I'm quite anti-cryptocurrency; however, I still believe in learning where possible. I respect Matthew Green's writing a lot, and here he makes one of the most cogent defenses of the technical...
I'm quite anti-cryptocurrency; however, I still believe in learning where possible. I respect Matthew Green's writing a lot, and here he makes one of the most cogent defenses of the technical sides of cryptocurrency I've seen in years.
I still don't remain persuaded - much of his argument relies on "we technically can solve this one day, we just haven't yet", and there's no guarantee it'll ever happen - but it's interesting to see how we could solve some of the problems commonly brought up by crypto critics (like myself).
Here's the thesis of this article:
I feel compelled to say something in defense of this technology area. “Public blockchain” technology enables many stupid things: today’s cryptocurrency schemes can be venal, corrupt, overpromised. But the core technology is absolutely not useless. In fact, I think there are some pretty exciting things happening in the field, even if most of them are further away from reality than their boosters would admit. Moreover, many of crypto’s technical problems are also amenable to some really exciting technical solutions, many of which are already here or on their way to deployment.
The SEC took a few companies making initial coin offerings to court (as being illegal securities offerings) around the time that investment fad pretty much ended.
The SEC took a few companies making initial coin offerings to court (as being illegal securities offerings) around the time that investment fad pretty much ended.
And the Ponzi scheme mechanics amped up. For crypto in particular, the difference between investment and Ponzi scheme was exceptionally low. Most of that investment money was born on buzzwords and...
And the Ponzi scheme mechanics amped up.
For crypto in particular, the difference between investment and Ponzi scheme was exceptionally low. Most of that investment money was born on buzzwords and hypotheticals, with no real investigation as to 'why blockchain' other than 'because they'll throw money at it"
I had 26 bitcoin mined in the CPU mining days. Had a hunch it'd be worth over $10k in a decade. Had to sell almost all of them at around $10 to pay rent one month. I consider myself better off without it, but man the 'whatif' is strong for that one.
I'm quite anti-cryptocurrency; however, I still believe in learning where possible. I respect Matthew Green's writing a lot, and here he makes one of the most cogent defenses of the technical sides of cryptocurrency I've seen in years.
I still don't remain persuaded - much of his argument relies on "we technically can solve this one day, we just haven't yet", and there's no guarantee it'll ever happen - but it's interesting to see how we could solve some of the problems commonly brought up by crypto critics (like myself).
Here's the thesis of this article:
The SEC took a few companies making initial coin offerings to court (as being illegal securities offerings) around the time that investment fad pretty much ended.
And the Ponzi scheme mechanics amped up.
For crypto in particular, the difference between investment and Ponzi scheme was exceptionally low. Most of that investment money was born on buzzwords and hypotheticals, with no real investigation as to 'why blockchain' other than 'because they'll throw money at it"
I had 26 bitcoin mined in the CPU mining days. Had a hunch it'd be worth over $10k in a decade. Had to sell almost all of them at around $10 to pay rent one month. I consider myself better off without it, but man the 'whatif' is strong for that one.