1. Through our decentralized government, we create a system to checkmate projects and reduce the predators to a large extent.
I think you refer to the amount of scammers and other shady services. But I struggle to understand how you plan to "checkmate" them with a "decentralized government"? Bitcoin's blockchain cannot be governed this way, so I think you refer to the Bitcoin community. And yes, there are mechanisms in place to combat scams, for example here in Bitcointalk.
The basic problem is - greed. If they can hope for a decent profit supporting a shady Bitcoin service, ICO or altcoin, many people will do it.
2. Some project developers should maybe consider creating a truly non-technical social hub whereby people can come and associate, benefit from the rewarding nature of the blockchain, and more importantly find relevant information on everything blockchain. Am currently working on one though.
I agree. In theory, we already have a "non-technical social hub" with Bitcointalk. Most users here have no technical background. But it has some usability flaws - for example, it's almost unusable on mobile without heavy tweaking - and the software is terribly outdated. Reddit, and to some extent also Steemit have become alternative hubs, but both have their own flaws, as have Facebook/WhatsApp/Telegram groups (no one has achieved to be a "hub").
3. People should basically see the blockchain in two primary forms as I highlighted in the second and third paragraph above, as a transfer of value and as a place where they can see other hosted projects and choose for themselves where to invest their earnings through adequate research and understanding of those projects, and this is only made possible if my number two solution above existed.
To be able to "choose", people must be well informed. Here we have an additional challenge. Most services that try to "rank" or "review" cryptocurrencies are either terribly biased, very badly structured (like the "Project Development" forum here at Bitcointalk) or only based on very basic indicators like the flawed "market cap".
4. It is high time projects start thinking of bringing mainstream's daily activities to the blockchain, by creating more securities on the blockchain than mere tokens. Start-up projects and companies should be educated enough to see the blockchain as a perfect spot for the sales of company shares, that's where the new blockchain revolution should focus on.
I think the problem here are legal challenges. And there is a factor which probably makes this currently unviable for most companies: Volatility of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general. In 2017 the $20K high of the Bitcoin price was almost 30 times(!) higher than the $730 low. Most altcoins are much more volatile. How could you really ensure investors can measure a price of a share if the main market is a volatile cryptocurrency?
Volatility is a hen-and-egg problem: if there were more companies that used Bitcoin and blockchains to use as a base technology for their shares, there was some "real value" attached to the blockchains and thus the volatility could gradually sink. So it would be desirable more companies took the risk, maybe only basing a small part of their shares on blockchain assets.
Well, and there are two more problems you didn't mention:
-
Usability - there are already protocols and tools that make payments much easier (Payment Protocol etc.) but they are not universally used.
-
Scalability - the transaction density problem has not been solved. Projects which have no problem with some centralization, like EOS, can achieve similar throughputs than totally centralized solutions. But Bitcoin's innovation was to decentralize money, not to re-centralize it with another paradigm. But perhaps this problem is close to be solved, as LN is evolving and I heard also that this year there was a theoretical breakthrough with
sidechains.
- the
energy waste problem. The hopes here are 1) a breakthrough in alternative consensus algorithms like PoS or PoC or 2) a cheap mining infrastructure based on renewable energies.
I think you refer to the amount of scammers and other shady services. But I struggle to understand how you plan to "checkmate" them with a "decentralized government"? Bitcoin's blockchain cannot be governed this way, so I think you refer to the Bitcoin community. And yes, there are mechanisms in place to combat scams, for example here in Bitcointalk.
Checkmating can only be coded as a community consensus. Though it will be an almost impossible mission, but how about having a decentralized blockchain policing system whereby all newly launched projects will have its discussion portal and the token may be powered by another service that generates wealth to reward users for discussing about projects on the platform. Like a research hub whereby all new projects can be talked about for general communal review of the project, and as such any person who really loves investing in ICOs should first of all branch there to talk about his intended token purchase. Having a centralized system, project reviews may be biased. Even with this suggestion of mine, it seems an impossible mission to combat scam projects. Another way though is through KYC. We can make it a communal thing that for anyone to buy from any ICO the team has to be properly verified and accountable to an authority.
I agree. In theory, we already have a "non-technical social hub" with Bitcointalk. Most users here have no technical background. But it has some usability flaws - for example, it's almost unusable on mobile without heavy tweaking - and the software is terribly outdated. Reddit, and to some extent also Steemit have become alternative hubs, but both have their own flaws, as have Facebook/WhatsApp/Telegram groups (no one has achieved to be a "hub").
Yes I agree to a large extent too. Bitcointalk is an awesome community where hundreds of thousands of crypto enthusiasts comes to reason together. However the usability and the user-interface design has to be really modified to suit the mainstream guys. Compatibility in terms of the site's responsiveness on mobile devices is also very important. Also we need people with other unique social services, not just talk about everything crypto, like facebook, about people and for the people, a kind of hub like that is what I mean.
To be able to "choose", people must be well informed. Here we have an additional challenge. Most services that try to "rank" or "review" cryptocurrencies are either terribly biased, very badly structured (like the "Project Development" forum here at Bitcointalk) or only based on very basic indicators like the flawed "market cap".
Projects has to be ranked in a decentralized model, in so many ways without human influence. I am a programmer, I can come up with more than 10 different ways a ranking system can be decentralized without being abused. I agree with you very much on this, but there can still be a solution for this one.
I think the problem here are legal challenges. And there is a factor which probably makes this currently unviable for most companies: Volatility of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general. In 2017 the $20K high of the Bitcoin price was almost 30 times(!) higher than the $730 low. Most altcoins are much more volatile. How could you really ensure investors can measure a price of a share if the main market is a volatile cryptocurrency?
Volatility is a hen-and-egg problem: if there were more companies that used Bitcoin and blockchains to use as a base technology for their shares, there was some "real value" attached to the blockchains and thus the volatility could gradually sink. So it would be desirable more companies took the risk, maybe only basing a small part of their shares on blockchain assets.
The volatility of the cryptos are a very big issue, but for companies to be tokenized on the blockchain, their token value is not based on the btc price but entirely based on the companies physical market capitalization, if their revenue goes up, the speculation will definitely result in a price increase on the token. The only reason why the tokens are registered on the blockchain is just to have a medium by which the shares can be sold at any point in time and liquidated by any user, but people will hardly sell their tokens especially when they know how much dividends the tokens fetches them. I see this as very viable, we just need to make companies understand that their company value is never based on any other asset's price.
Show Posts
