Yea, who would have thought that you don’t want to build a venture on top of a currency. There is no other use case in blockchain than transferring wealth plus some quality of life features like time locks, multi signatures etc.
Just like how Skiff has being using other blockchain projects such as ENS domains as well as decentralized P2P software like IPFS to help build their product offering. [0]
Perhaps they found a use case for it.
Oh, and about the cool, very decentral drive on IPFS thing: the drive is still only on a single server, pinned by a single server. That’s how IPFS works. It it would work otherwise and they didn’t have to actually pay their storage bills, they wouldn’t limit the storage to a mediocre 10GB less-than-gdrive shit tier.
IPFS does not need to be single drive. The user has the option to self host. The original platform also can go insolvent and the user can pin through another service.
there are plenty of services taking a cut from people trying to use this
multisender.app - pay/airdrop multiple people, thats it.
team.finance - broadcast to your community that you locked your tokens, instead of just saying so.
they solve a problem, they collect a cut from volume of transactions, they aren’t sitting in business development meetings around San Francisco because that’s reserved for grifters
so its easy to see how OP missed that
> Crypto speculation is a vast and fast-growing market, while other use cases are small.
Simply put, cryptocurrency has turned itself into a side-pot for disillusioned and desperate investors. The 'dream' that you're being sold is the same one we pondered 10 years ago - if we add enough bureaucracy, a democratically-controlled currency is feasible!
Time has proven this wrong. Every attempt at making the '15th competing standard' ends the same way. Nobody is putting their money in cryptocurrency, and arbitrary architectural rehashes like the Ethereum Merge isn't going to drive adoption.
I can also observe that outside of crypto, speculation is a vast and fast-growing market, while other use cases are small in comparison.
Financial services is a big sector, servicing an even bigger pile of assets, led by an even bigger notional value of synthetic assets and derivatives.
and every other sector is smaller.
so the outcome in the crypto space not only fits one of the original narratives of crypto, it also makes no sense how uninterested, alongside disillusioned, people hold crypto to a separate impossible higher standard.
Pretty much the only advantage it holds over TradFin is transparency, which isn't a direct upgrade. Distributing a main ledger encourages rampant speculation, which leaves most cryptocurrencies as awful stores of value. The outcome of the crypto space is as-expected, IMO - any deregulated sector will inevitably be a race-to-the-bottom. I too like to argue in good-faith for the benefits of cryptocurrency, but comparing it to the dollar is like complaining that your orange doesn't taste like an apple. Cryptocurrency simply cannot exist as a suitable substitute for a state-backed currency without abandoning everything that makes it unique.
so can you try rewinding and responding again, putting that particular thing aside and responding to the ways people use the amount of speculation in crypto to ignore the amount of speculation in the parallel economy? It functions accurately to power a permissionless economy, rampant speculation is because humans are in both. That means it’s working as a platform.
Regarding what dream or narrative that is from: There were threads where people talking with Satoshi realized contracts and derivatives could be executed on chain and even collateralized with the cryptocurrency, and this has happened and will continue.
It amazes me that on this forum for technologists, so few are familiar with the technology... and still try to tear down crypto so passionately.
Some ZKP-Voodoo may provide weak anonymity (the votes are not immediately obvious), but the voter can still prove to a third party who he or she voted for. Obviously this makes it vulnerable to vote buying and voter intimidation.
On ZKPs... seriously, you're calling cutting edge advances in cryptography "voodoo"? Do you not realize how anti-intellectual that is?
There are plenty of proofs for truly anon voting, without auditability if that's what you so desire. More protocols include it than not because it turns out people want to be able to audit elections! The difference in this system is users have to volunteer the information, rather than rely on an election operator.
I think this comment explains most of it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31356857
Basically an emotional reaction.