Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized • Hacker News Board

Re: Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized

#131

Post by edwin » Mon, Jul 09, 2018, 9:33 PM UTC

chrisco255 wrote: post #53

hudon wrote: post #23

You can see the state (volume, # daily users) of some of these promised "dapps" here: https://dappradar.com . It is indeed a barren wasteland. And when a new popular ICO comes along, the Ethereum network struggles and fees skyrocket. It's weird because people compare it to the early days of the Internet... but the early Internet was useful from its beginning: you could at least send messages and files across the netw…

DAPP Radar is not the authoritative source for all Ethereum applications. There are many like Augur, Golem, MakerDAI, etc that aren't even included on that list. Depends on when "early days of internet" is defined? The internet could be seen as an evolution of ARPAnet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET which was defined in the mid-1960s and took years to deploy and probably decades to evolve to the usefulness you…

DappRadar is a useful but ultimately hand-curated list. For a more comprehensive look, https://blockspur.com/ethereum_contracts/transactions ranks every Ethereum smart contract by transactions, "users," and "revenues." The top 3 contracts with the most number of users in June had 370K+, 210K+, and 88K+ "users" respectively. (Disclaimer: maker)

Re: Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized

#132

Post by pjc50 » Mon, Jul 09, 2018, 9:34 PM UTC

aboodman wrote: post #106

darawk wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's weird because people compare it to the early days of the Internet... but the early Internet was useful from its beginning That really depends on where you put 'beginning'. But more to the point, blockchains are useful now, just like the internet was. They're just not useful for all the things that are being promised (yet). Also, just like the internet wasn't. > Now, all we see is rampant fraud and a complete d…

> They're just not useful for all the things that are being promised (yet). Also, just like the internet wasn't. Exactly. The early internet was full of promises of taking over retail. None of that worked, at first. Instead the internet was useful for messaging and putting up personal websites. All the responsible people at the time kept whining -- how is it going to make money?? Well, people kept working on it. For…

> The early internet was full of promises of taking over retail. None of that worked, at first.

Timeframe? The early Internet was pretty non-commercial and the commercial services were generally proprietary and/or run by telecoms (Minitel, Prestel). There were a lot of failures in the 99/00 boom, but Amazon was founded in 1994.

> how is it going to make money

Ironically the question was more "how am I going to give you my credit card safely, given that cryptography is a technology subject to US export control".

Re: Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized

#133

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jul 09, 2018, 9:34 PM UTC

mockingbirdy wrote: post #55

protonimitate wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>It's weird because people compare it to the early days of the Internet... but the early Internet was useful from its beginning Exactly why so much wealth was created by the Internet boom. The wealth came from utility that already existed, just needed to be harnessed to its fullest potential. ICO scams are based on generating wealth first and hoping that utility follows at some undetermined time in the future. It's…

Snake oil is actually very useful: https://www.organicfacts.net/health-benefits/oils/snake-oil.... My superpower: Taking things literally. Still more useful than the last 10 ICOs. And my bad jokes aren't as bad for the environment. 10k joke-coins pre-ICO and 2 downvotes for that one for me! We had three innovative ideas in the financial sector - certificate of debt, compounded interest and book money. And now the fou…

[deleted]

Re: Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized

#134

Post by darawk » Mon, Jul 09, 2018, 9:34 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #124

darawk wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cash transfers and barters are trustless Yes, but they require physical presence. > Wires are trustless (in being reasonably irrevocable) in a manner similar to cryptocurrencies (i.e. if we ignore the plumbing). Irrevocability is not the same as trustlessness. Your transaction is still being intermediated by an entity that can choose to appropriate your funds otherwise. > Cryptocurrencies solve for trust in the mos…

> Your transaction is still being intermediated by an entity that can choose to appropriate your funds otherwise The frequency of each of coins being stolen from wallets, being lost by exchanges or pilfered by ICO frauds is far, far higher than anything happening at proper banks. Blockchains are a neat technology which should have never been marketed as a currency.

> The frequency of each of coins being stolen from wallets, being lost by exchanges or pilfered by ICO frauds is far, far higher than anything happening at proper banks.

What does that have to do with what we're talking about?

Re: Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized

#135

Post by madeofpalk » Mon, Jul 09, 2018, 9:35 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #98

hudon wrote: post #23

You can see the state (volume, # daily users) of some of these promised "dapps" here: https://dappradar.com . It is indeed a barren wasteland. And when a new popular ICO comes along, the Ethereum network struggles and fees skyrocket. It's weird because people compare it to the early days of the Internet... but the early Internet was useful from its beginning: you could at least send messages and files across the netw…

> It's weird because people compare it to the early days of the Internet... but the early Internet was useful from its beginning That really depends on where you put 'beginning'. But more to the point, blockchains are useful now, just like the internet was. They're just not useful for all the things that are being promised (yet). Also, just like the internet wasn't. > Now, all we see is rampant fraud and a complete d…

> But more to the point, blockchains are useful now, just like the internet was. They're just not useful for all the things that are being promised (yet)

How long do we have to wait to find a valid use case for blockchains? It's been 10 years now and we're still asking the same question.

Re: Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized

#136

Post by rspeer » Mon, Jul 09, 2018, 9:35 PM UTC

aboodman wrote: post #106

darawk wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's weird because people compare it to the early days of the Internet... but the early Internet was useful from its beginning That really depends on where you put 'beginning'. But more to the point, blockchains are useful now, just like the internet was. They're just not useful for all the things that are being promised (yet). Also, just like the internet wasn't. > Now, all we see is rampant fraud and a complete d…

> They're just not useful for all the things that are being promised (yet). Also, just like the internet wasn't. Exactly. The early internet was full of promises of taking over retail. None of that worked, at first. Instead the internet was useful for messaging and putting up personal websites. All the responsible people at the time kept whining -- how is it going to make money?? Well, people kept working on it. For…

> Exactly. The early internet was full of promises of taking over retail. None of that worked, at first. Instead the internet was useful for messaging and putting up personal websites. All the responsible people at the time kept whining -- how is it going to make money??

What? This is nonsense alternate history.

The early Internet had active, useful messaging long before anyone thought it would be useful for "retail". The arrival of commercial spam on Usenet was a shock to everyone. And personal websites came before the dot-com craze.

Re: Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized

#137

Post by JumpCrisscross » Mon, Jul 09, 2018, 9:36 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #134

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your transaction is still being intermediated by an entity that can choose to appropriate your funds otherwise The frequency of each of coins being stolen from wallets, being lost by exchanges or pilfered by ICO frauds is far, far higher than anything happening at proper banks. Blockchains are a neat technology which should have never been marketed as a currency.

> The frequency of each of coins being stolen from wallets, being lost by exchanges or pilfered by ICO frauds is far, far higher than anything happening at proper banks. What does that have to do with what we're talking about?

> What does that have to do with what we're talking about?

Generally speaking, if my things get stolen, "it was stolen by X and not Y" is not a value-adding rebuttal. It is actually counterproductive if X (e.g., a cryptocurrency thief) is harder to gain recourse against than Y (e.g. an FDIC-insured bank).

Re: Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized

#138

Post by JohnJamesRambo » Mon, Jul 09, 2018, 9:36 PM UTC

confiscate wrote: post #107

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The early internet I used was just as barely usable as the Ethereum network is now. I remember being in the college computer lab and begging on simple things like a page to load. Just a few years later and I was able to watch videos on the computers streaming from the internet. Technology rapidly advances. I still realized back in those computer labs how revolutionary the internet was going to be, I feel the same way…

What attributes about crypto, makes you feel the same way? i.e. that it is going to be revolutionary Because the example you said about the internet (from loading webpage to video streaming) does sound amazing. What's the "parallel" for crypto that you see?

https://i.redd.it/l5y9p9nqwu811.png

This sums it up better than I could. The wrenching of power away from centralized authorities and organizations (which we have seen abuse us and our privacy mercilessly for their gain) to decentralized applications with no middlemen, that are free of censorship, and can not be "stopped."

Re: Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized

#139

Post by chrisco255 » Mon, Jul 09, 2018, 9:37 PM UTC

confiscate wrote: post #107

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The early internet I used was just as barely usable as the Ethereum network is now. I remember being in the college computer lab and begging on simple things like a page to load. Just a few years later and I was able to watch videos on the computers streaming from the internet. Technology rapidly advances. I still realized back in those computer labs how revolutionary the internet was going to be, I feel the same way…

What attributes about crypto, makes you feel the same way? i.e. that it is going to be revolutionary Because the example you said about the internet (from loading webpage to video streaming) does sound amazing. What's the "parallel" for crypto that you see?

Streaming money. What if you were paid by the second instead of by the hour? Or your bank account filled up live as you worked or performed services? Or companies that provided services to other companies were compensated in the same way? Businesses live and die by cash flow. What if cash flows instantly 24/7?

What if you were able to do micropayments efficiently on the web?

What if many contractual agreements between parties were settled on blockchain, and monies held in escrow disbursed automatically based on pre-programmed rules?

Re: Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized

#140

Post by darawk » Mon, Jul 09, 2018, 9:37 PM UTC

hudon wrote: post #116

darawk wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's weird because people compare it to the early days of the Internet... but the early Internet was useful from its beginning That really depends on where you put 'beginning'. But more to the point, blockchains are useful now, just like the internet was. They're just not useful for all the things that are being promised (yet). Also, just like the internet wasn't. > Now, all we see is rampant fraud and a complete d…

1. What if we put "beginning" as in "before it was even called the Internet"? Indeed, ARPANET, which came online in 1969, saw fast growth in the United States in the 70s. Nodes came online to use it , not to make a quick buck. The government subsidized it because its potential use was obvious. Email started being used in 1972, FTP in 1973. To compare these world-changing technologies that were invented and used merel…

> What if we put "beginning" as in "before it was even called the Internet"? Indeed, ARPANET, which came online in 1969, saw fast growth in the United States in the 70s. Nodes came online to use it, not to make a quick buck.

People use cryptocurrency too. For value transfer, and to a more limited extent, for dapps like Augur. You seem to be criticizing the delta between the lofty hopes for it and it's actual usage. The early internet did not have such lofty hopes, so its growth was more organic. If you take away the pipe dreams from crypto, you have a remnant skeleton that i'd argue very much resembles the early internet.

> Of course the effect on the environment will continue to be pointed out: Ethereum's energy consumption is growing and the use cases are nowhere to be seen. So far, "plans" in the cryptocurrency space never go as expected. Satoshi didn't expect persistent forks and altcoins, for example. Vitalik advertised Ethereum as a "world computer" but it can barely stand when only 14k users are trading cartoon kitties on it. He also said Ethereum's "code is law", until he changed his mind and forked the network due to a hack. Please excuse skeptics for holding accountable those that do not have a history of consistent and successful results.

So, I said there are plans for solving the energy consumption issue. And your counter-argument is what, exactly? That sometimes people didn't foresee everything that might evolve? Help me understand the argument that you're making here.