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 …
-
-
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 -
-
-
That's a long rant without any good arguments. Show me one “crypto-asset” that is a) not just money- what unique features does it have that money does not have? and b) doesn’t have a single point of failure.
-
Network currencies capture the value of networks that they are intrinsic to. At the expense of liquidity (money) but capture the transaction value of the network in the token itself. Bitcoin isn’t money either, ftm
-
You still haven't answered my question: what prevents these networks from using BTC as its native token? What is it that forces these networks to develop their own tokens?
-
Did you read the article? Your token can (and bitcoin won’t) 1. Capture the transaction value of your network 2. Capture the network effect 3. Coordinate your network functions
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.
