[tshaddox]

> Why would any of this need cryto? If you trust the winery to hold the wine you could trust them to rule the exchange.

That’s a little like saying “why would the winery need Apple to make computers for them, the winery could just develop their own computer hardware and software.” It doesn’t make sense for most wineries to develop its own online exchange system, and the fact that it’s technically possible for a winery to develop its own exchange system doesn’t mean that all existing exchange systems are pointless.

[chipotle_coyote]

The critique being made in the original article, I think, is that it's extremely hard to find a hypothetical use case for blockchain technology that can't be done without blockchain technology. A wine exchange seems to pretty clearly fall into the "things we can do pretty well without crypto" category, so one needs to explain what crypto is bringing to the party that makes it a marked improvement. In this particular example, both "trustlessness" and "decentralization" are off the table (e.g., there is only one winery and you are trusting them to hold the physical goods).

[koonsolo]

The difference is that you can pick the exchange where you trade your token. Because the ownership of the token is really yours.

If the central party charges 1% transaction fee, it's a 1% transaction fee. If they only open on weekdays, you can't trade in the weekend, etc.

When it's your token, you can trade it wherever you want.

[chipotle_coyote]

Maybe, but there's some assumptions buried in here, I think:

- first, the token has to be usable by any exchange it's traded on. Different blockchain technologies may not be compatible. (For instance, you can't move an NBA Top Shot NFT from Flow to Ethereum.) This is a solvable problem from a technical standpoint, but given how fiercely ideological different blockchains are, there may be non-technical stumbling blocks that arise here.

- second, there has to be an "off-the-blockchain" legal connection between the token and the object the token represents, something that's recognized legally as a "bill of sale." This isn't a huge hurdle and I'd assume the purchase of the token includes language that covers this, but that legal language might include arbitrary limitations, such as stipulating that if you don't use their preferred exchange they'll charge you extra fees, or even restricting the token to specific exchanges entirely.

This is an issue that I think a lot of "smart contract" proponents just haven't come to grips with yet: when you read "contract" in terms of a blockchain, think "API contract" rather than "legal contract". A cursory search suggests there are Flow to Ethereum NFT converters out there, but if you run your NBA Top Shot NFT through one, does the NBA still consider it valid?

- third, this example is specifically tying the token to a physical object, which adds other complications. You may be able to successfully trade your token on Sunday, but the wine store may still only be open on weekdays.

[rgallagher27]

You might want to avoid mentioning transaction fees when trying to promote the benefits of crypto...

[koonsolo]

For example Nano has 0 fee, sub-second transactions, so no, I'll keep mentioning it.

[solomonb]

The point is that there are multitudes of other technological solutions readily available which solve the stated problem far more simply then a blockchain.

[tshaddox]

Of course there are alternatives, and some alternatives may be better or worse depending on the features and qualities you desire. Again, there’s nothing unique about blockchains here. You could say the same thing about any random pick out of the top 50 CSS frameworks.