Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Starting a crypto project

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 373 posts

Re: Starting a crypto project

#91

Post by Luker88 »

As someone interested in all of cryptography, I cringe every single time when we call blockchain "crypto".

Sure, there's cryptography in it. But you don't call a mail or http server "crypto". There's similar tech in git, we don't call it "crypto", we call it VCS.

Calling this "crypto" is just trying to add a mystic aura for stuff people don't understand, to further muddy the waters.

We have a word for this technology. It's not "crypto". It's blockchain.

Sure, it's your shorthand for "cryptocoin" or "cryptovalue". Which are again newspeak for blockchain, and we could argue that given its limits and usage of the last years they should be called crypto-investment, at best.

Which is still like ordering a pizza and forcefully referring to it only as "food". I want a pepperoni-food please.

Sorry for the rant, but it really feels like it's just a way to further embellish something with dubious values like the post points out

Re: Starting a crypto project

#92

Post by anonymoushn »

noxer wrote: post #86
anonymoushn wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alright, so I make a two-sided market on chain, and the fees I charge accrue to... me? This seems like a similarly large legal headache to having them accrue to token holders! I am probably obligated to make sure that all users of my protocol are not Kim Jong Un, right?

Take a look at Sologenic. Sologenic is a fronted for the DEX. AFAIK they have no legal obligation to limit who is using it at all. The DEX as as its name says is decentral, they can not control it. They just make software that lets users use it. They can also not directly take fees because the DEX does not have fees (you make things decentral to remove the lurking middlemen who takes the fee) IDK how Sologenics busin…

I'm not necessarily sold on the idea of making products without business models. My lawyers so far have told me somewhat different things from "if it's all crypto then you have no KYC obligations"

Re: Starting a crypto project

#93

Post by anonymoushn »

noxer wrote: post #88
ghayes wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another good example would be a project like Uniswap on Ethereum that existed for a long time without a token. To your point precisely, Uniswap v1 was similar to the Bancor project but explicitly removed the token/tokenomics. The simplified launch made the protocol better for both them and their users.

Hmm whats the UNI token for then?

It's a governance token, meaning you can use it to participate in non-binding votes about what the developers do.

Re: Starting a crypto project

#94

Post by jkepler »

henvic wrote: post #4

Society is losing the opportunity to create a lot of wealth because people are investing in silly proof-of-work (or: energy/resource wasting) ideas. It's awful, and I guess we're only going to see this over once Bitcoin is surpassed by Dogecoin (I'm sure this will happen), and then Dogecoin gets surpassed by any other stupid shitcoin out there. The idea of cryptocurrency is interesting, but the idea of having no back…

Except that Proof-of-work isn't wasted energy: it secures the bitcoin network/system by making it prohibitively expensive to attack, as well as provides a means to confirm groups of transactions in a decentralized manner. Bitcoin provides a real final settlement layer alternative to fiat central banks, and that's globally significant.

Plus there is the bisq project, a peer-to-peer bitcoin/fiat exchange that has decentralized their governance using a token that's colored bitcoin, rather than building on Ethereum.

Regarding the energy consumption of monetary networks, what's the real cost of the petrodollar system? Don't forget to include the US military costs fighting wars to force oil-producing nations to sell oil denominated in dollars, as well as all the banking, financial advisors, and physical security (Brinks) that prop up the central banking/fiat monetary standards.

Re: Starting a crypto project

#96

Post by RichardHeart »

Add to that: 16.5 You will be demonized by everyone except those that participate in what you build. 17. Every dollar spent on dev didn't 40x in ETH over the last year, or 400x in some other things. 18. Centralized gatekeeping of the "decentralized" projects both in coin ranking sites and exchanges. 19. Constant and never ending copycats and straight scams impersonating your brand. 20. People duct-taping coins onto what you build and stealing your users (ala sushi vampire attack on uniswap.) 21. Advertising is banned everywhere for you (reddit, facebook, youtube, google, etc) Caveat: Founder of #14 on nomics.)

Re: Starting a crypto project

#97

Post by noxer »

anonymoushn wrote: post #93
noxer wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm whats the UNI token for then?

It's a governance token, meaning you can use it to participate in non-binding votes about what the developers do.

Ah cool thx, BTW you can swap on the XRPL DEX too, however you can only swap "issued currencies" (IOUs) so you need to trust some counterpart (like gatehub or another exchange) to actually hold the asset behind it until you withdraw. The benefit is that is extremely fast and cheap even slow assets like BTC can be swapped just as fast as all others (in a few seconds).

Re: Starting a crypto project

#98

Post by [deleted] »

Luker88 wrote: post #91

As someone interested in all of cryptography, I cringe every single time when we call blockchain "crypto". Sure, there's cryptography in it. But you don't call a mail or http server "crypto". There's similar tech in git, we don't call it "crypto", we call it VCS. Calling this "crypto" is just trying to add a mystic aura for stuff people don't understand, to further muddy the waters. We have a word for this technology…

[deleted]

Re: Starting a crypto project

#99

Post by pjc50 »

noxer wrote: post #61

Here is a free tip if you want to do it anyway. DON'T CREATE ANOTHER F**ING TOKEN! Build you product on an existing reliable fast and cheap blockchain that fits your needs. Focus on the product not the price of tokens on said DLT. You dont need a token. No, really you dont. Your tokens only use case is likely to transfer value and guess which token can do this better than yours? All of them! Simply because they alrea…

> You dont need a token. No, really you dont. Your tokens only use case is likely to transfer value

Other way round: transferring value to yourself is the only use case.

If you take a second to look in the mirror and see the wreckage of previous startups in this space, you'll see that - as pointed out in the OP thread - 99% of the community is there for the pump and dump. For all the practical purposes, distributed solutions end up worse than centralised ones. Except possibly for censorship resistance, which means you have the problem of attracting people who want to use it because they've been banned from other services.

Re: Starting a crypto project

#100

Post by pdog »

seibelj wrote: post #36
aabhay wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Nassim Taleb calls it an “open ponzi” — a ponzi that is openly known

Taleb has never revealed the details of his investment portfolio. For someone who screams "I don't care - show me the returns!" it's interesting that he cannot prove that his "black swan" strategy has ever been actionable for his own or anyone's portfolio, how to use his theories to make significant money vs. normal strategies, and any proof that his hedge fund made any money during the dot-com crash which you would…

> It's interesting that he cannot prove that his "black swan" strategy has ever been actionable for his own or anyone's portfolio, how to use his theories to make significant money vs. normal strategies...

Mark Spitznagel, a cofounder of Empirica (Taleb's old fund), went on to start Universa which did pretty well with similar theories (tail-risk strategies and insurance via options against extreme market risk) in both the 2008-2009 period and last year, when they booked a huge return. So there's some evidence that the theories work to produce uncorrelated (or negatively correlated) returns that outperform the market[1].

[1]: Universa's flagship "Black Swan Protection Protocol" fund has produced a mean annual return on invested capital of 76% since the firm was created in 2008. https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoinegara/2020/04/13/how-a-go...

Post reply on HN