zlacker

>>donsup+(OP)
It's sad that such projects got into YC, when it was easy to tell that Luna/Terra was a ponzi. I looked at it earlier, and stayed away due to these red flags.

Blockchains themselves have a bright future though as a technology which is truly fantastic and keeps innovating rapidly. Right now, with all the negative press, it may be easy to dismiss it, but it will come back as a trustless computing platform that the world needs.

I am biased, as we chose to build in that domain but proud that we're developing actual new tech for smart contracts... YC, you can still accept us in the next batch :)

>>hbbio+ll
Trustless computing might have a future, trustless money no.

>>whatev+Sm
Money is a use case that attracts scams indeed, and will be harder to get right.

But we're building for a future where apps like Calendly can be smart contracts. With new blockchains* that have a very low tx fee (imagine $0.00001 / tx), I clearly see many services migrate to smart contracts.

They won't require any subscription, existing data is never at risk of being wiped out, and hopefully we will keep optimizing app and data size enough to get back to apps that just work, without the cruft or bad incentives. We're here to make that happen!

* New research papers suggest we can reach > 100k tx / sec with great safety and liveness properties

>>hbbio+uC
> But we're building for a future where apps like Calendly can be smart contracts.

[…]

> They won't require any subscription, existing data is never at risk of being wiped out, and hopefully we will […] get back to apps that just work, without the cruft or bad incentives. We're here to make that happen!

I fail to see what the advantages are of having a calendar app/service implemented as a DAO.

I can see the advantages of federation (ala email or the fediverse), and I can see the advantages of a "local first" approach, but what does a web3/DAO bring to the party?

The trustless use-cases I can imagine are quite sociopathic, like selling appointment slots with price discrimination, or reserving a slot for a smaller fee, or allowing resale of appointments or reservations, or remaking any and all of the above transactions into auctions.

Turning every little thing into a multi-sided market sounds exhausting and pathological.

You can apply this sort of thinking to other existing app/site categories, like wikis. No longer do you have to endure edit wars, you can just bid to finalize your preferred version! Unless 50% of the editors veto your edit, in which case you forfeit your bid. Oh joy, now a bad faith actor can't just pay one wiki editor under the table to slant the content your way, you have to bribe a whole bunch to prevail. Yes, that would be a huge improvement.

I don't know, perhaps I am lacking in imagination, but the negative social consequences of monetizing relationships and social transactions are pretty well known and I'm not really seeing a commensurate benefit:

https://rady.ucsd.edu/faculty/directory/gneezy/pub/docs/fine...