4 ms·
Having strong leadership isn't a substitute for having clear rules and stipulations about the different outcomes when taking people's money. Right now the ETH 2
by jstx1 5y ago
Having strong leadership isn't a substitute for having clear rules and stipulations about the different outcomes when taking people's money. Right now the ETH 2.0 staking rules are "you'll get it back when 2.0 is ready, trust us".
There's also the fact that strong leadership trades away most of the decentralisation.
I'm sure this software project which has changed scope and has been delayed many times and is led by a 20-something-year-old with a personality cult around him will be successful. So convinced that I'll send them money which they promise they'll send back at an unspecified date.
Decentralised and trustless? Please...
- proto-n 5y agoHonestly, even having the "money" that you send "them" (really it's not them, but a consensus mechanism on chain lol) signals a great amount of trust in the network and its future, including 2.0 transition, adaptation, etc. It's just a (very) long position in eth. If you hold eth and the 2.0 transition fails to happen, you can practically say goodbye to your money anyways.
- fossuser 5y agoYeah - ETH2 is a high risk long bet on the future of ETH, that risk is why the rewards for doing it are pretty high right now. I haven't personally staked anything because of that risk. My point was billions of dollars of wealth are already being staked so there are a lot of people that have already bought in. This doesn't mean it is guaranteed to succeed, but it does mean there are pretty strong incentives in place for it. I suppose the other argument would be an ETH2 failure would likely devalue ETH too, so I'm not sure how much holding ETH is a hedge against failure.