Disclosure: I am co-director of Research Development at Protocol Labs.
There’s constant large amount of coins printed for the team and their VC’s in which they can sell on a daily basis to dump the market. Also new coins being owed to the miners are periodically unlocked as well (in FIL it’s like a ponzi, you gotta wait for your rewards to be unlocked after many months to take everything out). Basically too many coins can be sold daily, very little demand, real use case, or hype.
As far as the people actually using it, you can check it out here[1] We have about 18 Exabytes of space on the network, adding nearly 2+ PiB a day of new deals (people storing things). You can see a bunch of the important datasets being added here[2], replicated, universally available and uncensorable. If you see value in that, that's great! If you don't and have more feedback, we're here to help! If you hate us or want another solution, that's cool too!
[1] https://filfox.info/en [2] https://slingshot.filecoin.io/explore
> There’s constant large amount of coins printed for the team and their VC’s
But you can answer on this part without addressing the price. Is this claim factual?
Is this due to a small number of peers purchasing additional storage? When a new peer joins the network, are you able to estimate the expected number of bytes that peer will contribute to the network over its lifetime? Basically, can you calculate the “LTV” of an IPFS/Filecoin peer? (Let’s say “V” is “net storage,” i.e. the difference between storage contributed and storage consumed.)
[0] http://162.55.187.75:3000/d/CSQsORs7k/nebula?orgId=1&viewPan...
As a web3 newbie trying to tell apart the wheat from the chaff, I'd love to see more explanation or evidence for either your or @sub7's claims. Do you have any pointers?
Payments for IPFS storage isn't a horrible idea, but it needs to be done in a normal way using real money, without the speculative tokens.
And so in order to make the business successful for them and their investors they do whatever is legally okay. Which is right now: anything. Hence why we see rug pulling, insider trading, money laundering, ponzi schemes, fraud and ultimately gambling.
In the real world, all those things you described are illegal in most places. So the only way they've gotten around that is by setting up this fake system, lying to people and telling them it's real and charging them real money to use it, and then when they get pressed by regulators they admit it's fake again.
This is a new feature set that was not available before. In practice it has enabled the emergence of a core set of highly reputable DeFi apps - MakerDAO, Compound, Aave and Uniswap - that have managed billions of dollars worth of digital assets and not malfunctioned in the recent market crash, while several centralized lenders and investment funds did.
>>and then when they get pressed by regulators they admit it's fake again.
This has never happened AFAIK. The opposite - of projects taking the credible position that they don't control the protocol because it is autonomous and immutable - has happened, as in the case of Uniswap Labs vis-a-vis the Uniswap protocol.
For decentralized/genuine DeFi apps, like MakerDAO, Compound, Aave and Uniswap, as opposed to centralized ones like Ripple, I don't expect this position to ever be challenged by regulatory agencies, because in reality, these protocols cannot be shut down or changed by any party.
Specifically about FileCoin, if I understand you correctly, your only gripe is that it uses cryptocurrency right? If I got that wrong, let me know.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
> Payments for IPFS storage isn't a horrible idea, but it needs to be done in a normal way using real money, without the speculative tokens.
That's what Filecoin is attempting to do. That's the wheat that you declared to be nonexistent, on the basis of arbitrarily deeming speculation on cryptocurrencies to be bad while ignoring the rampant speculation on "real money" (see also: the very existence of forex markets).