Bitcoin is enabling is the ability for whoever to use whatever kind of coin they want. Bitcoin opened the whole pandoras box where anyone can create their own coin if they want. However, for each crypto coin there is clear incentive to make the coin more useful in transactions, both for those more well off and for those less fortunate. Typical BTC holder wants to make BTC useful for everyone, because that adds value for their holdings. That usefulness might add value to those less well-off. If not, they can use something else - in the end there is more choice in the marketplace which should (in theory) benefit everyone.

rawtxapp 5y ago

Bitcoin had by far the fairest distribution and the largest holder (Satoshi) hasn't touched his coins and for all practical purposes they are gone. You just can't replicate the same conditions which lead to it's existence today. From what I've seen, the main purpose of like 90+% of altcoins is to benefit their developers and investors and they'll likely all die and disappear.

Proven 5y ago

> Why should the least well off in society be part of a crypto-coin whose supply has been given to early adopters and insiders? First, it wasn't given, it was largely earned or purchased at market price (in the cases of PoW, Proof of Burn, and ICO, for example). Second, they don't have to be, they chose to be (or not). > I wish there would be more debate about the equity of a cryptocurrency amongst the tech community. There's equity of opportunity, as in any free market. There's no need to discuss this at all, IMO. How come noone feels strongly about fiat money given to Wall Street, or deficitary budget spending that benefits any particular group(s)? They haven't even created anything, and they benefit from it every year by stealing from others. That is 100 times worse because it's outright theft and taxpayers, savers and holders of the currency have no choice but to participate. And you want to debate forced crypto-giveaways, or how to replicate this corruption to the world of cryptocurrencies. Unbelievable.

polynomial 5y ago

> Why should the least well off in society be part of a crypto-coin whose supply has been given to early adopters and insiders? Just taking a stab at it, maybe bc we haven't come up with a notion of how a viable crypto-coin could be started by the least well off, who are -by definition- at a competitive disadvantage in launching successful projects. I'm not saying it's an impossible problem, just that these systems tend to be driven by economies of scale, whether it's new/disruptive, or the product of an older, more established regime. And to be clear, I am not suggesting this with the finality of a foregone conclusion, but merely thinking aloud about the dynamic of the underlying problem.