Hi @jaekwon ,
listened to your excellent interview on the interop-podcast. Loved your explanations for your concerns about liquid staking. I share this fears, but so far more on an intuitive level, because I’m not that well versed in the topic to frame them as detailed as you did. Really appreciated that.
One question regarding the 2-token-model remains for me, though. I believe it got touched upon in the episode, but I didn’t get your counter-argument. In the podcast and here in your last post you use the visa card shares/money analogy. What I don’t understand is, why this should provide more security in case of economical attacks.
In case atom succeeds, it becomes the main security set and photon the base money, you already mentioned that photons would outweigh the value of atom potentially. What would prohibit photon-whales to buy a critical mass of atom and dominate the hub in the same way it would be possible in a one-token-model? I get that it would be way easier, if the stake only is 12% or less, but if we guarantee a stake of over 66% wouldn’t it be way better if the worth of atom increased in the same way the worth of the major money increases? This would be the case in a one-token-model. Shouldn’t we anticipate in the long term that economical attacks will be the main attack-vector anyways, because if crypto goes mainstream, it will be the only method available to every field of expertise and not like the many attacks nowadays only to programmers?
On a sidenote: you mentioned the - I believe - rhetorical question, which nazi would embrace love and condemn hate. The answer is quite simple in my opinion: Every single one of them. I know it’s not fair to pinpoint one explicit point in a spontaneous interview, but I think this is important. In their core everyone of us believes to do the correct and a good think while acting in my opinion. What leads us away from the obvious “good” thing to do in my experience is not a fundamentally broken/evil personality or the influence of such entities, but the paradox of power. I believe, Sebastien touched this point in the interview when he mentioned that governments seem to naturally get pulled towards control and therefore more centralization. It’s a necessity for the preservation of power and people living to maintain this power will eventually subordinate everything to it, even if it’s in contradiction to the goals the accumulated this power for in the first place. That’s why I don’t need conspiracy theories to explain this phenomena and to be honest I believe them to be mostly useless for me as long as I don’t really professionally research them, because they are just distraction and easier explanation for the much more complex phenomena mentioned above. More complex, because it doesn’t give in the typical oversimplified good/bad-dichotomy. However, as long as we arrive at the same conclusion - decentralization of power is the most effective means to improve all interactions between humans beings - I’m really in line with a lot you propose for the cosmos. Sorry for abusing your thread for this. Looking forward to your input in the space in the future!
3 Likes