T
toknormal
Guest
Hi
I have a few things I've been dwelling on lately are are becoming increasingly more topical. I thought I'd get them off my chest. Concepts to explore as a community and get a grip on in depth:
• stores of value vs cash (the value of 'doing nothing' vs the value of 'doing something')
• price denomination currencies vs stores of value (=how best to spend in dollars and hold in Dash)
• privacy 'out in the open' vs privacy 'behind a curtain'
I feel that if those three can be thrashed to death so that there is a very high level of community consciousness (amongst developers, holders, marketers and merchants) then we will be in a very strong position both to navigate the project with good 'radar' and also to present it well to newcomers.
My own thoughts on these topics are:
[1] STORES OF VALUE VS CASH
I've recently been participating in some of the bitcoin blocksize discussions and coming to my own opinions about it. You can read them here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1809999.msg18053129#msg18053129
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1809999.msg18053516#msg18053516
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1809999.msg18053650#msg18053650
I am in Dash because of the "value of doing something" aspect. On the other hand in the above posts I've argued for the value of "doing nothing" from Bitcoin's perspective and the monetary role it is increasingly adopting. I now increasingly see the two asset classes as fulfilling necessary and complimentary roles rather than one doing it 'right' and the other doing it 'wrong'.
GOLD ARCHETYPE
It all boils down to archetypes and acheiving a high level of what I call "archetypal fidelity" (faithfully reproducing the significant characteristics of the monetary archetype on which your crypto is based). So, for example, Gold sits in vaults and does nothing. It's purpose is to store value and doesn't need to do anything else. This is the role that bitcoin is increasingly playing in the crypto-asset landscape. There's no point (IMO) in criticising it's confirmation time, useability or anything else because none of those significantly impact its monetary role. Someone who invests in 2 BTC as part of their retirement stash is not going to be worried about a 20 minute confirmation time.
CASH ARCHETYPE
Cash floats about. It has different characteristics from gold. It shares some - e.g. no counterparty, store of value (to some extent, depending on the model). But largely it’s a complimentary archetype in that it forms the liquid interface on stores of value, therefore mobility does matter, confirmation time does matter, ease of use does matter.
But we have to be careful because there is a danger in focusing too much on these at the expense of the ‘store of value’ aspect because one can wander unconsciously into the realm of a payments system, at which point you no longer have a monetary stock but a technology stock which is replaceable. (e.g. The Visa network is a pure payments system, not a monetary asset in its own right. It’s a conveyor belt for money but not money).
IMO Dash must avoid trying to turn itself into the next Visa or it will be worth nothing. It needs to aim to be a highly mobile store of value that can easily be exchanged for other stores of value. It should NOT aim to be the next Visa because SQL servers can do that far more efficiently.
It’s a fine line to tread - that’s why I feel a greater level of consciousness is needed amongst all the community and a high awareness of the need for Dash to retain its monetary properties which potentially can be threatned by improving its payment-rail properties.
As I say, I’m not saying the balance isn’t right at the moment, I’m putting it on the radar so that it stays right and the “baby stays in the bath”.
See also:
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...oes-not-solve-this-problem.12842/#post-114419
[2] PRICE DENOMINATION and STORES OF VALUE
We need to get clear in our minds the distinction between currency as a price denomination tool and money as a store of value. I feel this is very hazy at the moment in the community. Some people “get it” and some conflate the two very casually. Where (for me) it impacts on Dash’s development priorities is in the merchant adoption sector. Consider this:
• prices can be denominated any way a country/merchant/industry sector wants. It’s not under our control
• if the UK decided to use bananas to denominate prices, they don’t need to hold bananas. It’s just a unit of measure and the Visa network will be able to cope with it (i.e. I can send money to Amazon from my bank account over the Visa network and it will arrive denominated in ‘banana’ units, therefore allowing the trade to be cleeared)
In other words, here we have again the “payment system” rearing its ugly head. A payment system isn’t a form of money but it’s infinitely flexible in a way that the blockchain isn’t. It can be configured in any old units it chooses, clear trades instantly, and provide lots of services on top. I emphasise again that Dash must (IMO) avoid trying to compete with payment systems and rather navigate intelligently along the “mobile store of value” route in a way that’s complimentary.
What does this mean with regard to merchant adoption ?
IMO we need to classify different types of adoption so that they are more easily targetable. In nothing else we need to distinguish at least one glaring distinction:
• people accepting Dash because they want to facilitate the transfer of value
• people accepting Dash because they want to clear a trade
Dash has no benefit for the latter - all those people need is an SQL server. It’s the former that we should be interested in. Dash is a “bearer token” which means that both possession and ownership are transferred in a single trade. Merchants looking to clear trades quickly are not interested in that. On the other hand those looking to promptly and efficiently exchange asset value are.
SPENDING
For those of us wanting to hold our savings in Dash and spend in fiat there is also an opportunity. We have already an interface in the form of Dash backed credit cards where savings can be held in a deflationary currency and spent in an inflationary one. This is perfect because it decouples the valueless payment system’ aspect form the value-endowed ‘mobile store of value’ aspects of Dash.
Obviously this is a huge area if discussion and I’ll stop now since it’s mostly beyond the scope of this post. I should be an ongoing dialog though IMO to find optimal ways forward.
See also:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1809999.msg18047893#msg18047893
[3] OPEN PRIVACY vs CLOSED PRIVACY
Most people are aware that this is a hobby horse of mine so I won’t flog it too much here. But one thing is important to be aware of which is the distinction between a “bearer token” and an asset with nominated ownership.
In a recent Slack discussion I described this as a “Y” where the stem of the “Y” represented the attributes of ownership and possession collapsed into a single asset. When we move our Dash onto an exchange, it splits into two:
• the ‘ownership’ asset is represented by contract tokens on the exchange and held by a nominated exchange account holder (the right fork in the “y”)
• the ‘posession’ asset is represented by blockchain tokens and held by the exchange (the left fork in the “Y”)
In this 3-pronged model, the appropriate places for transparent and obfuscated privacy all become clear.
IN THE RIGHT FORK, the asset is nominated and backed. Authenticity is therefore no longer a priority (because the contract guarantees its value) but obfuscation is since we have a named asset - the exchange account holder. Thats the right place in the model for ‘behind curtain privacy’.
IN THE LEFT FORK the asset is not nominated but held by the contract backer (the exchange). Since it forms the backing collateral, authenticity is now the priority over obfuscation, so ‘out in the open’ anonymity is appropriate. (Like gold, diamonds, coal, grain).
IN THE STEM possessor and owner are indistinct. They are one and the same - i.e. there is no distinct owner and no nomination. Authenticity is therefore a priority again, hence Dash’s transparent anonymity, like the diamond.
Ok, thats it. I’ve got the stuff off my chest and into the community for general discussion.
Have fun
I have a few things I've been dwelling on lately are are becoming increasingly more topical. I thought I'd get them off my chest. Concepts to explore as a community and get a grip on in depth:
• stores of value vs cash (the value of 'doing nothing' vs the value of 'doing something')
• price denomination currencies vs stores of value (=how best to spend in dollars and hold in Dash)
• privacy 'out in the open' vs privacy 'behind a curtain'
I feel that if those three can be thrashed to death so that there is a very high level of community consciousness (amongst developers, holders, marketers and merchants) then we will be in a very strong position both to navigate the project with good 'radar' and also to present it well to newcomers.
My own thoughts on these topics are:
[1] STORES OF VALUE VS CASH
I've recently been participating in some of the bitcoin blocksize discussions and coming to my own opinions about it. You can read them here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1809999.msg18053129#msg18053129
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1809999.msg18053516#msg18053516
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1809999.msg18053650#msg18053650
I am in Dash because of the "value of doing something" aspect. On the other hand in the above posts I've argued for the value of "doing nothing" from Bitcoin's perspective and the monetary role it is increasingly adopting. I now increasingly see the two asset classes as fulfilling necessary and complimentary roles rather than one doing it 'right' and the other doing it 'wrong'.
GOLD ARCHETYPE
It all boils down to archetypes and acheiving a high level of what I call "archetypal fidelity" (faithfully reproducing the significant characteristics of the monetary archetype on which your crypto is based). So, for example, Gold sits in vaults and does nothing. It's purpose is to store value and doesn't need to do anything else. This is the role that bitcoin is increasingly playing in the crypto-asset landscape. There's no point (IMO) in criticising it's confirmation time, useability or anything else because none of those significantly impact its monetary role. Someone who invests in 2 BTC as part of their retirement stash is not going to be worried about a 20 minute confirmation time.
CASH ARCHETYPE
Cash floats about. It has different characteristics from gold. It shares some - e.g. no counterparty, store of value (to some extent, depending on the model). But largely it’s a complimentary archetype in that it forms the liquid interface on stores of value, therefore mobility does matter, confirmation time does matter, ease of use does matter.
But we have to be careful because there is a danger in focusing too much on these at the expense of the ‘store of value’ aspect because one can wander unconsciously into the realm of a payments system, at which point you no longer have a monetary stock but a technology stock which is replaceable. (e.g. The Visa network is a pure payments system, not a monetary asset in its own right. It’s a conveyor belt for money but not money).
IMO Dash must avoid trying to turn itself into the next Visa or it will be worth nothing. It needs to aim to be a highly mobile store of value that can easily be exchanged for other stores of value. It should NOT aim to be the next Visa because SQL servers can do that far more efficiently.
It’s a fine line to tread - that’s why I feel a greater level of consciousness is needed amongst all the community and a high awareness of the need for Dash to retain its monetary properties which potentially can be threatned by improving its payment-rail properties.
As I say, I’m not saying the balance isn’t right at the moment, I’m putting it on the radar so that it stays right and the “baby stays in the bath”.
See also:
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...oes-not-solve-this-problem.12842/#post-114419
[2] PRICE DENOMINATION and STORES OF VALUE
We need to get clear in our minds the distinction between currency as a price denomination tool and money as a store of value. I feel this is very hazy at the moment in the community. Some people “get it” and some conflate the two very casually. Where (for me) it impacts on Dash’s development priorities is in the merchant adoption sector. Consider this:
• prices can be denominated any way a country/merchant/industry sector wants. It’s not under our control
• if the UK decided to use bananas to denominate prices, they don’t need to hold bananas. It’s just a unit of measure and the Visa network will be able to cope with it (i.e. I can send money to Amazon from my bank account over the Visa network and it will arrive denominated in ‘banana’ units, therefore allowing the trade to be cleeared)
In other words, here we have again the “payment system” rearing its ugly head. A payment system isn’t a form of money but it’s infinitely flexible in a way that the blockchain isn’t. It can be configured in any old units it chooses, clear trades instantly, and provide lots of services on top. I emphasise again that Dash must (IMO) avoid trying to compete with payment systems and rather navigate intelligently along the “mobile store of value” route in a way that’s complimentary.
What does this mean with regard to merchant adoption ?
IMO we need to classify different types of adoption so that they are more easily targetable. In nothing else we need to distinguish at least one glaring distinction:
• people accepting Dash because they want to facilitate the transfer of value
• people accepting Dash because they want to clear a trade
Dash has no benefit for the latter - all those people need is an SQL server. It’s the former that we should be interested in. Dash is a “bearer token” which means that both possession and ownership are transferred in a single trade. Merchants looking to clear trades quickly are not interested in that. On the other hand those looking to promptly and efficiently exchange asset value are.
SPENDING
For those of us wanting to hold our savings in Dash and spend in fiat there is also an opportunity. We have already an interface in the form of Dash backed credit cards where savings can be held in a deflationary currency and spent in an inflationary one. This is perfect because it decouples the valueless payment system’ aspect form the value-endowed ‘mobile store of value’ aspects of Dash.
Obviously this is a huge area if discussion and I’ll stop now since it’s mostly beyond the scope of this post. I should be an ongoing dialog though IMO to find optimal ways forward.
See also:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1809999.msg18047893#msg18047893
[3] OPEN PRIVACY vs CLOSED PRIVACY
Most people are aware that this is a hobby horse of mine so I won’t flog it too much here. But one thing is important to be aware of which is the distinction between a “bearer token” and an asset with nominated ownership.
In a recent Slack discussion I described this as a “Y” where the stem of the “Y” represented the attributes of ownership and possession collapsed into a single asset. When we move our Dash onto an exchange, it splits into two:
• the ‘ownership’ asset is represented by contract tokens on the exchange and held by a nominated exchange account holder (the right fork in the “y”)
• the ‘posession’ asset is represented by blockchain tokens and held by the exchange (the left fork in the “Y”)
In this 3-pronged model, the appropriate places for transparent and obfuscated privacy all become clear.
IN THE RIGHT FORK, the asset is nominated and backed. Authenticity is therefore no longer a priority (because the contract guarantees its value) but obfuscation is since we have a named asset - the exchange account holder. Thats the right place in the model for ‘behind curtain privacy’.
IN THE LEFT FORK the asset is not nominated but held by the contract backer (the exchange). Since it forms the backing collateral, authenticity is now the priority over obfuscation, so ‘out in the open’ anonymity is appropriate. (Like gold, diamonds, coal, grain).
IN THE STEM possessor and owner are indistinct. They are one and the same - i.e. there is no distinct owner and no nomination. Authenticity is therefore a priority again, hence Dash’s transparent anonymity, like the diamond.
Ok, thats it. I’ve got the stuff off my chest and into the community for general discussion.
Have fun
Last edited:
