Vitalik: Ethereum is not in a good place.

avatar

ethereum coin.jpg

I'm now glad and somewhat vindicated that I exited Ethereum at $1000 before the run up to $4k+ even started back in January 2021. It was very obvious to me that the fees were simply not sustainable considering the apps that were being built on the network. The only way to get lower fees was to get a lower price and lower adoption rates, which certainly wasn't going to happen in the middle of a bull market, was it?

image.png

link

The "upgrade" to proof-of-stake is pretty much objectively not an upgrade at this point, no matter what the central banking mafia tries to put out there with derivative media sites that they control. No, Bitcoin does not "waste energy". It will not be the cause of unsustainability or the reason the Earth is so polluted. It is the very banks who fund infinite war via the military industrial complex who are responsible for a lot of these problems; the same people trying to tell us that crypto is the reason everything is broken... but I've been over this a dozen times already and risk spiraling off topic.

When the founder of a cryptocurrency comes out with all these bad takes on crypto governance, they are not talking about crypto as a whole, but rather their specific token. Vitalik is scrambling, and it shows. The bottom line is that he is basically telling us that Ethereum governance is broken and will basically be captured by both regulators and the super rich, assuming that it hasn't been captured already (which arguably it has).

I would not recommend having a huge Ethereum position. Maybe 10% of your portfolio max if you REALLY like Ethereum. This is not to say that the token price will decline, but politically it is sound advice to completely exit ETH if you believe in decentralization and communities who rule over themselves rather than being slaves to the empire.

Vitalik must be pretty jealous of Hive right now.

He knows all about the hostile takeover, and has Tweeted about it quite a few times. I bet he wish he could do the same for Ethereum as Hive did to Steem. But how could he? That would mean him losing all his stake, and all his friends losing all their stake, and the foundation losing all of its stake. lol, he literally can't opt for the nuclear option like we did. I mean he could, but that basically equates to political suicide.

So Vitalik is projecting his problem onto the entire space rather than point out that it is Ethereum that has the problem... and every single other network with a redonkulous premine. What is the biggest acceptable premine for a founder to have? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say 1%. As difficult as it sounds, I think that every network should start out with a diverse group of people numbering about 100 (1% each). Could be founders. Could be venture capital. Could be retail. Could be a foundation. Could be anyone. Just don't let any one entity have more than 1%. I would consider that to be an excellent seed.

Which is hilarious because governments all around the world could make cryptos that were infinitely better than that. Anyone with access to KYC information knows about thousands (if not millions) of unique individuals. How many unique people does Coinbase have access to beyond reasonable doubt? Quite a bit. Google tells me the number is 73M people. Even if the number was 1M that would still be a better opening distribution than any crypto in the world has right now.

airdrops.jpg

So why don't they do it? Why don't they airdrop millions of people with a new token with a perfectly fair and amazing distribution? Certainly there are a few reasons. One is the legal concern, but if you aren't selling tokens then the SEC can't claim it's a security because there was no centralized agent trading their shitcoin for USD. There may be other legal concerns that I don't know about... but honestly such a project doesn't even need to be associated with the entity that provides the KYC info on unique individuals. All that matters is that 1 person gets 1 airdrop.

The main reason why many would claim such an experiment would inevitably fail is that many people tend to dump their airdrop for whatever they can get for it. This is where I think a brand new template is required; one that suits the attention economy. This is also why I'm constantly harping on the idea that permanently locked/bonded stake has a lot of value. If millions of people are airdropped with tokens that they can't sell, then they are basically forced to interact with the network, possibly even on a daily basis.

DEFI has already shown us that permanently bonded tokens have value by the good graces of yield farming. Imagine if Coinbase created a social media similar to Twitter and seeded it with 73M airdrops to their users. The users can't dump the airdrop as it is permanently bonded, but upvoting content on the Twitter clone generates yield just like we do here on Hive. I have to admit if something like this gets created Hive is in quite a bit of trouble on the social media side of things... although I've always believed that gaming in Hive's true niche.

It's all a matter of distribution.

A token equally distributed to millions of people has IMMENSE value. It's a very communist idea, and has ultimately failed because no one created this template of permanently bonded stake. Rather most people sell out instantly and the distribution becomes instantly abysmal, with deep pockets buying a majority of the tokens from the resulting dump.

Vitalik knows this.

He knows distribution is everything, especially in terms of viable stake-based governance. He knows that Ethereum's distribution is absolutely abysmal, and his generic comments about governance only apply to networks with gross premines and terrible distributions. It should be clear right now that Hive is flying under the radar with one of the best distributions out there, if not the best. After all Bitcoin doesn't even count because it doesn't have staked based governance votes.

The importance of upvotes and the curation kickback

When Hive changed curation to 50/50 I was VERY skeptical. I thought it was a step into the wrong direction, especially with the 5 minute rule still in play and the ridiculous bot voting that exploited that mechanic. Now the 5 minute rule is gone (though the ghost of it remains as can be seen from bots voting at the 5 minute mark). We can now upvote anything we like within the first 24 hours and it's all good. No one gets an advantage for running a bot or voting first. It's all coming together.

The ultimate point to be made here is that most upvotes on Hive create a better distribution for Hive. It's wild to see trickle-down theory fail so miserably though Reganomics while on crypto it seems to work out quite well.

trickle down cup glass.jpg

This is the nature of decentralized systems.

In an actually decentralized ecosystem, the cup at the top literally can not scale to capture all the value. We saw this first hand during the last bull run when Ethereum fees spiked to $200+ and DOZENS of EVM clones popped into existence out of nowhere. Ethereum could not capture all the value, and thus more centralized and niche networks piled under it to capture the Ethereum overflow.

On Hive we have yet to see what happens when the system overflows. We've quite simply never gotten the adoption required to stress test this thing in the wild. One day. Soon™. Until then I find quite a bit of solace in the fact that every single upvote on Hive either increases decentralization or becomes a wash in the event of self upvoting or circle upvoting. Self-upvoting doesn't increase centralization, it simply maintains the status quo; self-upvotes are neutral in terms of distribution. I've already explained the math on this like a dozen times so I'll spare you this time.

Upvotes on Hive also incentivize content to be produced directly on the chain. Theoretically this will become a much more rare occurrence when Hive gains more adoption, but for now we can see our distribution getting better while other networks are largely stagnant or even getting more centralized as all the plebs sell the bottom. Look at the trending tab. Do the biggest stake holders scoop the highest rewards? They do not. The system is working.

image.png
https://peakd.com/hive-167922/@dalz/top-hive-earners-by-category-or-authors-curators-witnesses-dao-or-november-2022
--- @dalz

Conclusion

In no uncertain terms Vitalik is telling us that Ethereum governance is totally screwed. I'm glad I no longer carry a bag there. 2023 is the year of Bitcoin, methinks. But also don't be fooled by his bleak sentiment, as his words do not apply to the Hive ecosystem. In fact DPOS in general is simply better for governance than non-delegated proof of stake. That's just how it was designed right from the beginning. However, the ultimate factor to consider here is the token distribution.

I find it comical that he would say, "As a regular individual, "pay $500 to get a 0.0001% chance to influence the outcome of some votes" is just not a good trade." Really? So voting for the president of the United States is actually x100 worse than the number he just presented to us. If our voice means little in terms of stake-based networks, then it means absolutely nothing in terms of legacy republic governance, but I guess people on Hive already know this.

At least with a governance token you can vote AND do everything else it's programmed to do. Hell, on Hive we are yield farming bandwidth with the governance token and letter people post to the chain using a derivative asset. So far ahead of Ethereum at this point it's not even funny. All we need are the devs to back up the tech and Hive will catapult forward. Go go gadget Hive Application Framework.

Hive is in such amazing positioning for 2023 regulatory overreach and the subsequent bull market that rockets out of this recession. We are flying under the radar, and there are thousands of low hanging fruit that the SEC will go after before even considering our network. Distribution is getting better, even within the bear market. Other networks are not so lucky. It's a slow grind, but it all adds up.

I hope Vitalik does it.

I hope he pulls a hat trick and miracles up a governance system for Ethereum that isn't complete garbage. That would be great for everyone in the cryptoverse. Will I bet on such an outcome? Absolutely not.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta



0
0
0.000
27 comments
avatar

!PGM
!PIZZA

0
0
0.000
avatar

Sent 0.1 PGM - 0.1 LVL- 1 STARBITS - 0.05 DEC - 15 SBT - 0.1 THG - tokens to @torran

remaining commands 8

BUY AND STAKE THE PGM TO SEND A LOT OF TOKENS!

The tokens that the command sends are: 0.1 PGM-0.1 LVL-0.1 THGAMING-0.05 DEC-15 SBT-1 STARBITS-[0.00000001 BTC (SWAP.BTC) only if you have 2500 PGM in stake or more ]

5000 PGM IN STAKE = 2x rewards!

image.png
Discord image.png

Support the curation account @ pgm-curator with a delegation 10 HP - 50 HP - 100 HP - 500 HP - 1000 HP

Get potential votes from @ pgm-curator by paying in PGM, here is a guide

I'm a bot, if you want a hand ask @ zottone444


0
0
0.000
avatar

What is your take on other top tokens like XRP and ADA?

0
0
0.000
avatar

I don't seem to ever wish to look at ADA, I don't know why but I just feel weird about it :)

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

The distribution on XRP is terrible and the foundation still controls something like 60%+ of the premine.
Token price will skyrocket if they win the lawsuit.
In fact if they win the lawsuit everyone gets a bull market.
I don't think XRP does stake-weighted voting so somewhat irrelevant on that front.

ADA has to prove itself.

In my opinion the founder is a complete bootlicker who wants to be regulated by outside forces.
That's a very strong red flag to me.
Until they have something unique that people actually use I find it to be worthless.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks. Good points.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Charles actually looks like a worthy person NGL. It has potential but agreeing with your point of "It still has to prove itself".

0
0
0.000
avatar

There are a million ways to say proof of stake is quite trash, he did not need to go as far as $500 to prove a point, $1 is already so much and we all call the dollar a shitcoin :)

0
0
0.000
avatar

They do not give any confidence to Ethereum administrators with the work they do after they finish mining. I have more confidence in other Cryptocurrencies

0
0
0.000
avatar

I have some of this Cryptocurrency and I really want it to rise

0
0
0.000
avatar

What's with the 14th spot? I though you was numero uno... Don't disappoint!!!

0
0
0.000
avatar

POS is turning ETH into POS for long term viability.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I always thought that the SEC would have to be done with XRP before they consider other cryptocurrencies. The Ripple army has been making claims that they have what it takes to win the case now. But I guess we will have to see.

Our system really works so far to me, but I believe we haven't seen what really adoption looks like. What would you say adoption is, a number of users or a net worth?

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

No one would want to invest to loose or to build on a sinking sand. Putting your funds on a leaky platform is heartbreak however, such might not be seen from the onset but checking stats and the credibility of those behind such a project and the kind of projects been built on the project gives a light to stay or leave.
For me hive has answers to the perplexed situation in the crypto verse. A building on hive, is building on a firm foundation.
#LeoFinance

0
0
0.000
avatar

The fee situation on Ethereum was a joke last cycle and it was strange how people kept dealing with it. 🤢 I think a big blow to people mentally will be the premise that those who staked on the Beacon Chain won't be getting their rewards anytime in the near future setting up a scenario for an even worse inflation bomb once it is accessible on down the road.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I would not recommend having a huge Ethereum position. Maybe 10% of your portfolio max if you REALLY like Ethereum.

Someone who experienced Etherium before then introduced to Hive, I think, will never go back to Etherium.

Personally, I would not put up with those terrible high gas fees again.

Whenever a friend invites me to an app that is on Etherium, I am instantly turned off now.
I say NO MORE to that shitcoin.

!PGM
!PIZZA
!MEMES
!LEO
!HBIT
!THG

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

0
0
0.000
avatar

Sent 0.1 PGM - 0.1 LVL- 1 STARBITS - 0.05 DEC - 15 SBT - 0.1 THG - tokens to @cashheaven

remaining commands 0

BUY AND STAKE THE PGM TO SEND A LOT OF TOKENS!

The tokens that the command sends are: 0.1 PGM-0.1 LVL-0.1 THGAMING-0.05 DEC-15 SBT-1 STARBITS-[0.00000001 BTC (SWAP.BTC) only if you have 2500 PGM in stake or more ]

5000 PGM IN STAKE = 2x rewards!

image.png
Discord image.png

Support the curation account @ pgm-curator with a delegation 10 HP - 50 HP - 100 HP - 500 HP - 1000 HP

Get potential votes from @ pgm-curator by paying in PGM, here is a guide

I'm a bot, if you want a hand ask @ zottone444


0
0
0.000
avatar

so mannabase is doing the right thing?

0
0
0.000
avatar

Loved your post.

All we need are the devs to back up the tech and Hive will catapult forward

Please help this poor non-developer's brain with a grain of understanding 👌. What do you mean by the devs need to back up the tech?

0
0
0.000
avatar

Like if we had the same number of devs as EVM has Hive would be absolute insanity.

0
0
0.000
avatar

"The "upgrade" to proof-of-stake is pretty much objectively not an upgrade at this point, no matter what the central banking mafia tries to put out there with derivative media sites that they control. No, Bitcoin does not "waste energy". It will not be the cause of unsustainability or the reason the Earth is so polluted. It is the very banks who fund infinite war via the military industrial complex who are responsible for a lot of these problems; the same people trying to tell us that crypto is the reason everything is broken... but I've been over this a dozen times already and risk spiraling off topic."

I agree absolutely.

However, Hive is in the same boat. I reckon we disagree on that point, as you proceed to state that the creation of Hive was some sort of refutation of the plutocratic control PoS creates. The same oligarchy that ruled Steem because @ned refrained remains in control of Hive today, because Sun Yuchen sought to disempower them with greater stake. Clearly Vitalik et al have that same potential ability, but the far higher market cap on ETH makes that an entirely different horse to break.

Maybe the slow suppression of free speech on Hive through opinion flagging has had that purpose all along: to prevent the pond from growing so big the present big fish become little fish and lose control. So I speculate, anyway.

"...Bitcoin doesn't even count because it doesn't have staked based governance votes."

The miners have that stake invested in their mining rigs, and govern with their hashes. It's not really that different from PoS, just like the difference between a mafia extorting businesses in a protection racket isn't that different from government taxation.

"...every single upvote on Hive either increases decentralization or becomes a wash in the event of self upvoting or circle upvoting."

This neglects bot farms, methinks. I am aware of folks that have more than ~10k accounts on Hive. It's facile to capture the majority of stake with suitable algorithms, although I'm not a mathemagician and couldn't prove it with an abacus.

"Upvotes on Hive also incentivize content to be produced directly on the chain."

They do that on Fakebook and Plebbit too. That has nothing to do with curation rewards, that have nothing to do with content quality. Curation rewards pervert incentives to create quality content, replacing them with incentives to attract whale votes, which is why votebots almost killed Steem.

Curation rewards are unnecessary, and would better be replaced with yields from other mechanisms. Wouldn't affect distribution negatively, IMHO, nor stop people from voting. People like to upvote content they like. That's why there's upvotes on platforms that don't monetize votes at all. Downvotes aren't like the free market 'voting against' products it doesn't like. Downvotes are like VW dropping the price of Fords until Ford can't make a profit. The free market just let's people buy or buy not, and that sets prices.

Also the most rewarded authors may not necessarily capture the majority of stake voted. I'm suitably impressed you're consistently there, though.

Good job!

Anyway, I'm not here to buzzkill Hive. I'm here, after all, and not on Twatter or Plebbit. Hive has potential neither of those platforms yet do, and if we can get curation fixed, fix governance, and end opinion flagging, Hive will take the world to places it never imagined it could go. You may think gaming is the best way to the moon, but I am confident free speech is one of the most underrated values extant. It is how Fakebook, Twatter, and Youtool captured the biggest market caps on the planet.

We could do it better, but we have challenges to surmount to do it.

Thanks!

0
0
0.000
avatar

This neglects bot farms, methinks. I am aware of folks that have more than ~10k accounts on Hive. It's facile to capture the majority of stake with suitable algorithms, although I'm not a mathemagician and couldn't prove it with an abacus.

The math is pretty simple. If one person has 1M Hive and they upvote themselves, and one person has 1000 Hive and they upvote themselves... the end result is that both parties control the same exact percentage of tokens as they did before. It's a wash. The only way to run into a problem is if the small stake holders are purposefully voting the largest ones for whatever reason. This is objectively not happening, and so the token distribution gets slightly better over time due to reward pool mechanics.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Well, the myriad smaller accounts in the botfarms aren't only upvoted by the user, if they make posts. Using thousands of AI driven accounts to post can capture upvotes from benign but beguiled users, and drive stake to the botfarm that didn't originate there. This is not a wash, but a dragnet for stake.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thank you.
This was a very thoughtful post, and captured some feelings I have been having about Ethereum before and more after the transition to POS. I came across a method to create EVM compatibile structures for non-Ethereum chains. I think it would be a perfect way to increase access to Defi on Hive, and with second layer tokens being the reward tokens on Defi on Hive we would eliminate the need for bridges altogether. There are some issues to be worked out to make the Hive wallet more like metamask, and some other tweaks, but I think it's doable.This would introduce a scenario where security on Hive would be the envy of the world.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

0
0
0.000