[p0llard]

What are you getting at?

There's a pretty big difference between corporate treasury software and cryptocurrency scams? Unless you're trying to argue that anything related to finance is a scam?

I don't see what point you're trying to make, it seems such an irrelevant comment that it makes me question your motive and wonder if you're trying to smear Stephen.

[exdsq]

He's working on the same ledger tech but centralised, and calling out firms working on blockchains unrelated to scams like OneCoin.

Edit: To be clear, I like his blog posts normally and am not trying to smear him. I'm just saying it's not a fair comparison.

[p0llard]

> He's working on the same ledger tech but centralised

Cryptographic ledger technology has been around since forever (the 70s to be precise): just look at Git, SUNDR, etc.

I believe he's specifically calling out firms working on cryptocurrencies; cryptocurrencies are just one application of cryptographic distributed ledgers.

[exdsq]

Sure, but the companies he specifically named are working on similar projects that's all.

Edit: In fact I don't know of a single company using Haskell in the crypto space I'd define as a 'scam'

[greg7mdp]

What is bitcoin if not a distributed ledger?

[p0llard]

Using cryptographic primitives to implement a non-productive asset is one thing; using cryptographic primitives as some kind of ledger goes back to the 70s, heck even Git uses Merkle trees.

[leotaku]

I think they are trying to imply that, because some crypto projects are targeting similar markets, there might be some conflict of interest that motivated Diehl to create his post.

To me this reads less like a smear and more just "this could be why he dislikes crypto that much".

[p0llard]

They aren't really targeting similar markets (at least from my perspective): pretty much any multinational firm can benefit from better corporate treasury management; cryptocurrencies are just one application of this technology, and Stephen is calling out specifically those which are attempting to defraud (or at least benefit from the the gross ignorance of) retail investors.

Those seem like entirely different markets to me.

[granitepail]

Exactly. A cryptocurrency is driven by speculation. A treasury system helps manage flows of capital in and out of a business. Said company pays to use the proprietary system. Sure, they're both backed by a ledger, but Adjoint isn't turning profit by encouraging or even allowing people to speculate on the future value of their platform. They're selling a service.

[leotaku]

In my opinion, a non-insignificant amount of cryptocurrencies tout a global low-friction exchange system with good APIs as their main feature. I am not qualified to say how related the markets are, but it seems like there is at least some overlap. (E.g. one of the first results I get when googling Adjoint is an interview conducted by a crypto company)

I think our disagreement stems from how vague Stephens post is. By not naming any names he could be accusing any crypto company, including those that might indirectly compete with him, of being fraudulent.

My stance would probably change if someone were to point out one of the "right-wing conspiracy theory cult" Haskell companies that Stephen is alluding to, but as it stands this mainly seems like fearmongering to me.