RE: Synereo: The First True Social Computer?
Everyone should understand that there are 1.68 Billion AMP (Billion with a "B") in existence and only 62 Million AMP are tradable on the market, that’s only 3.7% of available AMPs accessible to the market, the remaining are controlled by Synereo:
Link to a discussion about outstanding AMP:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Synereo/comments/4z66ff/has_the_amp_supply_just_changed_recently/
Link the “official” Synereo Finances spreadsheet
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1r1G-ROS4vgHK84qfn1CBIxuXZQCCvIicCTQSxW1T_mo/edit#gid=1156984041
Link to omnichest showing 1.68 Billion total tokens:
http://omnichest.info/lookupsp.aspx?sp=39
Link showing only 62 million tokens are tradeable:
https://coinmarketcap.com/assets/synereo/
Seems like, whether intentional or not, the price is going to be controlled through artificial scarcity controlled by the Synereo group and this seems objectionable to me and I hope the community questions the Synereo group about this. (Once again I'm dismayed that yet another article does not mention these facts). The AMP price will go up and down according to Synereo's will, not the free market. If they burn all of their free tokens and put all available tokens into the market just like every other respectable crypto project then that would be acceptable. YES the project is very, very interesting and has some very great ideas, but the finances behind it are questionable at best.
Interesting man. I am looking for factual information about synereo and going over their whitepaper a little bit to learn more about it. The one problem they seem to ignore from my standpoint is the question of scalability. I am unsure how this scales and what is planned in terms of its capability to actually do what it says it will do. Unfortunately I am not yet able to find much talk about the actual scalability.
To be fair and honest (unlike much of what I read on steem about synereo being better than steem), I am not an expert on synereo so I am not yet certain such documentation on how it will scale does not exist, but still have not found it. If I overlooked something please let me know.
I mean let's face it. I don't care how great an idea is---if users will have to wait over 3-5 seconds for each action, it is not going to work. Additionally, if it cannot handle the volume of posting that Facebook could handle, then it will not compete with facebook. These are facts and though I appreciate @stellabelle's interest in these things, she has very little knowledge of blockchain tech from what I have seen and potentially risks her reputation talking about how synereo is better than steem without understanding the technicals.
Now I'm not trying to call stella out here. I'm just making a point that those who do not understand blockchain tech and have not spent years in it should be careful to write eloquent stories leveraging their reputation to talk about things they do not know for certain...as though they do have a sense of certainty.
Synereo is supposed to scale because of sharding and because anyone can host a node. It's not designed like a typical blockchain datastructure but instead is something else. The same person behind Casper (Ethereum's approach to scalability) is behind Synereo. The information isn't mentioned much in the whitepaper because the whitepaper is from 2015, but a lot of their discussions are on Youtube in the form of hangouts. I believe I posted some of the Casper discussions, and there are many many hangouts.
From what I recall they have a good design for scaling a social network, in some ways better than Graphene because it's more decentralized, because in theory it uses a proof of resource model where anyone can sell storage, or bandwidth, etc, but not enough hard data is known beyond theoretical. Sharding is a theoretical mechanism to achieve scalability, almost like load balancing, but until they produce actual statistics I will say it's unknown whether it will be better than Graphene. You would think that considering they can just look at Graphene and copy the best aspects of it, that they should at least be able to match Graphene, but you never know until the results come in.
References
I can't speak for @stellabelle or her post, but in my post I list the advantages which Synereo has over Steem. These are theoretical design advantages, and the main advantages are composability, but also a functional programming base. This allows Synereo to be very adaptable to change, modular, secure, but I'm not so sure if it's going to have better performance than Graphene which is why I did not list that as an advantage. I do think it will scale but I think they made a trade off to have maximum flexibility and security by going with certain choices, but this could cost in terms of performance because it's more generalized computation.
If Graphene is really specialized for performance, but Synereo is designed for flexibility, then it could evolve where Steemit is very fast but then you can't do as much with it, while Synereo is extremely flexible but not quite as fast. Synereo has to be fast enough to be compared to Facebook, it doesn't have to be faster than Steemit. I think that Synereo can achieve 1000 TPS, maybe more, but I know Graphene can theoretically do 1 million TPS.
References
Just to compare ; how big share of the total steem pie does all accounts of dan and ned + steemit hold? Over 50÷?
This is why I didn't like the distribution.
yes questionable indeed !! this is why this will not be as interesting as Steem as the people behind it i doubt will be as generous as Steemit in their reward system. So let them do it !! It helps us, but if they reward less, no one will run with their ball and come here......