While I'll never vote Republican I don't see myself voting Biden this time. He got my vote to unseat the cheeto last time but his administration's antagonism towards financial markets along with his outdated stance on things like policing (more cops with no reform) and cannabis legalization (just no) along with him pushing a CBDC (programmable digital dollar that removes all privacy and places all control in the hands of the banking elite) have lost him my vote. I'll be wasting my vote on a third party since a worthy Dem primary challenge is highly unlikely.
NecroSocial
joined 1 year ago
Not all cryptocurrencies are deflationary. Yes the deflationary model encourages holding/discourages spending however for some projects this is a desired outcome based on the utility the coin/token is aiming to provide.
Additionally deflationary crypto can act as a hedge against inflation, hyperinflation, and stagflation. The decreasing supply can counteract inflationary pressure caused by externalities like government policies and economic shake ups.
cryptos like BTC or ETH that can be mined with ASICs
ETH moved to proof of stake, no more POW mining needed.
The intrinsic value of any art is what someone is willing to pay for it.
For example the world’s most expensive NFT, The Merge by digital artist Pak, sold for $91.8 million. Its price was higher than the sale of Jeff Koon’s Rabbit, the most expensive artwork by a living artist at auction. It's all about personal tastes and how deep folks wanna dig in their pockets with this stuff.
The truly decentralized portions of the market can't be directly regulated. A feature not a bug as the point of decentralization is a trustless environment with no overlords, middlemen or gatekeepers.
The places regulation can touch are endpoints: fiat on/off ramps, legal entities (companies, orgs) operating in the space, people's freedoms in regards to the ability to interact with crypto etc. Regulating those endpoints in an attempt to manage the decentralized interior requires a level of nuance and respect for people's privacy and liberty that first-world governments have so far yet to demonstrate.
In lieu of sweeping regulations (which can have many downsides), the "web3" industry would be well served to get it's act together internally with tech solutions to problems like rug pulls, scam tokens, wash trading and such. The example of fiat markets shows such problems can't be completely eliminated but if tech solutions can eliminate just some or most of them that'd make the playing field safer by orders of magnitude.
Note to any unware: "Trustless" in this sense means the ability to transact without having to "trust" any outside authority to regulate, allow or manage the transaction for you. Everything programmatically handled and equally open to inspection and validation by all involved.
...is there any solution to prevent scalping?
Built-in price ceiling and verifiability. Resales could be limited or completely forbidden as well.
Just wanted to mention fractionalized NFTs are a thing. That "can't be subdivided" part doesn't hold for all types.
There would be too much value in tracking that token for such a scheme to stay secure. Governments or shady corporations or illegal black markets or all of the above would be all over keeping tabs on what sites are visited by which tokens and matching them to identities.
I just left the following comment on the article:
So, just to recap, don't use Brave Browser because:
Its CEO & a shareholder hold right-wing political views
It pays users (who opt-in) crypto (whereas other browsers pay users nothing)
It has an ad model (that you neglect to mention also pays users crypto for viewing ads)
It once allowed users with (pre-existing) FTX accounts to link them via a widget
It partners with Gemini (to allow users to offload/exchange the BAT they've earned, not mentioned)
Gemini has an SEC case (part of the SECs crypto witch hunt which includes a failed case vs XRP)
Crypto(dot)com faced layoffs during a bear market
And the first ever Web3 gaming expo had low attendance?
Your arguments are truly weak. I don't even use Brave as my main Browser, but I'll likely be using it more often now literally because this article annoyed me that much. Also FWIW I'm a liberal and member of the LGBTQ+ community, I detest that Eich would donate to prop 8 but I also respect that we live in a country where people will have vast political differences and still be able to see past those things and interact without demonizing and trying to cancel each other.
As for that ad replacement model they abandoned, I can kinda see what the thinking was there: The browser is going to block site's ads regardless, and the browser is going to show its own ads to users who opt into earning BAT for viewing ads regardless. So why not combine those things and replace site's ads with Brave's ads? I can see how they would have been high fiving in the office thinking that was a win/win until the problems were loudly and angrily pointed out to them by others.
In any event Brave serves a niche market segment that no one else is focusing on at the moment, problematic politics of some executives aside, that's a thing that'll have legs so long as no competition (with perhaps better exec political leanings) rises to challenge them.
Just my 2 pesos, don't kill me.
IMO it seems RECs are a better solution than carbon taxes at least in situations like this. With RECs you're buying renewable energy to offset non-renewables, with a carbon tax the company is just giving the government money for use of non-renewables. Only funds spent on RECs in this case actually go to supporting the renewable energy sector. I'm no expert in this stuff so I could be off, just how I understand it.