Only two kinds of financial governance are known to socially scale: 1. traditional financial industry governance, with its lawyers, accountants, etc. 2. public blockchains with a strong trust-minimization ethos. Other forms of blockchain governance will fail or evolve towards #1.
-
Why zero trust socialy-scales? It's an antithesis. Social network growth requires trust, just ask
@cesifoti. No trust is disruptive to networks "everyone is a scammer" is no good for business.
Unwarranted confidence is the "con" in con artist. Trust networks without institutional augmentation (lawyers, accountants, blockchains), etc. that pretend to socially scale are just confidence games.
-
-
What's the largest "trust network" that ever existed without (1) or (2)? Something like the Knights Templar?
-
Property & contract law had returned around most of the Mediterranean & France by the heyday of the Knights Templar, but insecure enough that Templar's own vows, rules, beliefs, & security (got their start by guarding Crusader treasure) made them better wealth transmitters.
-
Hey
@NickSzabo4 do you have a recommended book list anywhere? If not could you throw out 3 or 4 you like a lot?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
A trust relation always starts with unwarranted confidence. But overall ethos skin in the game for everyone participating in a market provides cover. Anonymity, No trust logic, can very easily loose and unravel networks. Full trust networks ie gift economy work better imho
-
Isn't the beauty of bitcoin that you can trust/be confident that no trust is necessary?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.