DAN LARIMER IS A GENIUS: His Life Quest For Crypto's Fairest Algorithm...

Hello Steemians,

I'm sure that statement "Dan is a genius" doesn't come as a surprise to anyone reading this. But if per chance it does then allow me some minutes of your time to show you a glimpse into the thought-processes that make him a genius.

My usage of the G-word is not to be taken lightly as "geek". I use that term sparingly to describe those who in the process of evolving have also affected human life in the most positive ways possible.

Steve Hawkings is a genius! Get it? Well, you don't need to be a genius to understand the influence of a man who devoted all his brain as a proof that mind-is-over-matter. R.I.P to the great man! You wanna know more? Go read more about him.

Today is for Dan Larimer, the son of Stan Larimer. 2 persons who have single-handedly contributed more to the cryptoeconomics than Satoshi himself. Moreso, that closed circles have propounded that Dan could be Satoshi or at least that Dan knows Satoshi on a personal level.

Either way, its not a joke to build a decentralized exchange like Bitshares, go on to build something as bold as the steem blockchain and now head on to a new project which is set to be the first crypto operating system.

Btw: his genius has even left us all wondering the full meaning of EOS with many nick-naming it Ethereum On Steroids. For me really, I have a feeling it may have something to do with Exemplary Operating System, who knows.

---

His life mission is to set examples!

I read his medium blog post about the limits of cryptoeconomic governance and his quest to find the most possible ideal considering humanity, freedom, community participation and a certain failure capacity.

I like him because he accepts that humans are inherently bad and he gives that gap for it in his designs. Making an argument for DPOS algorithm, he considers it the lesser of all the evils amongs proof of work and proof of stake.

If you are unwilling to trust any group of people to make judgments over subjective matters, then that implies that you are relying on artificial intelligence.

He give people the opportunity to govern their crytoeconomics and not relegate their brain work to bots and AI. Its happening in Ethereum already with their governance procedure. Dan openly disagrees with Vitalik Buterin (Ethereum Founder) on this.

---

This leaves us asking, "what about steemit 2.0?"

Well, he made it explicit that his problem is vote-buying when he said that,

The community I want to participate in will expel the rent-seeking vote-buyers and reward those who use their elected broadcasting power for the benefit of all community members rather than special interest groups (such as vote-buyers). I have faith that such a community will be far more competitive in a market competition for mindshare than one that elects vote buyers.

He's indirectly suggesting that we may all need to sit up for something big may be on the way. I'm not one to pick sides but in a speculative cryptoeconomy, all we do is speculate and hope that our speculations are right.

As the blockchain technology keep evolving, the corrupt systems will be flushed out by the community while the systems that can stand the test of trustworthiness, equity and a certain level of difficulty for gaming survives.

The future of steem doesn't depend on SMTs alone.

I cannot end an article about Dan without mentioning steem. I believe this is his brain child as well. He only wants a better equity for all the people (less the Judas among the 12).

We want that too. Cryptocurrency is set to be a commonly used commodity in the nearest future. Infact, not having them will be like not having oxygen. Its exciting that we are among the early adopters and steem shows us the way to do that.

However, we must build this platform to encompass everyone. Money is in few hands. Once there's equitable distribution of resources on this platform, then we are halfway through the process of truly changing the world. This maybe Dan's greatest pinch with this blockchain. Are we being censored? Are we codedly centralized?

When your life quest is to be fair, then you always make statements like this:

The only way to maintain the integrity of a community is for the community to have control over its own composition. This means that open-entry systems built around anonymous participation will have no means expelling bad actors and will eventually succumb to profit-driven corruption.

Where are we on the map of Dan's mind? That's your food-for-thought!

---

_{CHECKOUT @TASKMASTER4450'S POST ON A SIMILAR SUBJECT MATTER HERE.}