[cburgdorf]

Let's assume rich countries of the world (e.g. G7) set up a climate change fund in a smart contract. They could just lockup some funds there to be claimable after x months/years for any country (except the G7) proportionally to how far they managed to reduce their CO2 emissions. This assumes that we can trustlessly get the CO2 emissions for all countries (Let's just assume satellites can provide that data in a trustless way to the blockchain via some clever oracle mechanism).

Instead of having a handwritten weak contract like the Paris climate act, you'd have actual enforceable code that can not be gamed. I'm obviously oversimplifying things here but this is just to give an idea how blockchain tech can improve coordination games in the future.

[pjc50]

> This assumes that we can trustlessly get the CO2 emissions for all countries

Classic blockchain advocacy: it works great provided we solve this unsolved problem of communicating "trustlessly" with the real world!

> you'd have actual enforceable code that can not be gamed

People keep "gaming" smart contracts all the time. Just recently there was a defi attack where someone simply flash-borrowed all the tokens, voted themselves a reward, and returned the tokens.

[cburgdorf]

There are a lot of well proven live projects that use external oracle data and haven't suffered any serious issues. Just throwing DAI and RAI out as examples.

[ak_111]

Let's assume this is true. There are many simpler and smaller-scale coordination games out there. Why hasn't any of these adapted blockchain?

It is quite a stretch to think that you can go from 0 adaptability to 100% adaptability in one of the largest scale coordination games imaginable (tracking carbon consumption).

For example if you told me in 2002 that one day most of the world would be on Facebook I would have been very skeptical, if then you showed me all of Harvard using it like crazy, my scepticism would have decreased significantly.

It is the lack of successful use cases even at smaller scale that I think preventing many people believing in the grand vision.

[cburgdorf]

There are many smaller scale things happening. Most are financial use cases but I'm trying to stick to non-financial ones here.

There's a platform called royal (https://royal.io/) which lets you fund artists and their albums. You can essentially co-own their song rights and collect a share of the royalties when their music is played. It's getting really interesting once composability comes into play. E.g. you can make indexes of song rights for country, rock, pop, electronic etc. pp. And once you have that you might put other financial derivatives on top and can go 2x long on country music and 2x short on pop music. There interesting aspect is that big music labels always were able to go short on some genre and long on another because they effectively decide which artists to fund. It's just that with these open protocols we the regular people get to do the same directly. And as a fan we get directly rewarded for helping our favorite artist to spread there music.

There are many interesting use cases and platforms emerging in the blockchain world. It just takes time for things to go mainstream.

[tome]

> Let's just assume satellites can provide that data in a trustless way to the blockchain via some clever oracle mechanism).

> Instead of having a handwritten weak contract like the Paris climate act, you'd have actual enforceable code that can not be gamed.

I'm having trouble reconciling these two ideas.

[dllthomas]

On the one hand, I guess we could imagine that the block chain plays an integral role in the "clever oracle mechanism". On the other hand, I think that turns this discussion into "imagine it's useful; in that case, it's useful!"