1/ Exactly. I never understood why companies cannot build so-called "tokenized services" directly on top of established tokens such as BTC (yes, BTC was the original token). The whole category of "utility tokens" just doesn't make any sense.https://twitter.com/MaxFangX/status/976031730460012545 …
-
-
3/ If your token has a fixed supply, your users will always face higher liquidity & volatility risks than using BTC. Since the demand & market for sound money (which encompasses all types of services) will *always* be larger than the demand & market for any single service.
Show this thread -
4/ If your token has a variable supply or pegged to some stablecoin, then it’s just a needless layer of indirection.
Show this thread -
5/ I'm a big fan of
@balajis, but I think the argument that buying tokens is akin to buying "paid API keys" to services, and therefore tokens have inherent utility is not quite correct (from https://news.earn.com/thoughts-on-tokens-436109aabcbe …).Show this thread -
6/ A private key has no value *in and of itself*. It can only have value if the thing it protects has value. In the case of company-issued tokens, that hinges on the company actually providing a service & making good on their promises.
Show this thread -
7/ The company can shut down their service, disappear tomorrow, and your paid API keys would amount to nothing. This can happen to Bitcoin too, but you’ll have to shut down the entire Bitcoin network- much harder to do.
Show this thread -
8/ So no, I don’t think ERC20 tokens are “inherently useful”.
Show this thread -
9/ More on token-asset linkage:https://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/976601253634387970 …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.
