The Metaverse

[toko]

To my knowledge, launching smart contracts on Ethereum is free, right @toko? Minting tokens isn't but anyone can launch code to the Ethereum virtual machine, for free, without permission.

Nah, you need to pay to deploy. Although if you deploy on l2 or some other chain it's very cheap

 

[Clinamenic]

Unfortunately, they try to apply skeumorphic regulation principles to defi and are antagonist to the whole space in general. calling everything a security etc instead of setting up some kind of sensible framework for the shilling of tokens

Yeah I'm hoping (and potentially will use Lobby 3 to push this idea) that there can be an appendage to the Howey test, whereby an assets issuer can be discerned in terms of decentralization. That is, if the issuer is deemed sufficiently centralized, the asset will be considered a security. But if they are decentralized, then not. I believe Gensler informally said this was why ETH wasn't considered a security, unlike most other tokens in his opinion.

Lobby 3 may actually be in a position to effect such a change, seeing as there are already securities laws experts involved, and Yang's team has a history of successful lobbying apparently.

 

[Clinamenic]

Nah, you need to pay to deploy. Although if you deploy on l2 or some other chain it's very cheap

Cool, wasn't aware. But even so, it still seems considerably more accessible than breaking into fintech before Ethereum, no?

 

[toko]

Yes lol. I've got friends in fin-tech and it's a nightmare. you have to understand banks are running software that is decades old all tard fi infra is super outdated.

 

[Clinamenic]

Yeah there was a congressional hearing (last year, I believe) where IRS commissioner Rettig said they were still using COBOL and relied on a few senior technicians to operate. Maybe I already mentioned this to you. I found it interesting.

 

[toko]

thread has devolved into parallel play again

 

[toko]

Cmon @vimothy we need a good critic

 

[luka]

Cmon @vimothy we need a good critic

you caught him during his brief window of sobriety. same time again tomorrow perhaps?

 

[Clinamenic]

I think @vimothy's central arguments are largely correct though, such as that even the technically savvy and well-intentioned people like us in the space don't manage to offset the grifty vibes and illicit applications, and that many of the solutions offered by the tech are for problems which exist primarily in the abstract. Hopefully I'm not misrepresenting his views though.

 

[Clinamenic]

I just think he has an axe to grind against an incredibly technical industry, where the devil is often in the details and its very easy to over-generalize from a pro- and anti- perspective.

 

[Clinamenic]

I think @vimothy's central arguments are largely correct though, such as that even the technically savvy and well-intentioned people like us in the space don't manage to offset the grifty vibes and illicit applications, and that many of the solutions offered by the tech are for problems which exist primarily in the abstract. Hopefully I'm not misrepresenting his views though.

Anyway, at least these are the sort of criticisms I would make of the industry.

 

[Clinamenic]

I just think he has an axe to grind against an incredibly technical industry, where the devil is often in the details and its very easy to over-generalize from a pro- and anti- perspective.

Its truly difficult, I've found, to have a sustained conversation without over-generalizing certain aspects of blockchain, or else constantly stumbling over nuances and particularities distinguishing different blockchains and protocols.

 

[vimothy]

I'd say the bulk of innovation in distributed database tech is pure innovation, but I expect applications to follow, seeing as we are only progressing into an increasingly digital world.

"innovation" without application is not innovation at all, it's just waffle to entice VC

 

[vimothy]

you caught him during his brief window of sobriety. same time again tomorrow perhaps?

back now, soz duty called there for a mo

 

[Clinamenic]

Thats why I say pure, as in pure mathematics. It's innovation, but in a primarily abstract direction, where sorting out abstract technical problems takes priority over practicality.

In the case of crypto, much of this pure innovation is in the spirit of game theory, i.e. devising incentive mechanisms that preclude certain malicious behaviors, by anticipating the motives of bad actors.

But you could make a semantic argument that the term innovation requires concrete application, which I don't think is necessary. I make the same point with the disclaimer of "pure" innovation.

 

[Clinamenic]

But again, your point is valid, in that much of it is marketing. That said, one could argue that VCs shouldn't be making investment decisions solely on the grounds of pure innovation. But then again, under bubble conditions, this is ostensibly more common.

 

[vimothy]

that's a great arg to give to your investors as to why they're not making any money. technically were innovating but practically the unfortunate fact is we dont know wtf were doing

 

[Clinamenic]

Or a less polemic way of making that valid, underlying argument: much/most of the innovation is geared toward abstract problems that are encountered primarily in theory.

 

[Clinamenic]

Again, totally applicable across much of crypto, as far as I can tell. There is a tight feedback loop whereby technical whitepapers can be implemented on a much more rapid timeframe, ostensibly, than in other industries.

 

[Clinamenic]

Or a less polemic way of making that valid, underlying argument: much/most of the innovation is geared toward abstract problems that are encountered primarily in theory.

And this is really the crux of the speculative investment opportunities here. Technical assessments of what kind of pure innovation will meet applications that ground it in real (as far as most people are concerned) use value, in addition to whatever applications already exist.