RT @Melt_Dem: couldn’t agree more - staking is a massive and complex topic! i’ll be sharing some of my views at @AragonProject’s #AraCon2019 next week! my talk is called “Power by Proxy: the Case for Crypto Cartels” 😈
couldn’t agree more - staking is a massive and complex topic! i’ll be sharing some of my views at @AragonProject’s #AraCon2019 next week! my talk is called “Power by Proxy: the Case for Crypto Cartels” 😈
1/ Hi @mikejcasey it's unfortunate that you characterize PoW as unsustainable while depicting PoS as the future of 'crypto' when PoS is not crypto, but, as you correctly describe, just traditional banking disguised as 'decentralization':
To be clear: This is NOT a column against proof of stake nor @ethereum's Casper. Compelling arguments for POS and DPOS exist. I just want to observe that large-scale staking-as-a-service seems inevitable and we should prepare for its ramifications https://t.co/18ocyFk24p
Someone should email the author about how Nano's DPoS implementation differs from the other mentioned coins and is superior. No fund locking, no transaction fees, no emergent centralization because there's no direct fee incentive to maximize profits, voting weight can be remotely redistributed at any time, etc.
Unlike many POS coins, NANO holders retain full control of their coins and the coin is unlikely to be exposed to the same evolution risk towards fractional banking as many of the other coins described in the article who use staking rewards.
There isn’t inherently anything wrong with banks. The problem is the government protections afforded to them. For example, the idea of a corporation is a creation of government to privatize profits and socialize losses. Before the invention of the corporation, bank owners were personally liable for going out of business, so they made much more conservative investments. I would argue it’s perfectly safe to leave your crypto on an exchange that’s insured. That being said, I don’t leave anything on exchanges. Not your keys, not your bitcoin.