Even the IMF has figured this out. But have you!?
Proof of Stake Risks Concentrating Power to Crypto Exchanges, Wallets: IMF
Thanks IMF! Been saying this before the Steem-coup and then - it happened.
The paper touched on how PoS “could create an excessive concentration of decision-making powers on crypto exchanges and wallet services providers, which may increase market integrity risks” despite the potential energy savings. It also highlighted how PoW mining requires significant energy, which could counteract the “global aim of transitioning to a low-carbon economy.”
So... both POW and POS are shite, but for different reasons. As the Klimate Kult is also a scam, and energy is being rationed on purpose, through wars and price hikes, the argument against POW is leaning on a fragile crutch.
What the IMF talks about is precisely what I mentioned some years back about the Steem economy. That it had already become bloated towards exchange accounts, meant that the active participants were shrinking as a proportion of the whole ecosystem.
One thing that struck me as peculiar was that those exchanges did not use their stake to make even more profits. Instead they had this "gentlemen's agreement" not to use their stake to vote on witnesses. This always struck me as laughable, especially as we discovered what sort of gentlemen they truly are. Such agreements are either encoded or they are worthless - they proved to be worthless.
In the corporate world, there are rules for such things. It strikes me as a huge issue that naive blockchain devs and users love to fly their flag of permissionless freedom while never looking up to see how full of holes their flag is.
The naive idea of the decentral fans is that nobody will be in control. A very small amount of mathematics should suffice to show this to be at best a pipe-dream, and at worse a huge delusion. The issue is not even whether a chain is centralised or not - just a matter of when.
I'm glad to see so many comments on this issue.
Here on Blurt?
I was being sarcastic, especially towards the propagandists who continue to fly their false flag.
Glad to see more articles in the crypto press about something I've been saying for some years.
Ahhhaha :D
Rules without rulers is impossible.
Aside from stake based spheres people need places without this concept.
I see Blurt & Co actually more like classic joint-stock companies, where whoever holds the biggest share makes all the decisions. The term proof of stake already says it. Whilst the witness-concept and the discussion with the community softens that a bit.
About whom and what are you talking when you say propagandists and false flags?
Wasn't this the selling point of democracy?
Delegated proof of taxation.
And, yes, you'd think that something called proof of STAKE would be blindingly obviously so nowhere near decentralised - for long.
Were you referring to my sentence
I don't know. Was it?
the target is find "public servants"
In Utopia, anybody seeking election is barred from being elected!
It's fiction.
the ultimate goal of government should be to make itself obsolete
you want gov automated AND obsolete?
make up your mind.
Start with CEOs 🤬
Then work backwards 🥓
Science Fiction 🥓
in utopia, the function of government is automated and transparent
Hi,
25 days have already passed and you can withdraw your delegation to the last BPUD winners.😜
Thanks, done now - they got a couple of extra days!
Yeah... I also forgot to remind you early😆
Can you explain that? How do you know and why did they not vote on witnesses?
Which part needs explaining?
You'd have to look up such discussions on Steemit. There is even some code that stops accounts from powering up, but was never implemented. The (strange) idea is that exchanges are not, somehow, real stakeholders and should not, therefore, have governance votes, such as voting for witnesses.
This struck me as absurd; if a corporation has large shareholders of investment companies, then they certainly have voting rights.
Anyway, this idea has stuck, that exchange accounts have fewer functions than other users.
I abandoned Steemit a long time ago. So I was not following what's happening there.
I was asking how did you come to know about the gentleman's agreement.
What do you mean by "exchanges"? Are those accounts who only deal with trading?
What do you think are the motives behind the idea that exchange accounts have fewer functions than other users?
Various discussions on steem - I'm not going to dig for them. lol
However, found this general article on the whole issue.
https://cointelegraph.com/news/shadow-of-steem-crypto-exchanges-choose-to-govern-user-deposits-differently
I did wonder why those exchanges didn't use their accounts to earn some extra coins. They DO on many POS as validators - maybe DPOS is too much effort having to vote on posts.
Good article.
It seems to be the way it always is. People find places to use their interested parties' (investors') money for third party purposes. On the one hand, I'm not surprised, but on the other hand I am that the terms of use are either non-transparent or even use investors' money without their consent. Presumably again via an active objection rule, where not reacting equals consent?
Is that what you were wondering about in connection with Steemit?
No, the issue is that some of the largest accounts - exchanges - act as if they have no influence, and yet none of that is encoded. What we saw on Steemit was some such parties breaking such a "rule" - coz there was no rule to break! Just words, which in the end meant nothing.
.
Happens a lot to modern man...
How do you protect yourself from being neurotic?