There is no utility really, for ponzicoins. You can’t make anything from it. You can use it to make anything. You can’t eat it. You can’t hydrate with it. And you can’t use the notes to summon military aid.
Yes, for the limited subset of ERC20s or whatever you describe as “ponzicoins”. Things that actually do nothing, particular not doing anything more than L1 cryptos but “this is yet another token”, are not really adding any value. But I would be really surprised if you can name any more complex contracts than ERC20s (or ERC721s), which is where the work in the space actually goes.
Yes, work. Smart contracts are designed, programmed and, if they’re done right, rigorously audited for correctness. Then you have user-facing interface and everything surrounding that as well. Look at the documentation of AAVE, for one example.
And this isn’t even getting into the protocol level (L1 or L2) work either. Bitcoin was relatively simple, Ethereum is not. They’ve spent years crafting these systems to function for PoS, L2 support, sharding, rollups, etc., at scale.
They’ve spent years crafting these systems to function for PoS, L2 support, sharding, rollups, etc., at scale.
And all that time, they are still ponzi schemes that do none of the above very well. We’ve had all of that in the merchant payment systems for decades now, all without the need to consume more electricity than many small nations, just to approve a transaction.
What do they “make”? They control for the risks in social economic interaction with potentially adversarial parties. Ethereum is proof of stake, it doesn’t burn up tons of fossil fuels. And the contracts aren’t subject to human interpretation after being authored, they’re deterministic at the protocol level (save for the entire network deciding to revoke the contract).
Why are you making fundamental mischaracterizations of the technology while acting like an expert? What you’re doing is dishonest.
There is no utility really, for ponzicoins. You can’t make anything from it. You can use it to make anything. You can’t eat it. You can’t hydrate with it. And you can’t use the notes to summon military aid.
I suppose you can buy drugs with it. Maybe.
So yes, it’s a Greatest Fool game.
Yes, for the limited subset of ERC20s or whatever you describe as “ponzicoins”. Things that actually do nothing, particular not doing anything more than L1 cryptos but “this is yet another token”, are not really adding any value. But I would be really surprised if you can name any more complex contracts than ERC20s (or ERC721s), which is where the work in the space actually goes.
“Work”
Yes, work. Smart contracts are designed, programmed and, if they’re done right, rigorously audited for correctness. Then you have user-facing interface and everything surrounding that as well. Look at the documentation of AAVE, for one example.
And this isn’t even getting into the protocol level (L1 or L2) work either. Bitcoin was relatively simple, Ethereum is not. They’ve spent years crafting these systems to function for PoS, L2 support, sharding, rollups, etc., at scale.
What do these “smart contracts” make? And why do we need to burn up tons of fossil fuels, just to have contracts like we had before?
And how is this better than a typical contract?
https://www.zdnet.com/article/hackers-hijack-smart-contracts-in-new-cryptocurrency-token-rug-pull-scams/
Both are simple ponzi schemes.
And all that time, they are still ponzi schemes that do none of the above very well. We’ve had all of that in the merchant payment systems for decades now, all without the need to consume more electricity than many small nations, just to approve a transaction.
What do they “make”? They control for the risks in social economic interaction with potentially adversarial parties. Ethereum is proof of stake, it doesn’t burn up tons of fossil fuels. And the contracts aren’t subject to human interpretation after being authored, they’re deterministic at the protocol level (save for the entire network deciding to revoke the contract).
Why are you making fundamental mischaracterizations of the technology while acting like an expert? What you’re doing is dishonest.
So, they make nothing, and really serve no purpose but to insulate grifters from risk?
You’re not making a good case here…