[s_dev]

>What's the value of the in-app currency being a cryptocurrency

In a word -- decentralization -- is the key difference between a virtual currency described by some SQL tables and an API and one described by a blockchain.

A gov if it wants can take down a server if it is physically hosted in that country. A blockchain unless you've gargantuan CPU power is nigh on impossible to take down.

[CPLX]

It's not decentralized if one organization owns 52% of it.

[vernon99]

Not necessarily. This is actually orthogonal to decentralization question. Very much depends on their proof of stake implementation.

[maksimum]

> Very much depends on their proof of stake implementation

Exactly, if someone with >50% power can essentially double spend it makes the currency as a whole almost worthless. As a result it's very much in the creator's interest to either not have >50% or to come up with a distributed consensus algorithm where a majority party can't double spend (very hard).

[edraferi]

I agree. It's more like they're retaining control of the money supply like a central bank does. It give you the power to indirectly influence the price / exchange rate of the currency, but you're not involved with every transaction.

[hndamien]

Except that you are with Proof of Stake.

[jmcqk6]

>In a word -- decentralization...

That is the difference, but what is the value in that? You're making things much more complicated and for what - especially for an in-app currency.

[s_dev]

Redundancy -- you don't need to keep backups of a blockchain but you do if everything is centralized in a single place.

It depends on the value of the backups I guess and the total cost involved. If you're looking at store of value there needs to be backups of backups. I see room for both depending on the needs of the business. It's just a trade off -- the blockchain is inherently more stable and secure than a server for certain purposes and server is far faster and cheaper depending on how you use it.