This is false though. It doesnāt. But as a network it benefits from diversity of accessibility. That means casting a wide net, and giving people options. ERC-20 give the network an immediate path (within weeks/months not years) to a variety of solutions both centralised, and decentralised, using a suite of readily available tools.
And it can also function in this manner at the same time.
Why does it have to be all one or the other though? Why not both? There is nothing to stop that, full your boots.
But we do need a suite of options for people to build withā¦ and a quick path for everyday end users to be able to utilise the network to safeguard their data.
Good point. I never said it had to be one or the other though, David however, alluded to that point of view.
That said, I want a feeless scalable token, not an ERC. That was what I invested in when I learned about the plans early days ā and why Iām now frustrated as Iāve lost my shirt hodling all these years and even loaning more to Maidsafe.
No it isnāt. Autonomi canāt rely on node operators trading coins in local cafes. Everhing else requires a centralised regulated authority: exchange or bank.
Itās all about traction. Bitcoin built that over a long time and exchanges appeared as part of that journey. They did not previously exist.
Thatās a long road and investors etc. have zero payout in that period. It has to be 100% open source with no staff getting paid. These parts are out of our reach, right or wrong, they just are. I wish they were not, but they are.
However, enough traction (network effect or whatever) gives an innovation impetus.
This is what I was relating to. If we cannot get value from a native token quickly enough to make financial sense to supporters on day 1 or even day 1000 (likely) then we start with a coin that can. No matter how different that approach is. Some can argue (and I do) that blockchain is centralised, my argument is vey technical non this point, others argue on the entity question and this is where there are differences. So if there is no central entity itās decentralised in some eyes. I think I can agree. However if the tech centralises on a data type, then I like it less, I really want total decentralisation.
So this move potentially gives a centralised data type but decentralised (entity) approach from a control perspective. So OK we are mostly kinda decentralised from an ownership/controller perspective, so good enough and trillions of $$ seem to agree.
How a native non blockchain product like our non blockchain currency would get onto the market, is slowly. Too slowly for investors, but thatās cool in this route we are on. They get paid out anyway.
So over a period of time and many ātestsā, āappsā, āattemptsā we will find ways the fully decentralised technology works where others donāt, it may even be the zero history approach, that I really like. When such cases arise then those use cases will proliferate, exchanging āstuffā but not necessarily cash as there is no exchange/$$ value. However if they are good enough, exchanges and FIAT on/off ramps will be built specifically to make profit, existing exchanges will certainly be a part as well (maybe the whole part).
So its a mix of centralised and decentralised? Thanks for admitting it. Not what it says on the tin though. The lead devs are claiming its still decentralised, even though they expect the MAJORITY of users to go through the regulated, deannonymoised, decentralized exchange route to access the network.
Because that was not what the project claims it is and its not what the project was aiming for at the outside. The OPPOSITE in fact. It still pretends to be totally decentralised despite the fact most users will be required to use a heavily regulated, KYC centralised exchange to access the resources of the network for the forseable future.
No, itās a decentralised data network. It will initially use a token standard for economic on/off ramps that can utilised in a variety of ways, CEX, DEX, OTC etc. And it can also be used without on/off ramps at all should you desire.
But I still donāt really get what you are after hereā¦ you seem to want a network thatās:
Decentralised
Anon
Not voluntary or barter based
Isnāt connected to crypto
Allows node operators to sell tokens direct to fiat without
Banks
OTC transactions
And you feel that the native token can achieve this?
Basically I see it as weāve had nothing for years and years, this step brings the network online in a interim stage. The final stage is getting the native token when its ready.
So now we have no tin.
ERC20 is getting the tin working
Native token is providing what is written on the tin
I really hope it does. Still skeptical about how useful the network can be when we have to pay for large amount of chunks at a time + extra fees. I guess small files are out of the picture unless we zip them all up en-mass first - which removes some important capabilities.
We can see that since this announcement, the market hasnāt been happy with the decision - price of emaid going down every day since, granted the market is very shallow, but was holding well at around .45 cents until then and no idea how far it may drop before stabilizing.
I understand your reasoning, but as I said before and as the evidence shows with multiple other blockchain funded data storage companies (and a 10 year project contributor on here walking away) : even being associated with ETH/ERC20 is not going to make a network get traction among the general public. Quite the opposite. I just donāt see it. really hope I am wrong. How is Storj / Sia doing? I never met anyone who uses those. I tried myself, gave up, the crypto part was too complex and not worth the hastle.
Regulators, and regulatory capture by corporations offering centralised competing products, copyright trolls etc, will never ever allow this to happen with an uncensorable network like Autonomi
