Hacker News Reader

Comment by mgraczyk | Hacker News Reader

This is true and matters, but there is a key difference that affects our sense of justice and morality.

Coinbase didn't create Ethereum, and the vast majority of Ethereum stakeholders are not apps on the app store. The fact that ETH gas is mostly unrelated to Coinbase and the app store should also matter in determining how we feel about this.

View on HN

Even if Coinbase created ethereum and gas went directly to their wallet, would that be any different than Chase collecting a fee when I send a wire using their mobile app? Does Apple collect 30% of bank fees that are the results of actions taken within the various bank's apps? Does Apple charge Venmo a portion of the bank fees that are a part of the stransaction when users transmit money between each other?

Sending dollars is not the same thing as trading NFTs.

The latter is essentially similar to pseudo-gambling in-app purchases like loot boxes, of which Apple certainly takes their cut.

Strawman.

Besides, I can go gamble my money on stock options via Robinhood, but Apple doesn’t take a cut of that.

You start off saying "this is true and matters", but then describe a bunch of reasons it's not true. What are you saying?

No, reread. Both are true, both matter. It's true that apple would not allow the scheme described. It's true that it's similar to gas on Ethereum. But there are also differences that are important.

I read you. Their analogy only "matters" if it closely aligns with the Coinbase situation. It makes no sense to say the comment "is true and matters" if it doesn't work by the same logic ("important differences"). You could say it's "true" that Apple wouldn't tolerate the proposed scheme, but it doesn't matter if no one actually does that. With the failure of the analogy one of "true" and "matters" will be wrong.

I guess I'm using the word "matters" differently. I'm using "matters" to mean, "we ought to consider this when we think about the justice or morality of the situation". Similar to "relevant" or "useful".

I guess we agree on substance, then, and I just think you used a confusingly mild and conciliatory phrasing for criticizing an obviously, shall we say, silly analogy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com