2 ms·
> It's likely because you can make more money by holding more control over the supply. Because, surprise-surprise, businesses are not charities. They do need t
by dmitriid 5y ago
> It's likely because you can make more money by holding more control over the supply.
Because, surprise-surprise, businesses are not charities. They do need to earn money.
> they would rather have it be without taxes and exchangeable for real money.
Of course users want all the perks with none of the responsibilities: let the business support all these items in perpetuity while users trade them outside of the business' purview.
- mattwilsonn888 5y ago> Because, surprise-surprise, businesses are not charities. They do need to earn money. And? > Of course users want all the perks with none of the responsibilities: let the business support all these items in perpetuity while users trade them outside of the business' purview. Everyone would like all the benefits with no cost in all cases; that's not what's being suggested as its obviously impossible. The more decentralized service simply has the potential to be a better deal for users at the cost of centralized business - it does not mean costs disappear. You say yourself the business need to earn money (which is only true for sub profit margins), so you seem to understand that the money goes somewhere, why not let it go more to users willing to shoulder some cost while also giving them more freedom?