Discussion about this post

User's avatar
c1ue's avatar

Nice writeup but ultimately futile due to failure to address core principles:

1) Tokens as companies are irrelevant because there is no legal framework underlying the "token corporation". No legal framework means no objective, or at least consistent, means to address active malfeasance or remedy accidental harm or to accomplish any other goal outside of rug pulls/self enrichment by founders.

2) Tokens as countries is even worse. Countries by definition have sovereign power. If corporation tokens lack an entire governance structure, then it is infinitely worse for tokens as countries.

How many divisions does any given "token as a country" have?

And tokens have nowhere remotely the number of believers as the Pope...

I also wonder at the failure to at least address CBDCs: if the CBDC is the sovereign equivalent of cryptocurrency, it seems likely that the moat expected of non-cryptocurrency tokens - whether corporate or sovereign - is similarly nonexistent.

This in turn brings up the question if there is any point to any tokens of significant, long term value whatsoever. No token is ever going to be able to compete with even a moderately sized sovereign nation and its legislative, law enforcement, financial and military power.

Expand full comment
vwucrypto's avatar

I disagree with protocol as companies.

I think protocol are defining rulesets / logic blocks where things could be built on top of. It an interface. It can be governed by a company (DAO), but it is not inherently a company. The Internet is a protocol, but it is not a company. Companies are built on top of protocols.

Tokens are too flexible of a product to be put into any product. It can be a voting instrument (DAO), a currency (stablecoin), etc. It's simply too broad and the use case of the token matters (utility, store of value, etc.)

Expand full comment
8 more comments...

No posts