> not worth supporting
Why not? Having open source protocols that compete with PayPal and VISA and aren’t funded and controlled by central states can be a positive thing.
Why not? Having open source protocols that compete with PayPal and VISA and aren’t funded and controlled by central states can be a positive thing.
Sure. That isn't what crypto has become. After ten years, it's fair to call it given the amount of fraud, dishonesty and resource misallocation. Again, not saying ban it. Just tax it, regulate it closely, and keep an eye on the folks doing it to make sure they're focussing on doing it abroad.
To what practical end?
I think exploration should continue. But in the academic, not product, space. Crypto has the potential to be toxic. Licensing regimes for potentially-toxic products is highly precedented.
> Having open source protocols that compete with PayPal and VISA and aren’t funded and controlled by central states can be a positive thing.
I personally like that there is another choice than just yet-another-centralized-and-cumbersome system.
Huge advancements in zero knowledge cryptography have been made in the last year. Ethereum activated Proof of Stake in September. New DeFi primitives are released regularly.
It's actually hard to keep up with all of the research and releases which is why your comment is so perplexing unless it was made in bad faith.
What people mean here is that general innovation is dead in token industry, finding a new niches, new industries. All attempts have dies in 2018 or so. Decentralized storage, decentralized compute (with blockchain), decentralized LoRaWan, decentralized identities, decentralized off-chain ownership and so on and so forth. All failed spectacularly.
The only innovation remaining is simply more advanced instruments for scammers and illegal finance operations. That is innovation, but not particularly interesting for mass market.