a16z Crypto
a16zcrypto.com
a16zcrypto.com
Instead, what a16z believes in is using their reputation to pump the tokens of their crypto investments. Next, they dump most of the tokens onto retail. a16z is in on the scam.
I've been extremely disappointed in Y Combinator bringing on Garry Tan as the CEO. I like him personally. I respect him. But he's a crypto shill. He made a very profitble investment in Coinbase, rode it to prominence, and now he thinks crypto is the hill to die on.
The worst thing is the human talent and energy resources wasted on crypto. Imagine if the billions were invested in useful products and services instead of pumping scams, ponzis, and other money schemes.
Go ahead. Put your house deed on the blockchain. Lose your key? Lose the ability to sell your house forever. Got hacked or phished and hacker transferred your deed? Get evicted the next day.
We have better systems in place for house deeds.
I don’t have a stake in the game either way (learned my lesson after gox), but being able to hoard your own digital gold all by yourself is genuinely new, and is at least one valuable use case. We’ll see if there are more, but it seems too early to tell.
Immutable decentralized ledgers are not useful for legal constructs like ownership, since in the current (and foreseeable) legal construct of property ownership is held by centralized records for which the state is the arbiter. This arbitration happens through either registries (for example, automobile, real estate, business ownership, etc), or through the courts. In order for blockchain technology to replace this legal construct in a meaningful way, there would need to a mechanism for a central authority to provide clear arbitration and resolution.
If the state can't meaningfully and authoritatively reassign those ownership rights through a legal process, then blockchain is simply a non-authoritative ledger, at which point it's existence is marginally useful since it is expensive, technically challenging to operate, and fraught with risk due to potential abuse cases from implementation errors.
This is one simple example, and doesn't dig into the fact that implementing laws as code is also problematic in countries where those laws can be rewritten by elected officials and courts.
Blockchain and bitcoin might become more useful in the future, but so far almost all blockchain uses that have gained traction have done so by grifters and the remora like folks who have attached to the bellies of the blockchain industry to enrich themselves while throwing around terms like legacy finance until their employers implode.
Investing in the ecosystem makes sense from a theoretical point of view. Personally I wouldn’t, but that’s due to personal preference rather than some fundamental disagreement with the tech vs society. Condemning others for investing at all always struck me as odd.
I’d say the impact of http on the world was pretty damn life changing by 2005. Linux? Fourteen years after it was released it had entirely disrupted not just the commercial Unix world but was on its way to becoming the most widely deployed operating system on the planet.
Bitcoin? Eh. I suppose ransomware authors would still be using green dot to try and collect their take if it hadn’t shown up. YouTube creators would have a harder time financing their passion without the sweet cash infusion from random vc backed crypto currency exchanges. Many quadrillion hashes would have sadly been skipped in the small chance they would have resulted in the correct number of leading zeroes.
It is clear at this point there is a multi-billion dollar market for cryptocurrencies that isn't going away (I choose my words carefully, I don't like the long term prospects of any particular token). Wild success and a use case has been demonstrated already, even if a lot of people don't like the idea that burning energy is its own reward. The world has changed substantially because of it.
I agree, the world has changed substantially because of cryptocurrencies. The amount of breathless hype has reached critical levels. As for use case, well, I hear that ransomware is now a multi billion dollar industry. Congratulations?
Fast forward to today, cryptocurrencies are just a twist on the existing financial system, which already has plenty of options for store of value, electronic trading, other things we have today in our networked world. You can argue how much of an improvement it brings (I think not much), but it is 100% not the killer value store that precious metals used to be in their heyday (when they had no alternatives).
House deeds won't be simple NFTs, there will have to be other parties that can move the deed to handle things like foreclosures and eminent domain. So if your hardware wallet burns down in the neighborhood wildfire you just get the county clerk to move it for you, much like if the physical deed burned in the same fire.
And title fraud is already a thing without DLTs, just listen to all the identity theft surveillance pitches.
So why the heck would you bother putting your house on a blockchain if you still need the county clerk and other entities?
Why use the blockchain at all then?
It's annoying when people throw non-obvious things in your face as absolute truths. Can you please explain why? Like, why, why, what kind of tangible benefit at all does putting a deed on the blockchain bring?
Compared or cash or anything else?
This seems like a scenario where there are other issues and blockchain isn’t really solving anything for you…
And if you get caught it’s all on the chain..
I'd imagine in those circumstances, once you are caught you are in trouble regardless of the medium of exchange once the authorities note you are doing something. Up to that point, something like Monero [0] probably mitigates the risk, they have some insanely good obfuscation happening to make it hard to figure out who is trading with whom.
Are people actually doing this? Finding it easier to flee with crypto?
When in reality it's only used to purchase benzos and child pornography and its use it easily detectable by authoritarian regimes that control the nation's internet infrastructure.
Any authoritarian regime that will ban transactions will also ban crypto.
Detecting its use is as easy as detecting TOR usage.
For instance, my country (UK) is not usually included in lists of authoritarian countries, but still all internet activity is logged and available to the authorities. Even for minor administrative disputes.
Tor is a useful tech and bad users, no matter their number, do not diminish that.
Crypto _has_ legit use cases (like you mentioned) and I hope it stays. But those use cases will never justify billions of dollars and this much resource, talent and energy poured to it (Usually to the benefit of a few, while costing clueless people their money)
Crypto could've been Bitcoin/Eth with a much smaller valuation and a healthy community and I'm sure most "anti crypto" people would've not been "anti crypto". It didn't have to be this big to have people against it. It could've been a technology we use like Venmo or IMAP. Something that solves some use cases.
Not disputing that there’s a lot of scams and shady operators, but that kind of goes with the territory of subversive technology.
I don't remember the source tweet anymore, but a lot of the interest in crypto from software engineers comes from the belief that most challenges that can be solved with technology have become political problems, and that there's a "why even bother?" mentality because the bureaucrats have made it unappealing to press forward.
You mean like Twitter, Meta, and TikTok? Even though 99% of crypto is scams, I prefer people working on figuring out a better financial system than figuring out more ways to steal human attention and get people addicted to ads. Probably crypto will crash and burn and not succeed, but I'd rather take that chance instead of building better addiction engines for our children.
Just look at the top SV companies. Do you really believe they are such a positive to humanity?
The problem with crypto scams is that they don't usually require some novel engineering work, but rather con artistry on top of well-known, open cryptocurrency technologies.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I think this is an unsupported claim, that also happens to be factually false.
Bubbles have come and go in the past and have ruined those who have been leveraged in their foolish stubborn future.
Unlike the Internet, which novelty quickly exploded into useful utilities that power much of our modern reality, blockchain, crypto have after 10+ years proven they are void pits of brining out the worst in people: greed.
It's sad that internet's earliest pioneer's endeavours and character have been building up to commit the biggest grift in human history.
Have a bottle of screaming eagles that I will open when Marc goes to prison after the politicians look for people to execute publicly when millions of its voters demand justice. Although I question whether such justice will be carried out in our modern America.
"All our heroes are counterfeit, the world itself is just one big ponzi"
https://newsletters.theatlantic.com/galaxy-brain/62ba500cbcb...
I can agree- or see something real- in the stated prospectus around web3, that there is untapped potential in decentralizing the siloed services that dominated the last decade. BUT, I mostly see this as rectifying the decisions of bigtech where value is captured and untapped value can be identified.
However, the portfolio appears to be a never-ending list of competing protocols and "pickaxes." I fail to see how an investor with a zero-to-one prospectus can stomach this. Additionally, most of the product pages offer a smorgasbord of philosophy-as-a-service that I simply do not grok can be aligned with customer need for someone who is not already a believer. There is a frightening lack of use cases offering something to internet denizens (ye olde end-user) beyond some gaming demos, an area where web-first portals (kongregate, armor games, newgrounds) have nigh evaporated.
If that was the year they invested, it was probably hugely profitable.
Back then, the crypto market cap was at around $350B. Now it is at around $850B. Up 142%.
If their investments went up by the same factor, that would be an annualized ROI of about 25%. Which would mean they outperformed the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq 100 by a good margin.
However, so far it seems that if Bitcoin, and its decentralized cohort, are truly foundational, to the next generation of technologies, then they have clearly succumbed to a far worse fate than that of something like email.
Having skipped directly from nascency to the point where it is characterized by its abusers, it seems never to have arrived at the very necessary phase of being generally useful.
Part of me still hopes that he is right, but that future seems out of sight for now.
It's pretty hard to a16z and Marc seriously these days after they turned into full on crypto-shills