Hacker News Reader

Comment by disruptalot | Hacker News Reader

It's truly incredible that people still confidently proclaim that there is "no use case" today.

Because of the technical nature of the underlying tech, it's hard for the average individual to recognise how and why it's different. However, it's not possible to explain away the particular applications and their properties.

Here are 2 use cases which are live and working today:

-Taking a collaterised USD loan without permission or interference from a third party.

- Creating a public digital object which lives forever and can be exchangeable and extendable without a third party involved.

The immediate response from critics then is to question the validity of the use case. But that requires to admit that the use case is there.

View on HN

Presumably you’re talking about a loan against an NFT or other crypto asset. But taking a loan against a financial asset is already really easy. Does loaning against a house, car or stock portfolio get any easier with crypto? I don’t see how.

The digital object in your second example is just a hyperlink or a hash, because the digital object itself won’t fit on the blockchain. And there is no link between digital and meat space identity, which means it’s exchangeable but not between people.

This is the perfect example of a critic response and exactly the phenomenon I'm describing.

On 1, you're somehow conveniently ignoring the "without permission or interference from a third party.". I never mentioned against a car, stock, or house. Nonetheless the functionality still exists. Using ETH or other crypto assets. It gets so much easier. Have you tried it? No talking to advisors, no documents, no discriminatory requirements. Pretty much 1 click and 30 seconds. Fully expect the next question of validity "aha! Well that's against a useless asset!".

2nd example. Yes it can be a hyper link or a hash, is there something particularly wrong with that? The use case I described has still been achieved, it's a digital object. Are you really questioning that people exchange assets using a digital identity? I'm not sure how that invalidates the use case.

By the way you're incorrect that digital objects don't fit on the Blockchain. First it depends which Blockchain. Second, there are some objects that do fit. Look at ENS. A domain name, address mapping fits on the chain. That is an NFT. That exists today.

> without permission or interference from a third party

Aren’t other nodes the third parties?

If you are talking automated loan, you should look into credit lines backed by assets. Pledge assets lines. Once open, it’s fully automated and you don’t need to interact with a third party either.

They can't interfere with what you want to do. They could try to prevent you from interacting for a while but it would be futile. There are heavy disencentives, and decentralised enough. Which is why this has basically never happened. Talking strictly bitcoin and Ethereum here.

In honesty I have no experience with a pledge asset line but I can guarantee you that if the institutions involved in conducting it wanted to, they could cancel it on you anytime. With a correctly coded smart contract on Ethereum, you could ensure that never happens.

One system requires trust in third parties. One gives you the option to design a system to minimise or eliminate it.

PAL is 1-2 clicks once they are open. And you borrow a lot at a very low interests. You might lose your stocks though if the market goes down too much.

Please note that the lack of paperwork in Ethereum just means you borrow or loan money in a way that might be not legal. I am all for removing redtape here.

>>The immediate response from critics then is to question the validity of the use case. But that requires to admit that the use case is there.

This comment assumes that the world == the developed world. Crypto offers borderless access that does not exist in today's world for many millions of people. In my country, getting a loan is near impossible, but no one can stop people from taking a loan against their ETH or stablecoins

I could already easily get uncollaterised loan, just a text message away...

And if I have a collateral in form of fungible crypto why do I need to loan against it? Specially when I could just sell it and use the money...

Because you're taking a loan against it, duh. Therefore you want to keep it. Just like taking a line of credit against your house. You don't sell your house immediately.

But you can't use it to buy stuff. You can use a house.

Thirst one…link? And still less efficient then Cryptofree technologie. Second thats how crypto works … thats not a use case cryptobro ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com