|
|
|
|
|
|
by megameter
1706 days ago
|
|
|
It helps to consider the context of finance as glue that helps make the real economy move by reducing fraud. Deciding to use a crypto solution is like deciding to use double-entry accounting: it creates a quick and reliable record of transactions in a certain context, this context being one of consent. Putting consent mechanisms on-chain gives many of the benefits of a trusted third party without designation of an actual fallable, corruptable person or institution. That allows the surrounding regulatory framework to be streamlined and take on more and smaller cases with a lower footprint. But there is a chicken and egg scenario there since the norms have to shift towards these solutions before they gain all the desired efficiencies. That said, I was paid in crypto the other day through a DAO. I was told how to submit a proposal to be paid, and then the funds were released through a vote within hours. It was transparent and the only hiccup was in needing a 70 cent bond fee to submit the proposal - it wasn't "controlled" in the usual sense of assigning a person to handle funds. So I already see some benefit in organizational structure. |
|
|
To your point about transparency and trust for general transactions, I can see how that will be useful but don't you lose the ability that most trusted entities have now which is to roll back the transaction or correct a situation if fraud has occurred, given what I understand to be the finality of a contract? That said, I'm personally not really worried about making a transaction over say VISA's network but I am concerned about the end party I'm interacting with and I feel like crypto in general doesn't do well to address that, which I almost feel like is the real issue. I don't think I understand why people feel like it's an issue if they have to transact over a bigger central authority, perhaps I'm just too far removed from the group of people not served by classical finance.