There is such a problem: producers don’t have the opportunity to get a correct and up - to - date appraisal of their property, so as a result, banks undervalue the collateral assets in order to minimize their risks.
The KNL platform reduces risks by providing a 100% guarantee to the investor in the form of repayment of the investment.
Ethereum is indeed a software experiment. The important part, is buying the proper hardware, to install a full Ethereum node. This is the heart of the security model. This is a decentralized software system; Nothing else matter. Once done, we can focus on the next step, removing any 'single point of failure'. Having a king is a massive 'single point of failure'. Decentralization must be proven, and can't be imposed from top to bottom.
If people only buy ETH at an exchange, and never try the software. They are just expecting an increase in price, on the next buzzword pump. This thing will go nowhere. At the end, this was just another dead shitcoin!
Kind of missing the point. Bitcoin is what you say when you talk to noobs because there's a chance they've heard it before. No need to explain another thing in a hearing they probably already confused af about. This is about regulatory context, what applies to Bitcoin will also apply to Ethereum. This is not a beauty contest about which project is better. Well maybe it is for Libra about why we shouldn't burn it to the ground. This is not about publicity, very few people watch it that are not already involved in the space. Bitcoin has paved the way for all of the space and they rightly deserve the publicity and price development etc. Ethereum will have to convince though the endless application and flexibility build on top of it of which i have zero doubt a lot will succeed. Value will come through that type of usage, not by being paraded in front by itself.
As far as I remember, Ethereum was 'software decentralization'; And from the beginning Bitcoin was 'hard money' decentralization.
You can't expect the use cases of Bitcoin to apply on Ethereum. Ethereum is a different beast. Money is a winner take all game; Software decentralization is not. Bitcoin will compete with FIAT and Gold; Ethereum will not.
Its ok - the powers that be are shitting bricks over the thought of a currency outside of their control. Its probably better if they don't understand that we are also building full fledged financial services in the same way.
Most these people in congress are absolutely clueless or have an insanely rudimentary understanding of crypto and Bitcoin in general. You can't get them to base two without them crossing base 1. This is just the beginning so no sense in adding even more layers of complexity to the space especially while Bitcoin is still king.
You're right. At some point someone high enough is going to look at DeFi and (hopefully) a widely used zk-snark (or stark) shielded pool for anonymity and throw an enormous fit. DeFi + anonymity is worse than Brad Sherman's worst nightmare about bitcoin
The 'Bitcoin' cryptocurrency class, is the only one where the monetary policy is definitive, and can't be changed by anyone. Roger Ver, and Bitmain, tried to undermine the properties and failed. This leads to antifragile, genuinely decentralized, or full 'tustlessness' properties.
Bitcoin is a protocol. People care. A lot of people run their full node, and nobody can't add random/stupid commit to the code. Now, the Bitcoin's native reverse-polish language gives its full potential with 'Lightning', as a second layer.
Ethereum on the other hand; Nobody run their full node. Nobody cares about the software code. People have their funds on the exchanges, and fear to run anything by themselves . Ethereum is fragile, Ethereum is a company, and is nowhere to become a protocol. Ethereum is older now, and everything is still the same. Ethereum people must look at Bitcoin. They are definitively missing something.
LN operates flawlessly; And we have today 3 implementations. This is the only breakthrough in this space for the last 3 years.
On the economic side, the Gresham's law is the reason why LN will never be used extensively, in the years to come. But LN is here, and ready, for the future.
Lumping all cryptocurrencies as a single asset would be a great and disastrous mistake.
It would be like saying all investment assets to be all treated the same, land, heirlooms, priceless object/art, precious metals, antiques... all the same.
Cryptocurrencies have many different usages and applications. Each one needs to be treated individually.
Pushing for governments to treat all cryptos the same way as BTC is an injustice to other cryptos that are aiming to accomplish more than just be a digital number with a $value.
For a lot of people who are in this field for years. Only one thing matter: 'hard money'. Everything that can't be 'hard money' is useless and worthless. And only Bitcoin is 'hard money' and will be 'hard money' in this field. The book 'The Bitcoin Standard' explains the whole story. Sh\*tcoin in a sense, is a pejorative way to quickly explain the same story again and again.
But here we are. We all know that Ethereum is 'software decentralization'. Ethereum never had as objective to compete with Bitcoin, and can't compete with Bitcoin on the 'hard money' side anyway. To be useful Ethereum has just to prove that software decentralization, and software anti-censorship is not a vaporware. To be realistic this objective is not yet fully achieved. But Ethereum is still there and the future will tell.
She owns some ethereum and other coins that aren't bitcoin. But I get what you are saying. She very much is about self publicizing and positioning herself as an "expert" or rather a go-to media figure. She will position herself wherever the media focuses on. Shitcoins in the past, Bitcoins today, Ethereum tomorrow. I also understand the value of connections and I don't think it is in our best interest to ostracize her. Not that you are doing that btw.