Comment by MrPatan
3 years ago
It's the same application layer just running in a different tech and social stack.
It's clear why the current gatekeepers don't like permissionless alternatives, but why do you agree with them?
3 years ago
It's the same application layer just running in a different tech and social stack.
It's clear why the current gatekeepers don't like permissionless alternatives, but why do you agree with them?
The "social stack" is what actually makes finance's "application layer" happen, because it turns out that blockchains can't actually enforce delivery of barrels of oil or sue ICO recipient for spending their proceeds on coke and hookers, and things like hiring and receiving goods and valuing insurance losses all involve counterparties.
Much as you would like to personalise this debate, it's not about my level of agreement with straw gatekeepers. It's about the simple fact the "application layer" doesn't exist. You're not getting your mortgage or pension from a blockchain.
Nobody is saying delivery of assets is done on chain.
That's a strawman you've skewered twice already, well done.
What we're saying is: a lot of the low level infrastructure used now in finance (brokers! Dealers! Clearinghouses!) is easily replaced by some code, once you have trustless decentralized computers. Which we do now.
Then your oil barrel market is just some code nobody needs to trust, and yes, the "last mile" of it still needs "guys with guns" infra. So what? We made a part of that market freer and fairer.
Cool, isn't it?
You started off asking "why do you still want the guys with guns solution" and insisting that blockchain provided a "trustless, decentralized" solution to the problems financial markets purport to solve.
So I don't think it's a "straw man" to point out the answer to your question is market participants want promises actually delivered upon which you now admit is entirely dependent on the "guys with guns" (and/or trust). By extension, blockchains don't actually provide a trustless or decentralized solution to the actual problems of finance. Actually knowing that your counterparty will send you oil isn't some unimportant detail of the oil barrel market which can be handwaved away, it's considerably more important than the implementation detail of the transaction record updates or whether brokers are involved.
You've moved more goalposts in this discussion than crypto has moved in the useful bits of finance.
2 replies →
All those levels of infrastructure already run on code. There's no tech reason that Robinhood can't sell you stock that it holds. The FTX situation shows you why they aren't allowed to do that.