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 …
-
Show this thread
-
2/ The argument “well, ERC20 tokens can be used in decentralized smart contracts, so you don’t have to trust anyone” doesn’t fly, since most if not all of these contracts must inevitably interact with centralized solutions anyway. A.k.a. the Oracle problem.
2 replies 2 retweets 45 likesShow this thread -
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.
4 replies 9 retweets 51 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @hugohanoi
Correct me if I am wrong.. but doesn't BTC have a max supply of 21 million? And doesn't that equate to having a fixed supply?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
yes, I never said BTC does not have a fixed supply? the point here is if your token has a fixed supply too, it means it's not pegged to any existing currency & is subject to liquidity & volatility risks, which will always be a lot worse than BTC, which has a much larger cap.
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.
