Live data from Hacker News

Thoughts on Tokens

medium.com

41–50 of 85 posts

Re: Thoughts on Tokens

#41

However, when considered as an alternative to classic equity financing, token sales yield a >100X increase in the available base of buyers and a >1000X improvement in the time to liquidity over traditional methods for startup finance. The three reasons why: a 30X increase in US buyers, a 20–25X increase in international buyers, and a 1000X improvement in time-to-liquidity. these token sales are successful because peo…

> These people are paying millions for API keys they can't yet use? Comparing API keys to tokens is quite weird. I don't think they have almost anything to do with each other. In general the blog text is pretty bad. It doesn't differentiate very well between tokesn and cryptocurrencies. Tokens are usually not mined but are more like shares in a company. Also many of these ICO's are very scammy, investors should be ca…

"I don't think they have almost anything to do with each other."

I read it as these tokens being transferable "right" to access some service. However, what I don't understand is why there would any reason for such tokens to appreciate in value unless there was some restriction on supply (which would damage the long term viability of the service) or some other benefit from buying in early.

Or you could treat them like bearer shares - whoever ever has the token has the equity. But that could presumably have a lot of legal issues - not least around transparency of ownership and control.

Re: Thoughts on Tokens

#42

However, when considered as an alternative to classic equity financing, token sales yield a >100X increase in the available base of buyers and a >1000X improvement in the time to liquidity over traditional methods for startup finance. The three reasons why: a 30X increase in US buyers, a 20–25X increase in international buyers, and a 1000X improvement in time-to-liquidity. these token sales are successful because peo…

Stopping investment scams like the current ICO bubble is exactly the reason the SEC exists. It is an absolute certainty that this party is going to end in regulation and it's also likely that a bunch of people will end up in jail. The only real question is how long it will take the regulators to figure out which one of them has jurisdiction here. I say this as an early Bitcoin investor and current holder. Bitcoin was…

Completely agree with everything you're saying. I hope the SEC prosecutes any criminal activity that is found to be intended to take advantage of unsophisticated investors, but I don't think its appropriate to characterize ICOs as a cash grab as some have in this thread. I participated in the Ethereum pre-sale in 2013 and think ICOs in conjunction with the relatively new SEC regulation surrounding crowdsales (https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2015-249.html) could potentially facilitate new, organically-grown companies that reward individuals for their independent analysis of a project that they believe has value, irrespective of how much capital they have - people should be able to measure the risks they are willing to take, and exercise the judgment call accordingly. Currently regulatory limitations force potential investors with less capital to limit their participation in projects that they may want to have a stake in - I don't think that's fair.

I do think that there are some projects that have tremendous promise (more specifically in the Ethereum ICO space, since Bitcoin smart contracts are basically dead in the water at this time).

For example, Swarm City markets itself as a sharing economy platform (after the rebranding from Arcade City due to one of the founder's shady dealings), and intends to compete with the class of organizations with business models like Uber and Airbnb. While they have a ways to go in terms of developing the intended product to a level that could be acceptably called production-quality, this is exactly what decentralized applications could be used to build. The fact that Swarm City is trying to work through its earlier issues and still has active development/plans to release a real project is very promising, and shows that small-scale decentralized development can work in the real world. Whether a real product can be released remains to be seen, but I'm cautiously optimistic and advising my peers to just be really, really careful - especially as new highs are tested every single day.

Aeternity is another interesting project that builds on top of Ethereum but is focused on scaling and the issue of oracles right off the bat, which is something that is kind of brushed off as a trivial and minor detail, but that will really make or break these decentralized application platforms on the whole. The technical lead, Zack Hess, has experience working on cryptocurrency projects (@zack-bitcoin on GitHub) and I think its amazing that all this cryptoasset technology is enabling people to raise money easier than before.

While abuses need to be dealt with as swiftly and dramatically as the scale of the crimes deserves, it does seem a little hostile to characterize the class of these projects as completely fraudulent. But the valuations for some of these projects is just insane. People don't need two prediction markets valued at >$300m and a variety of distributed supercomputing platforms with no real-world use-cases this badly...

Re: Thoughts on Tokens

#43
post #26

To me the two most provocative points made in this essay are that tokens could be used to fund open source projects and that tokens could be used to distribute some of the value in large successful internet companies like Google & FB to early adopters. I don't see how this would work though. I buy a token for some random open source project (say a unit testing library because they link to one as an example). And then…

> I buy a token for some random open source project (say a unit testing library because they link to one as an example). And then what? > Or I buy a token in a new social network that eventually becomes very popular. What does that get me?

very good points, with no clear answers from these Cryptocurrency companies ..

Re: Thoughts on Tokens

#44
post #26

To me the two most provocative points made in this essay are that tokens could be used to fund open source projects and that tokens could be used to distribute some of the value in large successful internet companies like Google & FB to early adopters. I don't see how this would work though. I buy a token for some random open source project (say a unit testing library because they link to one as an example). And then…

I guess for Open Source projects Tokens can be used as a way to filter support queries (position in the queue determined by the tokens you hold) and give voting rights (who have the power to drive the feature roadmap).

Re: Thoughts on Tokens

#45
> Tokens based on forked chains and forked code. The most important example here is Ethereum Classic, which was based on a hard fork of the Ethereum blockchain that occurred after a security issue was used to exploit a large smart contract.

As far as I understand, this is the exact opposite of what happened.

After a flaw in a contract, on the Ethereum blockchain, was exploited, most people agreed to follow a hard fork which retroactively changed the core protocol such that the interpretation of the malformed contract no longer allowed exploitation. Ethereum Classic is the original, unforked chain, in which the flawed contract is respected, rather than altering the core protocol to circumvent a badly written contract.

Re: Thoughts on Tokens

#46
If the only reason to buy a token is because you expect to sell it later at a greater price, then this is known as a pyramid scheme, not investment. This will end the same way as all other schemes that rely on continual capital gains: collapse when people want to withdraw their profits, turning capital gains into capital losses, and thus revealing that there was never any future profit to be had (unless you were lucky to exit early).

Investment differs from speculation in that it offers a yield on capital, not just a capital gain. When a company pays dividends to shareholders, all holders gain. When a company's stock increases in price, the profits of those who gain are taken from those who've lost. Speculation is zero-sum, investment is not.

A yield on capital is fundamentally different from a capital gain, because a yield is a flow of profit paid out right now, as opposed to an alleged gain that will only be realized in the future (at which point the whole thing collapses, because the system depends on continual appreciation). Importantly, a yield on USD is paid in USD, a yield on bitcoins is paid in bitcoins, etc. Paying a yield in a scarce currency is a challenge, while bidding up the price, as measured by some other currency, is relatively simple.

Re: Thoughts on Tokens

#47
post #45

> Tokens based on forked chains and forked code. The most important example here is Ethereum Classic, which was based on a hard fork of the Ethereum blockchain that occurred after a security issue was used to exploit a large smart contract. As far as I understand, this is the exact opposite of what happened. After a flaw in a contract, on the Ethereum blockchain, was exploited, most people agreed to follow a hard for…

Kind of, except that ETC itself has also done a hard fork to do major protocol changes, so it's not exactly right to call it the "original, unforked chain."

The original Ethereum Homestead blockchain was designed to demand at least one hard fork. The mining difficulty was set to increase exponentially after some time, in order to force the community to make a decision regarding switching away from proof-of-work toward proof-of-stake. The ETC community hard forked the Homestead chain to remove this "difficulty bomb."

That's quite different from the "TheDAO" hard fork, but it's still a hard fork of a blockchain, so it's not true that ETC represents completely immutable law -- that community can also demonstrably agree to hard fork.

Re: Thoughts on Tokens

#48
post #40

However, when considered as an alternative to classic equity financing, token sales yield a >100X increase in the available base of buyers and a >1000X improvement in the time to liquidity over traditional methods for startup finance. The three reasons why: a 30X increase in US buyers, a 20–25X increase in international buyers, and a 1000X improvement in time-to-liquidity. these token sales are successful because peo…

This. I'm still shocked that reputable VC firms like a16z are completely throwing their weight behind cryptocurrencies without even a slight bit of skepticism. I recently listened to an a16z podcast where they had on a founder of a blockchain hedgefund. It was enlightening to listen to them talk about all the various coins and all the use cases. Chris, in the interview, uses an analogy of this being similar to the be…

So let's try this. Basically you are not "wrong" it's just about Belief and fiction.

Have you read the "sapiens" book? There is a good narrative in that book in that: religion, money and legal institutions are just fictions.

So I guess the question with tokens is : can we make up new fictions?

I think we can.

If you insist on "there is a reason why Regulator exist" , well I think it's not that reason you think it is.

The point is yes there is scam , see posts above. But yes there is also opportunity to find people who share similar ideas and values and express their common goals using tokens.

Does that make sense?

Re: Thoughts on Tokens

#49
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tokens in organizations that you think may succeed? I'm not particularly clear on details, i.e. how would you know whether a company is succeeding vs. just being a speculator's toy.

Ideally the organization itself should: a) be fully built on distributed technologies, if that's not the case, this is a clear red flag as it gives too much control to the founders to screw it. Ether+Web3.js+IPFS is a good combo. Proper voting/execution system for members is also a must IMO but very few actually have it. b) have a clear incentives model in place (built in smart contracts which code you should be able…

It's very easy to make a "whitepaper" about solving some important problem using Ethereum/Web3/IPFS with whatever interesting kinds of voting schemes and incentives. Whitepapers of all kinds are basically designed to seem impressive and downplay problems, just like any other promotional material.

Deciding whether the organization behind that whitepaper is legit, competent, and serious enough to actually make it happen is much more difficult than ticking some bullet points. Front end development is hard to do well, cryptoeconomic mechanism design is really difficult and prone to horrible failure, marketing is hard, profit is hard, etc etc.

(As an aside, I'm curious how many people actually understand how IPFS works. Are we all clear that it's not a magic place where you can upload things to make them available everywhere forever? In most important aspects it's equivalent to BitTorrent with Magnet. You still need to seed!)

That all said, in the sense of the "Keynesian beauty contest" it doesn't really matter whether a team will actually deliver anything good. If the web presence and whitepaper hype is cool enough to generate a good buzz, that's enough to generate a speculative wave where you hopefully won't be part of the crash!

Re: Thoughts on Tokens

#50

However, when considered as an alternative to classic equity financing, token sales yield a >100X increase in the available base of buyers and a >1000X improvement in the time to liquidity over traditional methods for startup finance. The three reasons why: a 30X increase in US buyers, a 20–25X increase in international buyers, and a 1000X improvement in time-to-liquidity. these token sales are successful because peo…

Stopping investment scams like the current ICO bubble is exactly the reason the SEC exists. It is an absolute certainty that this party is going to end in regulation and it's also likely that a bunch of people will end up in jail. The only real question is how long it will take the regulators to figure out which one of them has jurisdiction here. I say this as an early Bitcoin investor and current holder. Bitcoin was…

Claiming that adults making their own decision to buy the equivalent of a digital collectible, is a scam, and should be prohibited with long stretches of time in prison for those who take part, is why income disparity continues increasing [1], why the financial sector is dominated by a handful of corporate giants, and why it costs $6 million to do an IPO [2].

Attitudes like yours are not consistent with the principles of liberal democracy, which rest on the idea that we should be free to do with our body and property whatever we wish, as long as it violates no one's right to the same.

I've never touched a digital token, and I wouldn't touch one unless the landscape drastically changed, but I would never dream of wishing prison, or worse [3], for those who buy or sell tokens. Their money, their lives. What should the government create statutes to dictate how people spend their own money?

PS: bubble != scam

Calling something a scam is a very serious allegation should not be done lightly.

[1] https://www.brookings.edu/research/make-elites-compete-why-t...

[2] https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-it-cost-to-IPO

[3] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforci...

Post reply on HN