Do you consider institutional investment to be counterproductive for cryptocurrency decentralisation?

Rules:

  • Please respect each other rude or obvious trolling comments will be removed.

  • All sub rules apply in this thread. The prior exemption for karma and age requirements is no longer in effect.

  • Discussion topics must be related to cryptocurrency.

  • Comments will be sorted by controversial.

  • Thank you in advance for your participation. Enjoy!


Read More

Spread the love

10 comments

  1. KazukiFuse

    |Author

    No. If a blockchain is not designed to withstand large organizations getting involved, financially and politically, without the decentralization collapsing, then it was never truly decentralized in the first place. So at worst I view it as a test that any decentralized project must pass.

  2. J32926

    |Author

    Institutional investment is a natural stage of growth. You wouldn’t be able to leave fiat without providing the products and services currently offered by the financial sector, so I would view this as a major milestone for adoption.

  3. throwawayLouisa

    |Author

    I’m in favour of the custodial services and ETFs that enable more mums and pops to consider investing via the usual stock brokers.

    Later, once they get comfortable, they’re more likely to buy crypto directly (and use it, where it’s a currency, to buy stuff) – but the key initial importance is to draw in new investors in so that they become users.

    None of the above has any serious impact on decentralization of the coins themselves.

  4. short term returns (institutions) will result in crypto being seen as a short term solution, that would benefit only a few.

    given that crypto is being built to last, it’s in our best interest to do it right from the beginning. it’s all path dependent, so faults in design and or implementation today have a disproportionately high if not exponential detriment.

    fundamentally foundational necessities like the dispersed decentralised and distributed nature of incentives along with stored and exchanged value are key to making this transition a sustainable solution.

    one also needs to keep in mind other byproducts of plutocracy, besides being a power bottleneck, like it creating an environment of less liquidity as majority of the currency would be held by a few who would be doing far fewer genuine transactions comparatively.

    btc is already a sufferer of this. so our hopes are now pinned on the turing complete fundamentally egalitarian by design and initial distribution, proven secure peer reviewed research based proof of stake coins.

  5. No – the network is decentralised by setup. In a POW network like BTC – someone owning a lot of the coin doesn’t affect decentralisation. Besides, I think pure and total decentralisation will fade in the future – it will have some place, but lack of leadership is a fatal flaw and the inability to make necessary changes is a hindrance to progress.

  6. mr_li_jr

    |Author

    It’s still just speculation, essentially.

    But if it stabilises BTC’s price, it could help BTC to become more useful as a currency.

    I’m pretty neutral on it. I don’t think BTC needs it and I don’t think it’s going to cause major harm.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.