Daniel Micay on Twitter: "@saleemrash1d If it's not decentralized, it's really not a viable way to provide privacy and censorship resistance for a currency. The way they talk about the subsidy makes it clear that there's a centralized, single point of failure and that they don't really believe in the project at all." / Twitter

This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more

Daniel Micay

@DanielMicay

Jun 23, 2019

Replying to

@saleemrash1d

A currency aimed at privacy and censorship resistance shouldn't be strongly tied to a company that's able to exert control over it to the point that they can retroactively bake in a permanent form of rent seeking. It would demonstrate that it's not viable for the purported usage.

This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more

Replying to

Or mine the coin like everyone else and raise the value of the holdings in it by working on it. It wasn't the end of the world since it wasn't permanent. Having it in perpetuity makes it non-viable as a serious currency. Introducing it retroactively also makes it even worse.

1

Replying to

and

If it was widely adopted and became a mainstream currency with a huge amount of value circulating in it, think about how ridiculous it would be to have this hard-wired subsidy. I can't see that actually happening, but if it's meant to be a real currency that should be the aim.

1

Replying to

and

If it's not decentralized, it's really not a viable way to provide privacy and censorship resistance for a currency. The way they talk about the subsidy makes it clear that there's a centralized, single point of failure and that they don't really believe in the project at all.

9:29 PM · Jun 23, 2019Twitter Web Client

1

Like

Conversation