3 ms·
For those who saw Bitcoin and Ethereum from day 1 or close to it it makes more sense. Bitcoin started out as a toy with no value, even perhaps a proof of conce
by throwaway22032 3y ago
For those who saw Bitcoin and Ethereum from day 1 or close to it it makes more sense.
Bitcoin started out as a toy with no value, even perhaps a proof of concept, which eventually gained value and began to be traded. Even years after its' creation people gave it away for free, there were faucets. The creator disappeared and the protocol intentionally has been designed in such a way that making changes is difficult and there's a lot of veto power by users.
Ethereum has nothing like the same origin story. There was an expectation of value from the beginning, Vitalik is still around, and there are often huge centralized changes like PoS, the DAO rollback, etc.
- ETH_start 3y ago>Ethereum has nothing like the same origin story. Ethereum was the first token sale. There was no precedent established at the time of people profiting off of token sales. The token sale agreement explicitly said not to expect a profit. It was treated by participants as more of a kickstarter to crowdfund the launch of a new kind of decentralized computing platform. Going off tangent: if a token sale explicitly states that participants should not expect to profit, then the SEC should have no jurisdiction over it. Securities laws, as is, are already severe limitations on the right of adults to freely contract. To then shoehorn tokens - that represent no equity and make no representation of giving a claim to assets - into being subject to securities laws, is just egregious suppression of basic rights.