Utopia Talk / Politics / Gamified finance

Nimatzo rank	Mon Dec 13 01:16:36 2021 Previous thread: http://uto...hread=88893&time=1639264184812
Nimatzo rank	Mon Dec 13 01:17:28 2021 Ventured out on DeFi Kingdoms. So cute :) have not entered the game yet, just put some money into the JEWEL-ONE pair. Really good youtube channels in the the other thread Nhill, thanks again. That Taikin Maeda guy, a lot of good videos about defi and farming. He mentioned Astroport and Mars two LUNA project I was scouting to be launched. Good stuff all around. The other day we were talking about keeping a low profile, this is why I like the car brand Audi, the best instantiation being the Audi RS models of cars. My ideal car, the one I will buy when the kids are out of the dirty, slobbery phase is the RS4: http://en....icture_-_Give_Credit_Via_Link_(cropped).jpg An inconspicuous, unsuspecting station wagon to take the kids to school with, it just has 450 horsepower and the entire sports car kit, a true Wolf in sheep's clothing. I will chip away the RS logos for full effect >:)
Seb rank	Mon Dec 13 02:21:46 2021 Financialising gaming...
nhill rank	Mon Dec 13 02:25:58 2021 Gaming has already been financialized. You have to purchase or earn in-game currency in countless games. The difference is that the crypto games, you can sell your currency on the open market and use the power of NFTs to allow for interoperability between all crypto games. e.g. if I wanted to make a game on top of the DeFi Kingdom infrastructure, I could have a process where you can mint items based on NFTs you earned from DeFi Kingdom. Imagine owning a skin, but it can be applied to all the games you play instead of only one. Huge potential there to benefit both developers and users. Yet another example of the superior game theory crypto encourages!
nhill rank	Mon Dec 13 02:27:05 2021 > Really good youtube channels in the the other thread Nhill, thanks again. That Taikin Maeda guy, a lot of good videos about defi and farming. He mentioned Astroport and Mars two LUNA project I was scouting to be launched. Good stuff all around. You're welcome! Yup, I like him a lot. That Audi RS looks real nice as a family car. :) Might have to cop that one sometime.
Seb rank	Mon Dec 13 11:42:34 2021 nhill: "Gaming has already been financialized. You have to purchase or earn in-game currency in countless games." Micropayments isn't the same as it remains a simple transaction: pay game developer, get some feature. And even then it's disliked in creating unlevel playing fields. Financialisation is "Turn all the things into financial instruments to trade!" - hence an in game object becoming tradeable generally. This is likely going to cause big balance problems and result in rather broken gaming experiences. The reality is that it is a desperate attempts to try and find a reason to give tokens some kind of value, so they can be flipped for cash profit. If cryptocurrency is driven by people who read Cryptonomicon and didn't understand why they actually needed the Japanese gold; then this sounds like people who have read REAMDE and didn't understand that T'Rain was implied as being semi-intentionally a money laundering platform.
Seb rank	Mon Dec 13 11:44:29 2021 "Imagine owning a skin, but it can be applied to all the games you play instead of only one." Imagine that just being something you can do, not pay for. You don't actually need the NFT here for interoperability - that's determined by the games engine. The NFT is just a way to allow it to be monetised and traded.
Nimatzo rank	Mon Dec 13 15:36:24 2021 "Might have to cop that one sometime." I strongly approve! So, Solana got DDosed again and PYR was hacked and robbed for 4.5 millions. I bought some PYR @ 17,4, small position and based on initial information, it seems the damage was limited in scope and with the devs being keen to set things right for those that got hacked, with their own PYR, I think it is worth it.
Nimatzo rank	Mon Dec 13 16:00:43 2021 Lies! I meant I bought PYR at 23, mixing numbers with ONE, which I bought at 0,174.
nhill rank	Mon Dec 13 17:36:19 2021 Seb, you're so close to enlightenment. I don't think you realize you're explaining the advantages of crypto. :) "Micropayments isn't the same as it remains a simple transaction: pay game developer, get some feature." Press button, get some feature. But you're right-- it isn't the same, it's better, because you also unlike interoperability with every other game and service on the blockchain by default. :) "And even then it's disliked in creating unlevel playing fields." This isn't an argument. Many games limit their economically accessible items to cosmetic online., but crypto doesn't have anything to do with game design. It simply enables better designs. "Financialisation is "Turn all the things into financial instruments to trade!" - hence an in game object becoming tradeable generally." No, it's not. It turns them into collectibles, as they originally were in the physical world. Do you get mad and claim something is broken if someone sells a Warhammer 40K figure and a kid uses it with his GI Joes? Crypto simply gives us back the power and flexibility of the physical world, except in the digital arena. "This is likely going to cause big balance problems and result in rather broken gaming experiences." That's a game design problem, and unchanged by crypto. "The reality is that it is a desperate attempts to try and find a reason to give tokens some kind of value, so they can be flipped for cash profit." Lol, sure. Just like people collect action figures and flip them for cash profit. Guess we should shut down the whole toy aisle! Lmao. "If cryptocurrency is driven by people who read Cryptonomicon and didn't understand why they actually needed the Japanese gold; then this sounds like people who have read REAMDE and didn't understand that T'Rain was implied as being semi-intentionally a money laundering platform." REAMDE was boring. "Imagine that just being something you can do, not pay for." Why do you have to pay for it? Nobody said you have to pay for NFTs. They can be free. "You don't actually need the NFT here for interoperability - that's determined by the games engine. The NFT is just a way to allow it to be monetised and traded." Uh, that's the point. The interoperability is given by default. Doesn't need to be built into the game engine, and you don't have to worry about whether or not CryEngine will support Unreal Engine skins. The amount of power and flexibility you get by integrating a crypto payment system is, pardon the pun, game changing. Not only do you save time (since all the complicated infrastructure is already built), you create value both for the development team and the users. Let your body and mind drop away, Seb. Your ego is the last thing preventing you from seeing the Truth.
nhill rank	Mon Dec 13 17:45:02 2021 "So, Solana got DDosed again and PYR was hacked and robbed for 4.5 millions. I bought some PYR @ 17,4, small position and based on initial information, it seems the damage was limited in scope and with the devs being keen to set things right for those that got hacked, with their own PYR, I think it is worth it." I saw that in passing. Doesn't seem like this one was as bad as the last one, but sounds like Solana is going to be a target. For some reason, people get super ideological about how centralized the validator set is currently. PYR Yeah that sucks, but I'm buying the blood here slowly. They've got a huge production backing the operation, so I'm sure there'll make good on it. Need to research the hack to see if this raises any long term flags.
Seb rank	Mon Dec 13 19:22:38 2021 Nhill: "But you're right-- it isn't the same, it's better, because you also unlike interoperability with every other game and service on the blockchain by default" Except I don't think that's better at all. Micropayments are a terrible idea as it creates uneven gameplay. Interoperability depends on consistent balance across games. And any interoperability (e.g. skins) could be delivered entirely without nft - so you are creating a stupidly convoluted means to charge for cool features that could be free, and creating un-needed scarcity. "No, it's not. It turns them into collectibles" Unpack that a bit. It's turning them into an object for trade, explicitly clerical l commercial trade. "Do you get mad and claim something is broken if someone sells a Warhammer 40K figure" A wh40k figure is a physical object with some cost. I get mad when you can't e.g. use custom, homebrew or printed figure. What you are talking about is games creating the equivalent: creating standards allowing import of user designed content, but then artificially restricting that to on chain mods. What you are doing is far more along the lines of GWs no doubt burning desire to somehow insert DRM into 3D printers and dice, so you can only create miniatures if they get a cut, they can control the number of miniatures in circulation, and you can only use approved miniatures in any game or the dice go blank. Madness. "REAMDE was boring." On that we agree. Just be thankful you never read Dodge in hell, which was worse. He peaked with the baroque cycle. "Why do you have to pay for it? Nobody said you have to pay for NFTs. They can be free." Then why bother with an NFT? Just let the user import their skin in some open file format. Modders hace been doing this for decades. You don't need complicated infrastructure for this.
Seb rank	Mon Dec 13 19:23:48 2021 How the hell did we get from "information just wants to be free" to "information just wants to be scarce and traded"
nhill rank	Mon Dec 13 20:27:44 2021 > Except I don't think that's better at all. Micropayments are a terrible idea as it creates uneven gameplay. Game design problem. > Interoperability depends on consistent balance across games. On the surface, sure. I'm talking about the infrastructure that's enabled by default. > And any interoperability (e.g. skins) could be delivered entirely without nft - so you are creating a stupidly convoluted means to charge for cool features that could be free, and creating un-needed scarcity. Only if the developer of the game developed some sort of API that allowed another game to query your inventory and create derivatives. Then they have to maintain that infrastructure and deal with dozens of different API architectures. Or they could, ya know, avoid all that since cryptocurrency solves it all. Remember: OAuth is a multi-billion dollar a year business, and requires complicated setups (I should know, having to maintain and integrate OAuth systems :p). Crypto solved the OAuth problem in a more clean, inexpensive, and elegant by accident with web3. "Unpack that a bit. It's turning them into an object for trade, explicitly clerical l commercial trade." Yeah, it allows you to derive value from the things you own like any other thing in the universe before it went digital. Pretty neat. "What you are talking about is games creating the equivalent: creating standards allowing import of user designed content, but then artificially restricting that to on chain mods." Don't underestimate the value of a well-designed standard. HTTP comes to mind here. "Then why bother with an NFT? Just let the user import their skin in some open file format. Modders hace been doing this for decades." You could use an open file format and attach that data to the NFT. That's already done with many 3D rendered NFTs. Why bother? Think of it like HTTP. It's a standardized way to store, own, and transfer that data. You're always one blockchain query away from using your NFT. No need for cloud servers, uploading files, importing data. Simply connect your web3 wallet and all your content is there. Everywhere! No need to remember what file format this game or that game supports, wonder where you uploaded the kml file, nothing like that. It's not that it couldn't exist outside of crypto, it's that it doesn't have to because nothing else comes close to solving the interoperability problem. :) http://xkcd.com/927/
nhill rank	Mon Dec 13 20:35:40 2021 > How the hell did we get from "information just wants to be free" to "information just wants to be scarce and traded" The information isn't scarce and traded, it's free and public on the blockchain. The proof of ownership, however, is not free. But, bigger picture, it isn't an either or proposition. Many crypto games have items that are off-chain and some that are off chain. For example, Gods Unchained, a TCG, keeps the cards you buy on-chain, but the cards you unlock in-game are kept off-chain. But the information of *all* the cards is freely accessible both on and off chain. :) Crypto gives people the power to tokenize and store digital items of value, and not be beholden to the ecosystem in which you purchased it. You would rather people spend money on in-game content, but never be able to sell it themselves? Weird attitude coming from you and inconsistent with the views you espouse.
nhill rank	Mon Dec 13 20:36:09 2021 "crypto games have items that are off-chain and some that are off chain" meant: crypto games have items that are off-chain and some that are on-chain
Nimatzo rank	Tue Dec 14 11:20:51 2021 Seb 1. There is nothing wrong with micro payments in games as a mechanism. 2. Micro payments are, in the most popular instantiations have no bearing on game play and ”winning”. 3. IF micro payments are even part of an ”in-game economy” (the financialization of a game) they are only part of it. So, in summary: game economies exist with or without micro payments, micro payments are fine and accepted when they have no affect on game play outcome. Come on seb, you already know these things. The lady doth protest too much.
Seb rank	Tue Dec 14 12:10:07 2021 Nim: "1. There is nothing wrong with micro payments in games as a mechanism." That is an entirely subjective matter. "2. Micro payments are, in the most popular instantiations have no bearing on game play and ”winning”." True. "3. IF micro payments are even part of an ”in-game economy” (the financialization of a game) they are only part of it." An in game market isn't financialisation of a game, it is game mechanic that mimics a financial market. Commonly, financialisation is described as when finance takes over a greater and greater proportion of the economy. Here, subscription costs, the internal market of a game etc. can be described as "the economy". The issue with financialisation is the capture of value by the traders that reduces profits and wages in the real economy, and the strange perverse incentives it can create. The purported use of NFTs here are: 1. Make games interoperable 2. Make certain game items portable between games 3. Allow users to trade game items - which have value only when use in a game - between each other So when I say "financialisation of games" - what I am thinking about is the leakage of revenue streams from game publishers to a trading layer; the distortive effects it can then have on games themselves. All of the benefits that have been talked about so far could be done by simply having an open standard for the relevant assets - which you need to have come what may so that the games engines can interpret the data. The only reason for messing around with blockchain here is to make the assets both finite and transferrable. Something you only need to do if you either intend them to confer an advantage (we don't want everyone wondering around with an item that is overpowered) or because you want to sell features that don't effect the game mechanics (e.g. skins). Games that support micro-payments for either - the revenue stream accrues to the publisher. The Publisher can make such items transferrable to all other games in its stable if it really wants to or it makes sense to. Like GW's wet dream of special dice that won't work unless you roll them against models bought in their own store - there isn't a compelling economic reason for games devs to allow a secondary market in trading these things. So the question becomes: why set up games to do this? The answer is because the games are really a way of giving value to the items - the secondary market is a way to attract investors in tokens - and the real business model here is not to make a great game and sell it to players, it is to flog artificially limited game assets at high price to rubes who hope to flip it to players. But the value of the asset is going to be, in part, predicated on the user bases of the games - so you can bet there will be all sorts of sock puppet accounts etc. There will no doubt be a health market in various scams, frauds etc. in the in-game market also. Oh my god - we've turned gaming into a fucking shit show where it's really a stock market with a game attached. No - this is not some happy utopia - this is a form of insanity.
Seb rank	Tue Dec 14 12:14:17 2021 nhill: "Only if the developer of the game developed some sort of API that allowed another game to query your inventory and create derivatives." They'd only need to do that if there is no standard for the engine to interpret the game asset (e.g. a skin) - which will be needed anyway if all that is held on chain is the data for the asset. People port skins between games running locally all the time. "Then they have to maintain that infrastructure and deal with dozens of different API architectures." Or, you know, adopt a standard - which they need to do anyway with the blockchain solution. "Yeah, it allows you to derive value from the things you own like any other thing in the universe before it went digital. Pretty neat." Charging rents on items that have zero marginal cost is not "deriving value" - it is enshrining poverty.
Seb rank	Tue Dec 14 12:16:23 2021 I honestly think you have a hard time understanding the difference between creating value, and monetising it. The value of a skin is the enjoyment someone has when they use it in a game. NFTs that make that skin exclusive to 1 person *reduces* the value the skin adds to the economy, but it allows a small fraction of it to be monetised because to the one person that buys it.
Nimatzo rank	Tue Dec 14 13:02:52 2021 ”An in game market isn't financialisation of a game, it is game mechanic that mimics a financial market.” That is a subjective matter and anchored in how seriously the players take them and the place of that game in the culture. But the implication of a game, any aspect of it, is that it simulates real world stuff, among them markets. If your point is that ultimately the end result is the same, a game + economy (with real world consequences), that is fine, regardless if the chicken or the egg comes first, it is a chicken that hatches from the egg. ”far could be done by simply having an open standard for the relevant assets” You use this line of argument a lot, could be done with x and y. It wasn’t though. ”No - this is not some happy utopia - this is a form of insanity.” It seems very strange to look for utopia in a game, financialized or not. You seem far more emotionally invested in the failure of this, than I am in its’ success. That is strange, the consequence is that you are constantly in argue mode and not thinking mode.
Nimatzo rank	Tue Dec 14 13:14:11 2021 This is by the way what "enrished poverty" looks like: http://gen...45675df69e201b8d0e022e9970c-pi Courtesy of centralized institutional finance and "real" money.
Nimatzo rank	Tue Dec 14 13:45:20 2021 Seb Missed this "So when I say "financialisation of games" - what I am thinking about is the leakage of revenue streams from game publishers to a trading layer; the distortive effects it can then have on games themselves." What you are describing is a dysfunctional AKA broken game (economy in this case). This is, as Nhill pointed out, a system design issue. I am not going to argue to other side of a case (fictionalization of games), which you have defined as something inherently broken, by your own definition of the concept. The other side is financialized gaming that is _not_ distortive to, by the developers, intended design.
Nimatzo rank	Tue Dec 14 13:46:29 2021 (financialization* of games)
Seb rank	Tue Dec 14 15:48:24 2021 Nim: "That is a subjective matter" It really isn't, unless you want to fundamentally rob the word "financialisation" of it's current meaning. "You use this line of argument a lot, could be done with x and y. It wasn’t though." Indeed, normally for very obvious and specific reasons. In this case: 1. It's a pain for games developers and represents an opportunity cost on more valued features. 2. It's allows third parties to capture value they would rather have their selves if their user base is going to have to pay for things. 3. It creates balance problems for anything that affects game mechanics. The next question then is "who is promoting this idea of blockchain games, and what is their business model". "You seem far more emotionally invested in the failure of this" More "baffled as to how anyone could see that this use case makes sense for anything actually beneficial to gaming". "Courtesy of centralized institutional finance and "real" money." No, courtesy of financialisation of the economy. NFTs are about further financialising the economy. "What you are describing is a dysfunctional AKA broken game (economy in this case)." No, what I am describing is *exactly* what NFTs are supposed to do here: allow players to trade assets between games - allowing them to capture value that could be monetised by the publisher. "This is, as Nhill pointed out, a system design issue." What Nhill said was that uneven balance was a game design issue. "(financialization* of games)" Well, that's a rather interesting approach - redefine the meaning of a term introduced by someone else to mean something entirely different - refuse to talk about the thing they were originally referring to - declare them wrong.
Seb rank	Tue Dec 14 20:33:01 2021 This allows the creator of the skin to capture the value it holds to one person, at the expense of the lost value it might have if it were to trade to all that want to use it, at its marginal cost. Note again here, the thing that underpins the value of the skin is the games in which it can be played - so the obvious way for someone seeking to manipulate the secondary market is to manipulate the game. "Don't underestimate the value of a well-designed standard. HTTP comes to mind here." I absolutely don't underestimate the value of a well-designed standard. I'm saying a well designed standard for this does not need to use blockchain. "You could use an open file format and attach that data to the NFT." Or you could just load the file into the game system directly, or use some other form of distributed storage. The hosting and operating of these chains have a cost also. " it's that it doesn't have to because nothing else comes close to solving the interoperability problem. :)" Utter nonsense. All the chain brings is "here is a distributed way to store this data and cryptographically sign it" - the interoperability issue is all about the data and how the engine is to operate it. The reality is the game is probably going to pull and store a local copy of the asset, not parse the chain natively as the game runs. So you could also just keep your own local or cloud copy and upload to the games servers. "The proof of ownership, however, is not free." What does ownership mean for information with a marginal cost of an additional copy being 0? This is what I'm saying - you only care about ownership if your intent is to let only a limited number of people have a particular skin or whatever. Which you can do perfectly well within a given game. So the purpose is to them be able to trade that limited item outside of the game on a secondary market. It's not about interoperability, it's about DRM that can be enforced outside of the game and between games. Which isn't a wonderful new features, it's just "how can I find something I can trade". " and not be beholden to the ecosystem in which you purchased it." Of course you are - the value of the thing depends entirely on the game existing and it's utility within the game. It's like holding a dollar and pretending you are not exposed to the continued existence of the issuer. For someone invested in the game, the ability to hold it separately from the game doesn't really serve a purpose other than economic and potential for trade.
Nimatzo rank	Tue Dec 14 20:33:20 2021 "unless you want to fundamentally rob the word "financialisation" of it's current meaning." I want to fundamentally rob the word of the intrinsic negativity that you laced it with. Hence the "subjectivity". "normally for very obvious and specific reasons" So you say, but whether the topic is gamefi or DeFi or a new global reserve currency as the basis for a nation state that exists only through the connectivity the internet, notwithstanding all the obvious and specific reasons you can can think of for why it is detrimental or stupid, nobody tried doing any of these things until very recently. And not in a limited capacity mind you, but an explosion of such attempts. So the reasons you mention for why people never tried these things, are indistinguishable from: they couldn't because of lack/adoption/maturity of technology. "baffled as to how anyone could see that this use case makes sense for anything actually beneficial to gaming" And I think that is where it starts and ends, these are your ideas and opinions, contrary to millions upon millions of people including developers and gamers who are not baffled at all and see potential benefit for gaming. Not every gamer has to like it and they are free to not buy those games. "No, courtesy of financialisation of the economy. NFTs are about further financialising the economy." Again, you use this word as if it is inherently a bad thing or that it was the financialization. Finance grew/exploded as a % of GDP and so did its' power to influence the terms of the market, which is fine. That is if everyone can have equal access to the opportunities, if you didn't need to be an "accredited investor" (AKA already be wealthy) to take part in the most lucrative investments, if it didn't cost a minor fortune to start a bank etc. etc. the barrier for entry in this current paradigm is very high, kind of like being a content creator had a high barrier to entry, until youtube and the blogosphere exploded. Those are some of the problems that crypto potentially can solve, lowering/removing barrier for entry, unlike the utopia strawman you keep bringing up. I don't think "financialization" is the reason, but how we went about doing it according to the tools, knowledge and understanding that we had at the time, constrained by a bunch of things too numerous to mention. "No, what I am describing is *exactly* what NFTs are supposed to do here" Yes, what you described as *distortive* to the intended design is a broken game. I do not, I repeat, I do not agree that NFT are inherently distortive to intended design of games or the in game economy, it depends on the game design, like everything else. It seem like you have trouble imagining a business model with a trading layer and that this would be in harmony with the rest of the game and the revenue stream. The easiest answers to your "problem" however are royalties and market fees, you heard of these concepts I presume. And with block chain keeping track of royalties is trivial. Every time you sell an NFT, the game developers get a cut. Of course the "leaking" may be by design and the business model may operate without royalties and fee, giving the players the same freedom and zero fees to attract more users generating revenues from elsewhere AKA the intended revenue stream. It is mind boggling really the things you have construed as, not only problems, but inherently problematic by design. "Well, that's a rather interesting approach" About as interesting of an approach as you reading the thread title and introducing the term in the first place, but it is also not a relevant response, as I have already responded by rebuking *your* definition of financilization as something inherently negative for the participants.
Seb rank	Tue Dec 14 20:33:27 2021 ^ was a to nhill.
Seb rank	Tue Dec 14 21:23:45 2021 Nim: Can I humbly suggest you Google the "definition of financialization" select one you are comfortable with, post it here, and we can continue then. Kind of pointless while you are refusing to use the word in common use to describe the phenomena I'm asserting is that inevitable consequence of blockchain tradable in-game assets.
Seb rank	Wed Dec 15 01:48:11 2021 Nim: "So you say, but whether the topic is gamefi or DeFi or a new global reserve currency as the basis for a nation state that exists only through the connectivity the internet, notwithstanding all the obvious and specific reasons you can can think of for why it is detrimental or stupid, nobody tried doing any of these things until very recently" Well yes - nobody has tried making a submarine out of vulcanised cheese before. They've made submarines, but not out of the exciting new lactose based material that promises to decentralise the defence industrial complex by making the supply chain accessible to the small scale dairy producer for the first time. Certainly, you say that a submarine made out of vulcanised cheese would be obviously deficient to one made of steel, but how can you say that? It is only very recently that the cheese vulcanisation process has been created - what is important is that this submarine will be made using vulcanised cheese, with great benefit to the dairy industry. To be serious for a moment, actually people have tried to make internet based currencies before, decentralised finance is near enough indistinguishable from early approaches to crowd funding and peer to peer lending, and moving skins and assets between games is at least as old as the first mods for games using common engines. Claiming these are new things, because for the first time they are using this technology, and giving old things a new set of terminology, doesn't really make them that novel; and the claims to decentralisation often fuzzy about exactly what is being decentralised - normally it doesn't represent a new business model at all just a different, more inefficient way, of doing the same old things.
Average Ameriacn rank	Wed Dec 15 14:16:14 2021 SELL SELL SELL!!!!!!! http://pbs...XIAgaofr?format=jpg&name=large
Nimatzo rank	Wed Dec 15 16:23:22 2021 "Google the "definition of financialization"" None of them imply distortion or inherently negative consequences. I already explained my intention of not dealing with *your* definition. TL:DR Financialization is fine. "nobody has tried making a submarine out of vulcanised cheese before." Do you see an opportunity here to make better submarines or just synergy with the dairy industry? Block chain is the former, but either way I have no opinions about your cheese submarine, call me when they have built this submarine and tested it and we can talk about it. As it stands however there are thousands of block chain projects up and running with users and abusers, with devs trying to solving problems, create better services across a dozen use cases and transfer more value to their users. If your hypothetical cheese submarine is trying to do this and you believe it can be done, why do you care what material it is made from? The idea to build highly durable things out of coal was about as retarded as from cheese, until someone figured out the process of making carbon fiber. I understand the intention of your silly comment, but it only validates that you are not seeing the forest for the trees. "actually people have tried to make internet based currencies before" No. I mentioned a number of things, currency isn't even the most interesting thing, it is complementary to "new economic system" or as I wrote a "nation state online". So I will not respond here to specifically currency, but what I actually wrote/meant and that I assume you can parse after me repeating/clarifying. The communists attempted a new economic model, they failed and that was pretty much the only attempt in the last 100 years. Does not mean that we should not attempt to create better economic models. An economic model without actual users and abusers, real risks and rewards, a dynamic ecosystem and so on, is just theory. Failures are par for the course in many domains, it is as I said, the lowering of the barrier for failing (experimenting) with these things that is the real gift. I support experimenting with finance, economics and governance, it is the only way to make progress, but at the same time these are precarious things, failures are often disasters, since to attempt what I am talking about requires a nation with millions or at least 100 000's of people. I am thus thankful that block chain has facilitated thousands of experiments with the above mentioned things, yet with little to nor risk for the rest of the fully functioning systems we do have. And there lies the answer to why these things have never been attempted before, because it took a mature, fast and secure internet and block chain technology to lower the barrier from "take over a nation state", to just simply connecting a bunch of people from all over the world and their money on a platform. It is a very low hanging fruit to see the value in this. "Claiming these are new things, because for the first time they are using this technology, and giving old things a new set of terminology" You simply do not what you are talking about. What is true is that there are a lot of block chain project who are simply (financial) business as usual, just with a different technology, but they still confer more value to the users than ordinary banks, but all in all they have not innovated Finance and Economics. To that I can say that many of them also inherit some stuff from the current way of business that you rather not have. There are however many many projects who are, as I repeatedly say, experimenting with. Most of them will fail, a few may rise to the top. I think there is a good chance of this panning out as I just laid out. Either I lack your genius level understanding of the world or you lack this genius level understanding, that allows one to see how experiments with a complex system like Economics will pan out over 10-20 years. This is not an intellectual exercise for me, I have actually shorted you and your understanding with my long position in crypto. The last word is yours, because this is boring.
Seb rank	Wed Dec 15 19:21:24 2021 I'll leave the last word to Tim O'Reilly. http://www...rly-to-get-excited-about-web3/
nhill rank	Thu Dec 16 18:54:56 2021 Seb, that's the one of the most positive posts I've ever seen from Tim O'Reilly. His schtick is to doomsay tech (his articles on AI) and finance (his articles on wall street) to get attention, but then tie it back to his core passion-- making the world a prosperous place for everyone. This whole article talks about the weaknesses of crypto, most of which have been brought up over the past year here (the poor UX, the correlation to the tech bubble, etc.), but then finishes off with this: "So much is yet to be created. Let’s focus on the parts of the Web3 vision that aren’t about easy riches, on solving hard problems in trust, identity, and decentralized finance. And above all, let’s focus on the interface between crypto and the real world that people live in, where, as Matthew Yglesias put it when talking about housing inequality, “a society becomes wealthy over time by accumulating a stock of long-lasting capital goods.” If, as Sal Delle Palme argues, Web3 heralds the birth of a new economic system, let’s make it one that increases true wealth—not just paper wealth for those lucky enough to get in early but actual life-changing goods and services that make life better for everyone." This is his typical strategy. What I'm most surprised about is a lack of punch in his criticisms. Maybe he's getting old. But, anyways, the majority of his critique is stuck in antiquated though models. He's looking for the one of the hallmarks of groundbreaking tech: physical infrastructure being built, "An important conclusion of Perez’s analysis is that a true technology revolution must be accompanied by the development of substantial new infrastructure." What he's missing is that substantial new infrastructure is being built-- the first of its kind. The infrastructure of the incoming metaverse. This is the start of the industrial revolution for the digital world. It's no coincidence that factories, bridges, and farms are the DeFi nomenclature. Missing out on crypto would be like missing out on the industrial revolution-- in 50 years it'll be disastrous for some, and embarrassing for most. Don't worry, Seb. Nim and I will be here to remind you when this happens. ;)
nhill rank	Thu Dec 16 19:38:08 2021 Nim $JEWEL is about to break out of its bull flag. Hold onto your butts!
murder rank	Thu Dec 16 19:42:04 2021 With both hands? :o)
nhill rank	Thu Dec 16 19:43:49 2021 Just need the retest at the top of the structure and it'll be parabola time. I'm play it like this: http://www.tradingview.com/x/oSkEu852 Bridged over some funds and put into stable farms. Going to flip to $xJEWEL on the retest, then talk half profits into $MATIC and plant seeds for the $JEWEL-MATIC LP farm.
nhill rank	Thu Dec 16 19:45:14 2021 > With both hands? :o) This is sexual harassment. Cancel murder!
nHiLL rank	Thu Dec 16 19:49:05 2021 Become 1337 w/ me MuRdEr.
Seb rank	Thu Dec 16 20:10:47 2021 nhill: That is not how I read it at all - in fact I would go as far as to say the opposite - he's allowing for the possibility that the bubble is around building new (digital) infrastructure. "So is what we’re calling Web3 the foundational investment period of a new subcycle, or the bubble period of the preceding one? It seems to me that one way to tell is the nature of the investment. Is abundant financial capital building out useful infrastructure in the way that we saw for the previous cycles? It’s not clear to me that NFTs fit the bill. here’s no question, though, that the disruption of finance—in the same way that the internet has already disrupted media and commerce—would represent an essential next stage in the current cycle of technological revolution. In particular, if it were possible for capital to be allocated effectively without the trust and authority of large centralized capital providers (“Wall Street” so to speak), that would be a foundational advance. In that regard, what I’d be looking for is evidence of capital allocation via cryptocurrencies toward productive investment in the operating economy rather than capital allocation toward imaginary assets. Let me know of any good instances that you hear about." "In assessing the progress toward Web3 as advertised, I’d also compare the adoption of cryptocurrency for other functions of financial systems—purchasing, remittances, and so on—not only with traditional banking networks but also with other emerging technologies. For example, are Ripple and Stellar more successful platforms for cross-border remittances than bank transfers, credit cards, or PayPal, in the same way that Google Maps was better than Rand McNally or first-generation GPS pioneers like Garmin? There’s some evidence that crypto is becoming a meaningful player in this market, though regulatory hurdles are slowing adoption. Never mind remittances, though—what about payments more generally? How does growth compare with that of a non-crypto payment startup like Melio, which is focused on building against small business use cases? Given the interest in crypto from companies like Square (now Block) and Stripe, they are well positioned to tell us of progress for crypto relative to more traditional payment mechanisms." See, again, he's saying "ok, so is this blockchain infrastructure any use". By the way, you are also missing the point that blockchain is built on physical infrastructure - mining rigs etc. which he identified earlier. What he is attacking is not the absence of infrastructure, but the absence of comparative advantage in the use of that infrastructure. The critique is more on: 1. lack of robust interfaces to off-chain mechanisms (given the whole point is to remove centralisation and trust) and thus limits value generation 2. lack of obvious value creating use cases. A common theme in our discussions when talking about value is a confusion between asset price and value creation; where I will talk about comparative business models and you will talk instead about how much return you have got in trading an asset whose price is entirely determined by its trade price. These are fundamentally not the same thing. Plenty of people lost their shirt in the previous infrastructure bubbles. If you lose yours, I will be gracious :-)
Nimatzo rank	Thu Dec 16 20:13:01 2021 Nhill How often would you transfer profits into the LP?
nHiLL rank	Thu Dec 16 23:00:06 2021 Nim This is a one-off trading plan. Because if the structure holds, it appears to be the best way to play the breakout. The nice thing about this is that planting the LP will yield more $JEWELs, so even if it keeps running, there's profit on both sides. I'm a long term stakeholder-- I think it has a huge potential as the confluence of gaming and DeFi. The downside is the structure breaking down on the retest, but it looks very bullish right now both fundamentally ($AVAX release upcoming) and TA wise. I'd be down to reuse this tactic on a similar HTF bullish structure down the road. :)
nHiLL rank	Thu Dec 16 23:23:53 2021 > See, again, he's saying "ok, so is this blockchain infrastructure any use". > By the way, you are also missing the point that blockchain is built on physical infrastructure - mining rigs etc. which he identified earlier. I don't mean this in a condescending way, but I'm thinking one level above you. My point is that he (and you) are still bound and constrained by this obsession with physical infrastructure, when the real value is a whole new infrastructure is being created. Much akin to the start of the industrial revolution for the physical, we are now seeing the underpinnings of the cryptoverse (digital world) manifesting before our very eyes. But people say HURR DURR IT NOT VALUE. It is the value, mothafucka. ;)
nHiLL rank	Thu Dec 16 23:31:07 2021 > A common theme in our discussions when talking about value is a confusion between asset price and value creation; where I will talk about comparative business models and you will talk instead about how much return you have got in trading an asset whose price is entirely determined by its trade price. These are fundamentally not the same thing. Now you're making stuff up. I never talk about my returns here, except with Nim. I have talked about Abracadabra which has a business model that brings in as much profit per week as Microsoft. And I mean profit, not asset appreciation. But you ignored that since it doesn't fit your thesis, like tons of other things over the past month that you simply gloss over when it doesn't give you confirmation bias.
Nimatzo rank	Thu Dec 16 23:37:53 2021 Oh I get it now, I thought you were turning the profits from a Jewel stake into the LP pair.
nHiLL rank	Thu Dec 16 23:40:26 2021 Yeah, the plan is. 1. Wait for retest. 2. Buy shitload of $JEWEL and stake as $xJEWEL 3. Wait for breakout. 4. Sell half at the top into $MATIC and pair it into an LP. $MATIC because I already have LPs for $ONE and $AVAX planted, so I'd like to start a whole new farm. But any LP would work.
Nimatzo rank	Fri Dec 17 00:10:13 2021 I see I see. I plan to increase my position on DeFi kingdoms, picked some ONE up DCA:ed to around 0,17 (all in the ONE pair), just been waiting on some more confirmation that things are not slipping down the shit slide again. I sold my matic a while ago, bought back at a discount. So you put this thought in my head now to feed two birds with 1 farm. I will join in this trade :)
nHiLL rank	Fri Dec 17 00:12:15 2021 May the odds be ever in our favor!
Seb rank	Fri Dec 17 16:38:37 2021 nhill: "I don't mean this in a condescending way, but I'm thinking one level above you. My point is that he (and you) are still bound and constrained by this obsession with physical infrastructure," Again, no, you are misreading it. He's perfectly open to the idea that the blockhains themselves are the infrastructure - that is monumentally clear. He literally asks the questions "is this infrastructure useful". I'm just pointing out that *you* are mistaken in thinking that there isn't a physical infrastructure layer to crypto - it's the mining platforms. In proof of work terms - are are all those ASICs sitting in giant server farms churning away at all those hash functions other than the physical infrastructure underpinning a (supposedly) useful technology? The issue isn't "WhErE's tHe InfRaStruCtuRe?" - the point is the lack of use cases. He says so explicitly. " when the real value is a whole new infrastructure is being created." The value in railways is not "because there are rails". Rails have value *because* they allows goods and people to be moved from A to B and there is quantifiable value in moving goods from A to B, and thus the rail track has a value. Saying "the infrastructure is the value, therefore we do not need to worry about whether it supports any value generating use cases" is utter nonsense. "Now you're making stuff up. I never talk about my returns" We had an entire long conversation that you even necroed that started off with me saying "show me the value in this business model" and you saying "look I can get 30% returns by trading on this decentralised exchange".
Seb rank	Fri Dec 17 16:40:40 2021 Profit generated from flipping an asset isn't necessarily a measure of value creation by the way.
nHiLL rank	Fri Dec 17 18:49:37 2021 "I'm just pointing out that *you* are mistaken in thinking that there isn't a physical infrastructure layer to crypto - it's the mining platforms. In proof of work terms - are are all those ASICs sitting in giant server farms churning away at all those hash functions other than the physical infrastructure underpinning a (supposedly) useful technology?" I'm aware of the physical infrastructure needed for PoW and PoS, or PoX (X being whatever). My point was I don't find it particularly relevant... relative to the infrastructure for our entire digital existence, anyways. > the point is the lack of use cases. He says so explicitly. A failing of the imagination. That's like not being able to find a use case for a bunch of computers networked together, lol. Hmm, what's the hype about this Internet thing? "The value in railways is not "because there are rails". Rails have value *because* they allows goods and people to be moved from A to B and there is quantifiable value in moving goods from A to B, and thus the rail track has a value." Precisely my point. Crypto is all the infrastructure needed to move goods and people from A to B in the cryptoverse, therefore it has real value. You either get that this is where we're heading, or you don't. "We had an entire long conversation that you even necroed that started off with me saying "show me the value in this business model" and you saying "look I can get 30% returns by trading on this decentralised exchange"." A gross misunderstanding, but clearly you're having trouble following most of this stuff. A failing on my part. It comes easy to me after the years, but I'm not the best at communicating. I never intended to say I can get 30% returns by trading on a DEX. The product in question was not built into a DEX, rather it was a separate product that was built on top of a DEX (but unaffiliated) where you could provide stablecoins to farmers (not traders) to leverage their LP tokens (an LP token is two tokens linked together, like ETH-USDC, and, in this example, you could supply one half, such as USDC, and get 10-40% returns depending on demand). That the power of the infrastructure. A completely unrelated and unaffiliated protocol can be built on top of DEXes without seeking permission. > Profit generated from flipping an asset isn't necessarily a measure of value creation by the way. Nobody is claiming that other than your little straw man. As I said above, many protocols have real revenue. One example was Abracadabra, which brings in as much weekly revenue as Microsoft. I'm not beholden to it as an example, but it's an easy one off the top of my head. Plenty of other crypto protocols also have real revenue, all the way from games, to decentralized video rendering, to decentralized content delivery networks, and hundreds more in between. Right now, it's overshadowed by the scams, get-rich quick grabs, and trading, but it certainly doesn't take a rocket scientist to find valuable use cases with real revenue, not simply token appreciation.
Seb rank	Fri Dec 17 19:51:56 2021 Nhill: "A failing of the imagination." I think the point here is that some people are looking for empirical evidence of value as opposed to having to imagine it. As he points out, in previous rounds of disruptive innovation, during the bubble the value was demonstrable, even if investment was excessive. "Crypto is all the infrastructure needed to move goods and people from A to B in the cryptoverse, therefore it has real value." So... where are the value creating businesses? Much of the crypto currency consists of lots of trains going back and forth on tracks, but not actually carrying anyone from A to B. "I never intended to say I can get 30% returns by trading on a DEX." You literally used the words "I can get 30%", but the point isn't whether you did or could get a 30% return, the point is what you were measuring wasn't obviously value generation, just part of this self referential trading system. Just as if I have a business that makes a return in cowry shells by letting people borrow tulips doesn't demonstrate value creation.
nhill rank	Fri Dec 17 22:23:55 2021 $JEWEL retested $8.20, and I caught the bounce at $8.40. Not my ideal entry so I only went half into it. Still hoping for a cheaper price.
nhill rank	Sat Dec 18 00:08:09 2021 http://www.tradingview.com/x/SrJfjZ2T Looks like a textbook retest of the top structure, but I was hoping for a deeper retest around $7. Oh well. Bags half full of $xJEWEL, and the rest are farming $JEWEL anyways :)
Nimatzo rank	Sat Dec 18 08:59:48 2021 Pointless. Even the article seb posted, while critical and skeptical reveals a highly constructive and optimistic view on crypto, unlike the inherently negative, ”will unravel 100 years of progress”, tech bro (dys)utopia, ”this is insanity” position that seb has. I honestly don’t know what it is seb wants. Well I do, he wants to argue. It is a disease men carry around, for better and worse. Speaking of men, due to the inherent risky nature of the domain currently, crypto is a literal sausage fest, like 97% men. Watch now as things start going mainstream different groups demanding ”equality”, AKA now that you men have sacrificed yourself to build this stuff and make it safe, women want half the stuff :P
Nimatzo rank	Sat Dec 18 09:21:24 2021 I need to give up sleep. I will start buying jewel when I see a little pull back.
Seb rank	Sat Dec 18 15:13:38 2021 Nim: *Sigh*. I posed exactly the same points - you responded with "wow you must be ideologically opposed". Pretty sure if you responded the same way to Tim O'Reilly he would think the same: "that's a hallmark of insanity". "Watch now as things start going mainstream different groups demanding ”equality”," Lol. You literally posted a graph of the decoupling of wages from GDP a few days ago explaining why you want a new system. The new system (especially if proof of stake) is just as likely to centralised power and wealth to the owners of crypto-capital. So yeah, you'll face a bunch of people demanding equality if it takes off, for precisely the same reason. The fact you see this though the lens of men v women Vs any of the possible dimensions here is weird though. The conventionally unwealthy are also likely to have lower access internet and less time. As for arguing, yes, it's a political debate forum. I'm shocked, shocked, to find arguing occurring here.
LazyCommunist rank	Sat Dec 18 15:44:37 2021 Thieves and scammers http://blo...rts/2021-crypto-scam-revenues/ Scams were once again the largest form of cryptocurrency-based crime by transaction volume, with over $7.7 billion worth of cryptocurrency taken from victims worldwide.
Nimatzo rank	Sat Dec 18 16:08:43 2021 Seb "*Sigh*. I posed exactly the same points - you responded with "wow you must be ideologically opposed"" It still matters where those questions orginate from. You basically posted a guy, who fundamentally disagrees with your negative outlook, he can still be fundamentally incorrect on the critical points he raises that you agree with. I just though it was funny that the literal last words of his article, are diametrically opposed to your entire position - crypto bad. "wow you must be ideologically opposed" You are making things up, you think everyone else is ideologically motivated on this (libertarians). I have no idea what your motivation is, I only observe that you are in fact opposed. "Pretty sure if you responded the same way to Tim O'Reilly he would think the same: "that's a hallmark of insanity"." Selective response, you and him fundamentally have different positions (which I summarized with those quotes) and the conversation would be very different, starting all the way back in that Natural gas plant thread. "The fact you see this though the lens of men v women Vs any of the possible dimensions here is weird though." What I said is a fact that can be seen by anyone with the lens in their eyes, you are reading things into it that are not there, putting into question who sees what through which lens. I observed this fact and the correlation it has with a specific behavior, risk taking, which is not distributed evenly in men and women. There is a punchline there at the end. The jokes are funnier of you are always trying to find an argument. "So yeah, you'll face a bunch of people demanding equality if it takes off, for precisely the same reason." What I described was however not equality, where someone else takes the risks and you get half of it for free. Again, the jokes are funnier if you stop looking at them with a skewed lens looking for pointless things to argue. "I'm shocked, shocked, to find arguing occurring here." I am also not shocked to find people here arguing for the sake of arguing, but it is not a constructive form of communication, which you understood was what I said.
Seb rank	Sat Dec 18 18:32:35 2021 Nim: "crypto bad" Crypto as a technology - do far useless. Most crypto businesses / schemes - bad. "You are making things up" You started interrogating me on the whole ideology of decentralisation. "you and him fundamentally have different positions" Not really. The difference is he's not finalised a position on whether the technology has utility. I'm pretty much convinced it hasn't at this point. If some actual value creating use case arrives, I'll be happy to change my mind. "What I described was however not equality, where someone else takes the risks and you get half of it for free" Right and a capitalist will say something like: "of course labour has not gathered much rewards since the 70s, since then the main driver of increased productivity has been through automation and IT services: most employees need to work less hard and be less skilled to achieve those outcomes because of the capital I've invested in my plant and equipment. Rightly, I'm keeping the bulk of the rewards because I took the risk in investing in automation. The small lump of skilled labour for which there is a competitive market has been richly rewarded with high wages, the aggregate statistics reflect the fair reality: aggregate labour is increasingly less important input to production and aggregate output. Aggregate measures of GDP per hour worked flatter the situation. A few people are actually responsible for the bulk of production, and a lot of people are less productive in terms of what value an hour of their work drives. The are also easily replaced." I.e. they have exactly the same lines you would deploy here. The difference is we can tax capital and redistribute. Crypto is explicitly set up to make that hard. Which is why it's a bad idea - it would make inequality much much worse. As O'Reilly says: look for where the next wave of centralisation will occur.
Forwyn rank	Sat Dec 18 21:59:57 2021 "This is likely going to cause big balance problems and result in rather broken gaming experiences." Every game struggles balancing an economy among players by balancing in-game sinks and death/misplay penalties. Central planning is difficult, even with just thousands of players.
Seb rank	Sun Dec 19 03:34:36 2021 Forwyn: So imagine that coupled over multiple games operated by independent publishers.
Forwyn rank	Sun Dec 19 04:27:38 2021 Or multiple nations whose mode of currency is managed by one independent organization.
nhill rank	Sun Dec 19 04:46:30 2021 Booking +19% TP1 on $JEWEL, moved 50% to 1USDC and joined the other 50% in an LP to farm on DFK. Will convert 1USDC half into MATIC and half into LUNA on a pullback for either. :)
nhill rank	Sun Dec 19 04:49:12 2021 JEWEL price: $10.03 Given here at at $6.64 (last thread): http://www.tradingview.com/x/6TeSQMyN Still targeting an upside TP2 at $11.60 and TP3 at $12.50.
Nimatzo rank	Sun Dec 19 12:26:52 2021 Still looking to enter i to more jewel. Did enter the atroport launch with all my Luna-BLuna pair.
Nimatzo rank	Sun Dec 19 12:41:49 2021 Seb ”Not really.” Yes really, you can tone it down all you like, but it is evident from the things you say and that he says in that article. It would be a totally different coversation without the pitfalls of someone who this the technology is ”physically impossible”, inherently negative and broken. ”Crypto is explicitly set up to make that hard.” This is incorrect. ”it would make inequality much much worse” Only for someone who still does not understand that the barrier for creating your own financial system has been lowered to almost zero.
Nimatzo rank	Sun Dec 19 12:46:08 2021 I told Jergul that I think crypto can revitalize social democracy, not to flatter Jergul or because I personally adhere to the philosophy, but because I actually believe it can. This is something you still don’t understand, but was evident about my position in the natgas plant thread: There is something for everyone (ideology) in crypto.
Nimatzo rank	Sun Dec 19 13:14:42 2021 Nhill Luna, Avax and Matic are holding the line pretty strong in the chop. Luna does have a bunch of launches in december and then there was the algorithmic stable coin narrative, (falls outside of most regulatory FUD). Matic has been riding the zk rollup narrative. What is keeping Avax strong?
Nimatzo rank	Sun Dec 19 13:28:43 2021 Seb Missed this: ”You started interrogating me on the whole ideology of decentralisation.” Seriously what are you on about? What is the ”ideology of decentralization”?
Nimatzo rank	Sun Dec 19 15:41:59 2021 Fuck. Jewel has left orbit.
Seb rank	Sun Dec 19 19:01:36 2021 Nim: Don't confuse not understanding and understanding perfectly and saying that the claim doesn't stack up. "Seriously what are you on about?" One of the early threads, you essentially started quizzing me about whether I thought decentralisation was a good thing generally or something I opposed and eventually determined I must be opposed. It really doesn't matter, I'm not going to die in a ditch over the point. I do find the idea that there's a low marginal cost of setting up a finish system to be somewhat overblown or alternatively belie and incredibly narrow view on what a financial system is. Be that what it may, the thing that's missing in all of this are really good examples of crypto being applied to genuine value adding activities with marginal value over traditional versions, rather than endless self referential schemes that derive their value on supporting further trade in crypto.
Nimatzo rank	Sun Dec 19 20:23:06 2021 Seb "and saying that the claim doesn't stack up." Given the sum total of all these threads, you saying this is as of yet still indistinguishable from you perfectly not understanding. "One of the early threads, you essentially started quizzing me about whether I thought decentralisation was a good thing generally or something I opposed and eventually determined I must be opposed." No. I asked if you were in principle for a de-centralized currency specifically. In the same conversation I concluded that we (as in you and I) don't want the same things (vision for the world), because we don't. Your motivation was for my purpose at the time, irrelevant. It is frankly bizarre that you describe the process of asking you questions as part of a dialogue to figure out your position and establish differences as some kind of ideological persecution. "I'm not going to die in a ditch over the point." Then I suggest don't dig ditches. "incredibly narrow view on what a financial system is" Because what you derive this from isn't a view on what a financial system is, but specifically the cost of creating and failing one. "really good examples of crypto being applied to genuine value adding activities with marginal value over traditional versions" lol OK :)
Seb rank	Mon Dec 20 02:16:45 2021 Nim: "I asked if you were in principle for a de-centralized currency specifically" Exactly. For me, it is a question of whether this technology works and has use cases. For you it is a about ideological preferences. I don't think the questions were persecution - just evidence that your optimism isn't really about superior understanding - it's (from a purely factual point of view) undue optimism
Seb rank	Mon Dec 20 02:27:32 2021 "Because what you derive this from isn't a view on what a financial system is, but specifically the cost of creating and failing one." No, what I meant was that creating a platform which *could* be used in allocation of capital isn't the same as building a "new financial system". Financial systems are for allocating capital to productive enterprise. The thing though is that the lack of effective coupling between the crypto sector and the rest of the mechanics of commerce and finance (something O'Reilly picks up on) means it's effectively sterile. I'm guessing your point was that centralisation of power in proof of stake systems isn't a problem because you just create new chains with new stakers.
nhill rank	Mon Dec 20 04:25:25 2021 Out of $JEWEL at $12.50 for this trade (still have long term farms).
nhill rank	Mon Dec 20 04:34:40 2021 > What is keeping Avax strong? One of the few L1s with a rapid pulse. For example, they pushed out an update to make gas cheaper in Sept, but it didn't work out as well under production conditions, they then pushed out a new update December 3rd that successfully made gas under $0.50 on average again, after experiencing fees in the $3-10 range for a few weeks. The problem isn't necessarily gas fees per se, it's that these tokens get so expensive so the gas fees also look expensive (despite not really being much different unless denominating in fiat). The perils of going up 700% in a year (speaking about ETH here). But Avalanche has shown that they are responsive to market conditions and update their validation algorithm to keep it affordable for the everyday user. And generally, they push out quality network upgrades faster and with more detail than any other chains. Fantom could do a lot better with this. They also have massive marketing campaigns. Hard to tell which is working better, the tech or the marketing, but they are both on point. $AVAX reminds me of BSC except it's not a cesspool of scam projects. For some reason, the scams still love BSC.
nhill rank	Mon Dec 20 04:37:22 2021 $RNDR looks very biddable here. Good call on that one. I think you gave it around $3 here or so? Wish I'd have grabbed some.
nhill rank	Mon Dec 20 04:39:27 2021 Seb still doesn't understand the implications of the cryptoverse despite it being spoon-fed to him. Lmao, some people simply can't be helped. I bet he'll get "I wish I listened to nhill and Nim instead of trying to argue like a little bitch" on his gravestone.
nhill rank	Mon Dec 20 06:37:10 2021 Bidding $10.50 for $JEWEL.
nhill rank	Mon Dec 20 06:44:25 2021 http://imgur.com/lQPaFXP
nhill rank	Mon Dec 20 06:45:50 2021 Oops, wrong link. Here: http://imgur.com/a/zSBoLwn
Seb rank	Mon Dec 20 12:48:24 2021 nhill: You are starting to sound like one of those tiresome Trots "No you don't get communism" "yes, I do, I just don't think it will work." "You don't understand the implications". and so on and so forth.
Nimatzo rank	Mon Dec 20 12:50:59 2021 "whether this technology works and has use cases." This is what you call an ideological question. The fact that I see a use case and you don't. I don't care what motivates the difference, back then nor now, merely established that this is a difference. "No, what I meant was that creating a platform which *could* be used in allocation of capital isn't the same as building a "new financial system"." This is your strawman understanding of what is said. More on this further down*. "Financial systems are for allocating capital to productive enterprise." Right. Like a variety of distributed computing power services, metaverse, games or to send remittance, far cheaper, faster and with less hurdles across the world. As your article says, this is only the beginning, the best is yet to come. You don't have to find the above impressive, but in a few years we will point to these things as the obvious sprouts for what we are talking about. *The problem is that you nor anyone else, actually knows what it looks like to build a new financial system from the bottom up in parallell to a fully functioning one. So you keep comparing it to a fully grown tree, rather than trying to figure out what a sprout looks like. That is the gazing the horizon part and identifying where we are going. You don't do that based on realized productivity in the present, but future potential. That is why I asked that question back then, do you in principle see value with the idea of a decentralized currency. The answer was no. Well then it doesn't really come as a surprise that you increasingly view what is happening as some descent into madness. I was pre-empting precisely this dystopia narrative you are now playing for us :) Meaning what? Meaning your criticism as someone inherently against this stands in the shadow of your inherent negativity towards the principle idea. Whether that is ideological motivated, religiously motivated or by insanity, is irrelevant, it just is a fact. This was the same thread where you thought BTC was trying to replace Visa/Mastercard. You understand now that this isn't the case? "The thing though is that the lack of effective coupling between the crypto sector and the rest of the mechanics of commerce and finance" Already being worked on from mutliple fronts. A lot of FUD needs to be sorted out, some regulatory infrastructure needs to be put in place, but at the same time, a lot of it is already there. However given that (old) people do not fully understand this space, they think the same amount of regulation is required for this space as with traditional finance. The reality is however that a lot of regulatory framework (in most domains) is there to regulate the activity of people, their incompetence and fallible nature. If you remove that from the equation (smart contracts and decentralized platforms) then you naturally also remove the need to regulate a lot of human activity. "I'm guessing your point was that centralisation of power in proof of stake systems isn't a problem because you just create new chains with new stakers" Not sure what this refers to, but there are many ways to provide an answer to this issue and the underlying problem. Currently I am interested in hybrid systems for consensus, 50% PoW and 50% PoS like Verus.
Nimatzo rank	Mon Dec 20 12:55:40 2021 Somehow I didn't mention financial services.
Nimatzo rank	Mon Dec 20 13:01:53 2021 Nhill "$RNDR looks very biddable here. Good call on that one. I think you gave it around $3 here or so? Wish I'd have grabbed some." Me too :( Gotta say, I am impressed by how the Jewel thing turned out according to what you said. Crazy. "Fantom could do a lot better with this." Speaking of FTM, grim finance got hacked. I lost the spirit I had there. Was not a lot, so I won't be on suicide watch and will see what kind of compensation they can muster. Did you have stuff there still?
nhill rank	Mon Dec 20 17:30:27 2021 Sorry to hear that :( I had taken everything out of grim a while ago. I had my $SPIRIT exposure there before everything dumped, but derisked that bag on the way down. These auto compounding vaults seem to get hacked a lot (reaper.farm also got hacked at one point, but just a single vault IIRC), so I generally stick to the native farms and compound it myself nowadays. > Gotta say, I am impressed by how the Jewel thing turned out according to what you said. Crazy. Thanks :) The confluence of fundamental and technical analysis can be pretty fun to see. It's rare to see the stars align so well, so I had to call it out here. I caught my bids at $10.50 this morning, and look at that: http://imgur.com/CKujBlB
jergul rank	Mon Dec 20 17:59:20 2021 Electricity does not travel well. It can be an orphaned asset in remote areas. Crypto generation helps monetize what otherwise would be lost in this case. This is actually what crypto does. It is a way of monetizing energy. The fundamental value is tied to the total energy costs of mining the given coin type. The biggest flaw I see is the crypto part of it. Blockchain strength as technology is linked directly to its value in traceability. We have something that can give a perfect pedigree of any transaction ever made and yet somehow insist that anonymity is a good thing for it. Its not. Tracing is done to identify stuff.
jergul rank	Mon Dec 20 18:06:54 2021 The ideal $Jergulcoin would be something mined democratically, but regulated, taxed, and underwritten by a Central bank. Your tax statement would automatically include your jergulcoin holding in the country that issued the coin.
Seb rank	Mon Dec 20 18:46:25 2021 "This is actually what crypto does. It is a way of monetizing energy. The fundamental value is tied to the total energy costs of mining the given coin type." If I burn a hundred dollar bill and compact the ash into a convenient pellet that is lighter and takes up less space, that does mean the ash is worth a hundred dollars.
Seb rank	Mon Dec 20 19:23:37 2021 Nim: "That is why I asked that question back then, do you in principle see value with the idea of a decentralized currency. The answer was no." I'm still not entirely sure what you mean to convey by "decentralised currency" - e.g. is using metallic gold a decentralised currency? Not seeing value isn't the same thing as saying it is intrinsically bad - I think I said that at the time. But the whole point of discussion here is "ok, so what problem does this solve really". If you take the position that axiomatically, it has value and to be so pedestrian as to look for actual specific examples of problems being solved in a way that offers marginal value over traditional approaches is stupidity, then we are naturally going to disagree. But that is not a gulf in understanding - it s a gulf in attitude. One rationalist, the other more about animal spirits. "This was the same thread where you thought BTC was trying to replace Visa/Mastercard." Christ, if that's what you took away from that conversation you really are massively missing the point and still are. But lets just say a decentralised financial system needs a better payments mechanisms OR robust interfaces to traditional systems that do not act as centralised choke points that make the end-to-end system in entirety in every way worse than the centralised system it tries to replace. "If you remove that from the equation (smart contracts and decentralized platforms) then you naturally also remove the need to regulate a lot of human activity." I think you actually more likely just to move it around. I mean it is not like you can't do wash trading on decentralised exchanges to rig prices and thus manipulate a smart contract. In many ways it is much easier to do so, and much harder to regulate.
Nimatzo rank	Mon Dec 20 21:05:51 2021 Seb "decentralised currency" A trustless, bankless peer to peer system to exchange wealth and ownership, that is self-custodial. "Not seeing value isn't the same thing as saying it is intrinsically bad - I think I said that at the time." Well that part came as the discussion continued, but it was obvious where it was going. "problems being solved in a way that offers marginal value over traditional" All of those things have been presented, but they are still just trees in front of a forest. Either one sees the value of building systems from the ground up or one does not. "Christ, if that's what you took away from that conversation"¨ It was certainly one of the things to take away, illustrating that you do not know what you are talking about, but will keep arguing anyways. It resonated very poorly with another idea you have conveyed, namely that you looked into block chain as an academic exercise over a decade ago and decided it was mostly useless. Some other example was your concern about illicit activity and child porn lol :) Simple errors that would make a wise man paus and reconsider before typing more arguments. The point is that there is a huge gap between the knowledge you claim you have and the knowledge you actually show you have and you have not filled that gap in these 8 months. Do you understand that BTC is not meant to be a payment layer? Do you understand that due to the transparent nature of the most popular block chains, it is much more difficult to cover illicit activity? That these things can be measured to a far higher degree of fidelity than with fiat currencies? That Police authorities are very "pro" crypto because of how easy it is to track. There wouldn't be a need for privacy coins if it wasn't, would it? I think it is important, since these where part of the batch of criticism you raised in that thread, and being the finely educated gentleman, reasonable and rational (and not guided by the spirits as to what is good and bad), as we answer your concerns and dismantle your worries, you should follow the evidence. "I think you actually more likely just to move it around." I am talking about the custodial activity. That risk can't be move around as it no longer exist, since they (the people at the hedge fund or bank) have been replaced with code. "In many ways it is much easier to do so, and much harder to regulate." And in many ways due to the transparent nature of the networks and open source code, it is easier. All the data is free and on the blockchain. I think this was overlooked when Nhill mentioned it. Currently you do not have access to the data that a hedge fund or a bank has over all the aspect of the markets that is valuable for actors in the market, with block chain you do. All of it is there for free. Difficult to speculate about the regulatory end game, I see a mixed bag and that it will certainly pose challenges that are difficult to solve, just like the Internet or the automobile.
Seb rank	Mon Dec 20 21:41:19 2021 Nim: "All of those things have been presented, but they are still just trees in front of a forest. Either one sees the value of building systems from the ground up or one does not." Giving examples of value that are "this helps this architecture work better" is not an example of creating value though. I think O'Reilly put it well: are there examples of people using crypto systems to allocate capital that are obviously superior to conventional? "It was certainly one of the things to take away," Ok, so in the first paragraph of your post, you defined as a key attribute for decentralised currency that it is a system to "exchange wealth and ownership". And you say that to then analyse how Bitcoin functions as a payments system - i.e. a system for exchanging wealth and ownership - is illustrative of someone not knowing what they are talking about. Further, the point I was making at the time was precisely that access to the bitcoin system was intermediated by exchanges that re-introduced centralisation and trust back into the system such that the end-to-end transaction did not have the desired properties (regardless of whether those properties are deemed good or can be shown to be valuable). "into block chain as an academic exercise over a decade ago and decided it was mostly useless" No, not as an academic exercise. As a set of feasibility studies, seeking to find practical applications, one of which was to transform the land registry. "That risk can't be move around as it no longer exist, since they (the people at the hedge fund or bank) have been replaced with code." LOL. No they haven't - you've automated elements of the transaction, but the people using the services remain as self-interested as before and the risk has moved to them manipulating the system in their favour in other ways. You've moved the risk from a centralised entity you can observe to millions of individuals you cannot who can engage in similar practices.
jergul rank	Mon Dec 20 22:16:53 2021 Seb All fiat systems are based on taking something worthless and assigning it value. You cant blame crypto for not encouraging making barter payments with goats. Now, do you have a better way for, say me, to use electricity here and sell it to, say you, at a mark-up equal to the difference between our electricity prices?
jergul rank	Mon Dec 20 22:18:57 2021 "A trustless, bankless peer to peer system to exchange wealth and ownership, that is self-custodial." Or a tax avoidance scheme. That is ultimately the underlying logic. The cryptoverse is beyond jurisdiction where taxes and other pesky laws have no relevance.
jergul rank	Mon Dec 20 22:23:00 2021 Lots of publications on blockchain use in traceability. Seamlessly adding information in real time with full transparency as things happen is a powerful tool. That is one of the things missing. Vaulting crypto is like burying gold coins in earthenware. Sure, its safe, but its not really yours because you cannot prove it and 3000 years of property law cannot help you enforce your ownership.
nhill rank	Mon Dec 20 22:30:53 2021 Supply Chain Management is simply one of the myriad of real world value driven crypto applications: http://morpheus.network/about/ Of course, similar to when it was last brought up Seb will simply say MERKLE TREE!
nhill rank	Mon Dec 20 22:31:08 2021 I present you: Seb, In Meme Form http://imgur.com/a/rgsr5P3
Nimatzo rank	Mon Dec 20 22:47:49 2021 Seb I see you didn't answer any of my questions, so I will ignore you. Jergul I don't believe it is the underlying logic or that it is an issue in the near term. In the long term many things may be disrupted and forced to be rethought. For me at least that fact is one of the philosophical attraction to crypto. If it succeeds it will force us to rethink administration and governance of our countries. Did the internet ruin the music industry? It could have been described as "stealing is the underlying logic...". For a while on the surface it looked like it, at least if you were listening to record companies, but today entertainment has never been easier and a more vibrant space than now. I am inclined to think that the internet forced much of the entertainment industry to reduce fat and excess.
Nimatzo rank	Mon Dec 20 23:10:56 2021 Jergul To put it in other words, if crypto didn't have potential to have impact on real world governance and national finance, I would not be nearly as interested in it. One emergent issue would be, not tax avoidance, but the fact that individuals can live and pay for everything completely outside the national monetary system, thus bypassing taxes of every kind. I want crypto to threaten the world order and force us to innovate governance and organization. Moving energy is kempebra, don't get me wrong, a new online financial system is awesome, but ultimately I still live in the physical world that is run by morons bickering in a system that I believe is doomed and slowly bleeding.
	show deleted posts