OMG I WAS THINKING THAT TOO š
but yeah itās more anthropological than economic. doesnāt use the word or concept of ācapitalā as far as I can recall.
Any good writing on open source software as a capital stock?
cc nostr:npub1sfhflz2msx45rfzjyf5tyj0x35pv4qtq3hh4v2jf8nhrtl79cavsl2ymqt nostr:npub1m7fjc8z7t00jzrgkfm4kzvnv4chf04rq9ykpke0rpe0ke2kud24qmg0l4p nostr:npub13l3lyslfzyscrqg8saw4r09y70702s6r025hz52sajqrvdvf88zskh8xc2
Working In Public by Nadia Eghbal (since married and name changed to Asparouhova) is pretty much the only resource on this Iāve ever been aware of (besides Bitcoin Is Venice, obvs š)
fun fact: Iāve had on my to-do list for a while - but also *to be done* in a while, so no rush - to reach out to her and offer to contract to do a deep dive for Axiom on the overlap of Bitcoin and FOSS, ideally as a follow-on to her great book.
I was thinking you could have distinct and interesting sections on Core, Lightning, BTCPayServer, LNBits, and Nostr ā¦
pretty lit season of selling sunset if I donāt say so myself. already tingling with anticipation for S8 š
great idea from this random anon nostr:note1vedysr359wgm92xdyr77j8jea0ksfx8cq74ahey6sg4waygr6qnq0eedjz
nostr:npub1h8nk2346qezka5cpm8jjh3yl5j88pf4ly2ptu7s6uu55wcfqy0wq36rpev the word you were looking for was GAUGE THEORY cc nostr:npub1sfhflz2msx45rfzjyf5tyj0x35pv4qtq3hh4v2jf8nhrtl79cavsl2ymqt
omg so embarrassing when Guy forgets about gauge theory. itās like, how many times a week does this have to happen?
every couple of months I am suddenly sad that I still donāt own a kazoo š¢
so Iām gathering my thoughts for Only The Strong Survive v2 - which may or may not ever actually happen, fyi - and I have a theory about crypto I wanna run past the good people of nostr.
in my mind the following explains a few things handily: i) why so many smart and seemingly well-intentioned people work in crypto; ii) the nature of the legitimate innovation to have come out of that ecosystem that the people in i) are attracted to; iii) why cryptobros are either mad or confused that bitcoiners donāt take i) and ii) more seriously, and; iv) why despite all the above, bitcoiners are basically *still right* to not take it seriously.
I really like this theory but tbh what worries me is that itās basically *too elegant*. Iām sure the reality is much messier so Iād appreciate picking holes in it. here goes:
***
there are 3 use cases for crypto: scams, stablecoins, and R&D.
- scams are scams, Iāve written literally hundreds of pages on this so I donāt feel like elaborating much here.
- everybody knows what stablecoins are but hereās where it gets interesting: I think they have no technical merit but they have massive commercial merit (Iāll elaborate on both shortly)
- by R&D I mostly mean the (truly!) cutting edge cryptography and distributed systems research going into zero-knowledge systems for āscaling.ā These have massive technical merit but no commercial merit.
***
now hereās what I mean by all that:
by āno technical meritā I mean that stablecoins have central issuers. you *can* issue them as blockchain tokens but you really donāt need to. the issuer could quite literally run a database with some straightforward public key signature schemes for transfers and it would make minimal operational difference. the fact Tron is the most heavily used for this is testament to this point: it is barely even pretending not to be a database. for whatever stupid reason, this works as regulatory arbitrage because regulators are retards and this is iNnOvAtIon that is spared their violence, but, again, it has no technical merit.
by ācommercial meritā I mean that this is *extremely widely used and valued* as a means of providing dollarized shadow banking to countries with absolute joke fiat currencies. while cryptobros love pointing to this and many bitcoiners tie themselves in knots explaining it away, I see it as essentially unrelated to bitcoin. clearly there is a superficial connection, but you could create any superficial connection you like by shoving a blockchain into somewhere it doesnāt belong, and regulatory-arbitrage-induced massive commercial success doesnāt change that more fundamental analysis one bit (fyi, highly recommend nostr:npub185h9z5yxn8uc7retm0n6gkm88358lejzparxms5kmy9epr236k2qcswrdpās take on this on recent(ish) TFTC - he goes into more detail than I have space to here)
ātechnical meritā is self-explanatory, but the circumstances are worth appreciating: currently itās only really in Ethereum that you can permissionlessly experiment with pretty much unboundedly computationally complex cryptographic schemes that operate on real value, which is attractive to (basically) academics if you want to try things out in the wild rather than just in papers on ArXiv.
buuuuuuut ⦠by āno commercial meritā I, of course, mean that the āvalueā being played with is nonsense. there is tens/hundreds of billions of dollars (cycle-stage-dependent) of value at stake to play around with, but there shouldnāt be because the *underlying systems* make no technical or economic sense and the value is only sustained until there are no greater fools and/or the pump and dump funds at the root of it all reach the end of their lives.
***
finally, hereās how the contrasting attitudes break down:
cryptobros are mad bitcoiners donāt like stablecoins because they have clear commercial merit, so why would you ignore that? and they are mad bitcoiners donāt like the crypto R&D because it has clear technical merit so why would you ignore that? if you are happy with technical merit but no commercial merit, or vice versa, itās easy to convince yourselves bitcoiners are recalcitrant, closed-minded, tribal, dogmatic, or whatever else, and just kidding themselves about what has been achieved in ex-bitcoin crypto (and of course, they conveniently ignore the scams as something like ācollateral damageā or āusing this tool for evil rather than goodā or whatever, rather than actually pretty core to the whole thing)
buuuuuuuut ⦠bitcoiners are either ambivalent on or outright reject both because they lack the half that makes it worthwhile. bitcoin has technical *and* commercial merit, therefore is worth working on.
so the bitcoinerās attitude (also mine, hence the above is obviously going to be biased in this direction) is, roughly: you can work on stablecoin and stablecoin-adjacent tech and finance if you like, but, even if itās massively commercially successful, itās kinda LARPy because it doesnāt even really have anything to do with āblockchainsā and, once the state catches on to the larpiness of the iNnOvAtIoN, it lacks the technical merit to resist that obvious attack. likewise you can work on crypto R&D if you want, but if you are building it all on a self-referential house of sand (/cards? not sure which metaphor I prefer) you are likely wasting your time in the long-run. you are building ways of manipulating value that we can say with near certainty will no longer exist on a long-enough time horizon. maybe youāre okay with that but probably you just havenāt thought it through carefully enough.
***
there are interesting follow-ups here as to whether either stablecoins or R&D (i.e the stuff with partial but incomplete merit) could or should be brought to bitcoin, but this note is long enough and, besides, Iām aiming at an accurate analysis rather than a normatively motivated prescription, so maybe some other time.
Iāll note before ceding the floor to questions or comments that I arrived at this by pattern recognition from a shockingly large number of the founders I speak to in my day job. Iād guesstimate 1/3 of them came from crypto, and 90% of *them* gave some variation of one of the two explanations above as to what was lacking and why they moved, all of which they independently realized after working on [whatever] for long enough. Iām open to there being some massive sampling bias in that source of info, but I thought it was worth throwing in by way of justifying that I didnāt just make all this up. I mostly just observed and codified ā¦
LIFT THINGS UP AND PUT THEM DOWN!
5+!
nothing to do with bitcoin epochs; it comes from tradfi funding horizons.
Wtf, sorry, this was meant for nostr:npub1sfhflz2msx45rfzjyf5tyj0x35pv4qtq3hh4v2jf8nhrtl79cavsl2ymqt @ note1f6vzun8y0pz65vk9tqnzprpffca40f03hzn4r3nk5w44f0gf0ncqduhl9c
Fuxkker is probably drunk
millenial lower case bruh
good tip š
