The first part tells you that "Economics has historically focused on "goods" in the form of physical objects" but the internet and crypto are making it different
Not very original, we've known that since software was an industry and marginal costs ceased being of concerned. There is nothing blockchain-specific here.
The second part is about parochial crypto-feuds:
I'm very enthusiastic about blockchain and the cryptoindustry, especially compared to the rest of folks on here, but having one third of that article on old feuds and CSW bashing feels childish.
The last part is about scale and power and IMO the most interesting.
> If you define success as the total absence of a category of powerful actor or even a category of activity that you dislike, then you will probably leave the 21st century disappointed. But if you define success more through what happens than through what doesn't happen, and you are okay with imperfect outcomes, there is enough space to make everyone happy.
Crypto was supposed to decentralize power and I think it's telling that one of the major actor in the space is acknowledging that this is not and will not be the case. "Changing everything to change nothing", even if crypto and DeFi overtake traditional banks and finance, it will still be an oligarchic behemoth of whales and tech-wizs. So much for anarchy.
Although Vitalik was there from the start I don't remember him being one of those cypherpunks who honestly thought they were eradicating the state, so I don't think he changed his mind on that one.
Vitalik was 3 years old when it started. Creating Bitcoin was a 15 year process counting from the Cypherpunk's manifesto with many failed cryptocurrencies.
Greg Maxwell, Nick Szabo, Adam Back were working on it earlier. Vitalik represents a very different thinking, which is OK.
5 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 36.0 ms ] threadThe first part tells you that "Economics has historically focused on "goods" in the form of physical objects" but the internet and crypto are making it different Not very original, we've known that since software was an industry and marginal costs ceased being of concerned. There is nothing blockchain-specific here.
The second part is about parochial crypto-feuds: I'm very enthusiastic about blockchain and the cryptoindustry, especially compared to the rest of folks on here, but having one third of that article on old feuds and CSW bashing feels childish.
The last part is about scale and power and IMO the most interesting. > If you define success as the total absence of a category of powerful actor or even a category of activity that you dislike, then you will probably leave the 21st century disappointed. But if you define success more through what happens than through what doesn't happen, and you are okay with imperfect outcomes, there is enough space to make everyone happy. Crypto was supposed to decentralize power and I think it's telling that one of the major actor in the space is acknowledging that this is not and will not be the case. "Changing everything to change nothing", even if crypto and DeFi overtake traditional banks and finance, it will still be an oligarchic behemoth of whales and tech-wizs. So much for anarchy.
Greg Maxwell, Nick Szabo, Adam Back were working on it earlier. Vitalik represents a very different thinking, which is OK.