| > Firstly I don't understand who you are "answering" to, the GP didn't talk about Market Cap as a relevant metric. No but they were clearly refuting the alternative suggestion (nodes) was game-able. That was my point. > Market Cap is only relevant when reported by popular metrics websites which vet their data sources a little > you will learn to care for coins/token which have liquidity/volume either on reputable CEXs or in tokens/networks with a good track record on DEXs. This is hilarious, because your idea is that: - It's a popular metrics website - You believe they are vetted by a centralized web site, is the exact antithesis of cryptocurrencies. What happened to decentralization? > You can't really game liquidity for long without risking your capital. Sure, but why is that relevant here? We're not talking about liquidity as being the relevant metrics, we're talking about market cap. Market cap is such a hilarious concept for cryptocurrencies because it converts everything to a fiat, which, again, is the antithesis of cryptocurrency. > I know this is HN, so I would expect less low brow criticism... but who am I kidding this is about cryptocurrencies, rules don't apply. Meeting low brow comments with low brow comments, chapeau! |
> by a centralized web site, is the exact antithesis of cryptocurrencies. What happened to decentralization?
A centralized cryptocurrency is an antithesis. I don't care if any of the products or websites in the surrounding ecosystem are centralized: all I care about is that bitcoin remains decentralized.
Decentralization is a force that limits usefullness. Bitcoin is useful only as a base layer; digital gold that higher layer (more centralized) systems can use to settle down to. Being more centralized offers features Bitcoin doesn't have (high throughput, easy onboarding, etc) at a cost of new risks (counterparty risk, etc). Settling down at the behest of the user allows those users to mitigate that risk, and get the best of both worlds.