Well put, but the only thing I really understand is that many who trumpet their newfound riches don't seem to do much else. They remind me of the Day Traders, LBO, IPO, and Housing Market nuts who skyrocketed and then burned up in the ether. Are there any similarities?
Yeah the "crypto bros" really do exist and in a weird paradoxical way they turn off everyday people from the space while padding their own pockets. Many burn out. It's not all glamour. But like an IG model there's a sizeable insufferable group.
Good update. Where did you get your data that Solana has more active users than Ethereum? I'd challenge that assertion without data to back it up. Example: https://tokenterminal.com/terminal/metrics/user-dau
Even that chart is misleading. All the L2s listed (Optimism, Arbitrum, Base, etc.) settle back on Ethereum. Tron leads because it is so cheap, and the rest of the world uses it for stable coins. No one is doing any "real" development there, but I wouldn't be surprised if that changed at some point.
I actually do expect Ethereum to flip Bitcoin, but it will take quite a while. Ethereum's economic model is superior, as is its security model with proof of stake. And, while I personally don't count its reduced energy consumption as much of a "plus," many others do. Most of the developers have abandoned Bitcoin. 10 years ago, you were going to be able to put smart contracts on the Bitcoin blockchain some day, and you were going to buy a cup of coffee with it. No so anymore. Where the developers go, so goes the development, eventually leading to "killer apps." We won't see killer apps on Bitcoin. Joe Lubin knows this quite well.
In a related note, I view the arrival of ETFs via Blackrock, Vanguard, Van Eck, etc., as a very negative development. These institutions first started to attract all the 401k and IRA investments in the 1980s. Now, they are the most powerful institutions in the world. Why? Because you own the shares of the underlying ETFs and mutual funds they offer; but they control the votes. That gives them effective control over all the Fortune 500 companies. What do they do with that control? Most prominently: ESG.
Now, they've got their hooks into Bitcoin and, soon, Ethereum and others. How long before they have enough control to influence these protocols (in Bitcoin's case, a finite set of large mining operations)? 'You know, we think KYC should be adopted, and it would be a shame if Bitcoin's price went down because we started allocating investor funds elsewhere.' or 'You know, we think Bitcoin consumes too much electricity, and it would be better if Bitcoin were proof-of-stake.' Could they exert such influence now? No. In 5 years when these ETFs are 20X larger? 50X larger? Are we to think that they would attempt to wield such influence over TradFi companies but they will be incapable (or unwilling) of doing so with crypto?
Last, the 21 million Bitcoin "hard cap" is not really a hard cap. People assert that it is because they argue that the community (node operators, miners, etc.) has a strong incentive to never agree to modify this aspect of Bitcoin's open source software. But, that's not an argument that the 21 million cap could "never" be changed. It could. https://river.com/learn/can-bitcoins-hard-cap-of-21-million-be-changed/ For example, if after many more halvenings, there's no mining reward, and transaction fees are an insufficient incentive to cause others to expend electricity to mine. I'm not saying this will happen. I'm simply saying, "things change," particularly with the arrival of large institutional players. Only the passage of time will determine whether Bitcoin's 21 million cap is maintained, but it's not a rule that is set in stone.
Wow! Great piece, but I worry about debasement through programmable CBDC and tokenization of property and stocks and shares is just a step away from digital ID passports and Chinese like social credit system, which is one step away fro Uyghur dystopia!
Well put, but the only thing I really understand is that many who trumpet their newfound riches don't seem to do much else. They remind me of the Day Traders, LBO, IPO, and Housing Market nuts who skyrocketed and then burned up in the ether. Are there any similarities?
Yeah the "crypto bros" really do exist and in a weird paradoxical way they turn off everyday people from the space while padding their own pockets. Many burn out. It's not all glamour. But like an IG model there's a sizeable insufferable group.
Good update. Where did you get your data that Solana has more active users than Ethereum? I'd challenge that assertion without data to back it up. Example: https://tokenterminal.com/terminal/metrics/user-dau
Even that chart is misleading. All the L2s listed (Optimism, Arbitrum, Base, etc.) settle back on Ethereum. Tron leads because it is so cheap, and the rest of the world uses it for stable coins. No one is doing any "real" development there, but I wouldn't be surprised if that changed at some point.
I actually do expect Ethereum to flip Bitcoin, but it will take quite a while. Ethereum's economic model is superior, as is its security model with proof of stake. And, while I personally don't count its reduced energy consumption as much of a "plus," many others do. Most of the developers have abandoned Bitcoin. 10 years ago, you were going to be able to put smart contracts on the Bitcoin blockchain some day, and you were going to buy a cup of coffee with it. No so anymore. Where the developers go, so goes the development, eventually leading to "killer apps." We won't see killer apps on Bitcoin. Joe Lubin knows this quite well.
In a related note, I view the arrival of ETFs via Blackrock, Vanguard, Van Eck, etc., as a very negative development. These institutions first started to attract all the 401k and IRA investments in the 1980s. Now, they are the most powerful institutions in the world. Why? Because you own the shares of the underlying ETFs and mutual funds they offer; but they control the votes. That gives them effective control over all the Fortune 500 companies. What do they do with that control? Most prominently: ESG.
Now, they've got their hooks into Bitcoin and, soon, Ethereum and others. How long before they have enough control to influence these protocols (in Bitcoin's case, a finite set of large mining operations)? 'You know, we think KYC should be adopted, and it would be a shame if Bitcoin's price went down because we started allocating investor funds elsewhere.' or 'You know, we think Bitcoin consumes too much electricity, and it would be better if Bitcoin were proof-of-stake.' Could they exert such influence now? No. In 5 years when these ETFs are 20X larger? 50X larger? Are we to think that they would attempt to wield such influence over TradFi companies but they will be incapable (or unwilling) of doing so with crypto?
Last, the 21 million Bitcoin "hard cap" is not really a hard cap. People assert that it is because they argue that the community (node operators, miners, etc.) has a strong incentive to never agree to modify this aspect of Bitcoin's open source software. But, that's not an argument that the 21 million cap could "never" be changed. It could. https://river.com/learn/can-bitcoins-hard-cap-of-21-million-be-changed/ For example, if after many more halvenings, there's no mining reward, and transaction fees are an insufficient incentive to cause others to expend electricity to mine. I'm not saying this will happen. I'm simply saying, "things change," particularly with the arrival of large institutional players. Only the passage of time will determine whether Bitcoin's 21 million cap is maintained, but it's not a rule that is set in stone.
Wow! Great piece, but I worry about debasement through programmable CBDC and tokenization of property and stocks and shares is just a step away from digital ID passports and Chinese like social credit system, which is one step away fro Uyghur dystopia!