You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: It's a very bad idea to power down or sell Steem right now
your defense is it’s not built..but it purports to be general purpose in handling of pricing..this isn’t hard
your defense is it’s not built..but it purports to be general purpose in handling of pricing..this isn’t hard
...i think it is hard and I could most certainly be wrong about a great many things. However, only part of my defense is that EOS is not built.
I'm not sure what you mean by, nor what your criticism is of EOS being general purpose in handling of pricing. Please could you elaborate?
I think you mean that EOS's economic model will be difficult to predict and at risk of instability if dapp tokens and sub-tokens have too much latitude in terms of configuration.
Even if that were the case, I would rather build complexity and scope for flexibility onto a network with a better core token distribution. I think that is a far greater issue and risk to the economic incentives governing behaviour and stability than being general purpose. With a more solid foundation, tolerances for dapps and sub-tokens will be far easier to establish and adjust. Not only that, the relationship between the layers and the flow of value will be more distinct and stable with a broader distribution.
Tell me what EOS can do which Tezos, Cardano, Tauchain, Enigma, and other upcoming technologies can't do? EOS has a lot of competition in my opinion.
I accept that it is difficult to distinguish between these projects on what they say they will be able to do. However, when I look at where each project is today, the projects that have been delivered before by the chief architects and the current management teams, EOS stands out by a mile.
Charles Hoskinson has a track record of success just like Dan Larimer. History, Charles and Dan were the original founders behind Bitshares. It was also Charles Hoskinson who was one of the original founders behind Ethereum. Just like with Dan Larimer, he has a tendency to leave projects but it doesn't change his history of being behind successful launches.
So Cardano is a legit competitor to EOS and I see no brain power advantage. Dan Larimer may be a better programmer than Charles Hoskinson but Charles is a better communicator, bizdev and organizer. Then you have Tezos which I admit has an unproven team but they still have a lot of money, and then there is Tauchain and Enigma. Enigma has the brainpower to be equal to EOS in my opinion but comes from academia rather than legit experience in crypto. Tauchain also has a lot of brainpower as I've been involved with that and can make that statement but Tauchain is a moon shot, very ambitious, and development is very slow.
I don't think EOS has the advantage you think it does is my conclusion.
Fair enough. I was around for the days of invictus innovations so I know about the history, but thank you. Everyone is going to interpret things differently and that is fine. I accept I could be wrong about the relative chances and status of different projects but I only have so much time. I've done my due diligence and it tells me that supporting EOS, especially given it's stated goals, is the best choice. I wish the other projects all the success, especially Tauchain.
This discussion originated in EOS's capabilities relative to Steem though :) Do you believe ned's assertion that Steem has an advantage where SMT's are concerned? Do you think the Steem token distribution and negative effects should be resolved before increasing the complexity of the economics.....if they can be?
Nonetheless, they have an automatic in with the MIT network, which is a significant advantage that could compensate...