ConsenSys

But the company is managing a “bridge currency” [XRP] that they package to retail investors who buy on the assumption that they are front-running big bank purchasers.

NEO's "Ethereum but China" pitch reminds me of Litecoin's "Bitcoin but Scrypt" pitch in 2013. A long, dark winter followed.

Seriously, what the fuck is NEM? I'm grabbing a beer.

Very few token projects are producing or even planning to produce cash flow for holders. But CF doesn't preclude a token from being a utility: Filecoin, Golem, Numerai, etc., are utilities that should be CF+. Instead, we've written off revenue generation . . . just like the dot-bombs.

Full nodes on the Bitcoin blockchain store every transaction made going back to the zero block; full nodes on the Ethereum blockchain additionally store the static code (if any) associated with a given account and that code’s current state in storage.

Zcash and Decred are both interesting alt-coins, but what's to stop Ethereum from just copying their innovations?

[It's] similar to how big companies incorporate the best ideas from startups into their products all the time in other verticals. Bitcoin can't copy/steal good ideas bc of technical limitations and governance issues, but what's to stop Ethereum from doing it exactly?

Most attempts to bribe developers and users with airdrops and developer grants will fail (many already are), and most attempts to recruit insiders to a cause with pre-sale discounts and the (diminishing allure) of token flips will bring dysfunction and gridlock to projects. We’re starting to see some teams come to
terms with this reality...

The EOS “cartel” has likely led to irreparable damage in that protocol’s reputation in developer circles (why build on infrastructure that will get hijacked by ruthless investors)....Eos is a disaster, and the worst fears surrounding its cartel seam to be materializing.

As has been debated endlessly, a platform controlled by 21 crypto bros is just not all that decentralized. They can collude and censor if they wish. Governments and other well resourced actors can bribe them or force them to act against their will and against the well-being and security of the people using the platform.

It has been argued that if these block producers start behaving badly, they will be voted out, and that is the main source of decentralization in the system.

Unfortunately, there is no good way for anyone to detect that they are colluding, or have been corrupted or forced into some sort of improper action. I can imagine EOS being used for some games, but not even for games that have high value tokens. It will be too easy to organize to steal value on this platform.

The Polkadot worldview sees Ethereum connected as a potential “virtual parachain” via a bridge. For any parachain to become attached to the Polkadot relay chain, it must be voted in by the holders of dots — the Polkadot system token. These voters can also choose to pause a parachain or remove a parachain from the system if it is deemed to be out of compliance with what the majority prefers. Effectively, this is a permissioned system, and white listing and blacklisting of entire parachain networks is a core tenet of the governance system of Polkadot.

One could imagine a parachain choosing to be permissionless and allowing anyone to upload any dapp, but ultimately the DOT holders might take issue with this, as they might be considered by authorities to be responsible, so it would probably be too dangerous a policy for a parachain to offer. It is likely that this will be a permissioned and highly controlled blockchain platform.

First, some context: I think the#blockchain space benefits from experimentation, including the Libra project. What does not benefit the space is a Facebook-led blockchain project, led in typical Facebook style....

Mark Zuckerberg talks about Librain terms that are quite familiar (and validating) to the people already building blockchain systems: broadening financial inclusion & fixing a broken financial system.

How they propose to achieve that with a consortium of a few dozen mega-corporations at the helm is less clear––to say nothing of their own track record with the public’s data and privacy rights, issues many on the Committee similarly raised.

The Libra story is about dominant technology players trying to shoehorn themselves into what is going to be the future of the internet. Possibly they see the writing on the wall and want to make sure they have a seat at the table when new technologies like blockchain take hold.