darkstar

joined 2 years ago
[–] darkstar 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That's a very interesting approach, and may work for very specific applications. It seems unlikely most platforms or apps would adopt such an approach since it would be a very high burden to overcome for users to sign up, which is what let's an app or platform grow. People are rather attached to money, but there's also the other side of this. A user may not care about the fine and continue to break the rules as "the cost of doing business" because they're wealthy.

It's definitely going to be a technology that drives anonymity, and everything that comes with it, for better or worse. I can see a lot of good this can do, but also a lot of crime it can facilitate.

[–] darkstar 36 points 2 years ago (9 children)

While the pirate in me says "hell yeah!", the system administrator in me says "Fuuuuuuuck". I was once part of an IRC network, and one of the biggest issue we had was with Brazilians who would break our rules and get banned. Just a minute or two later, they were back. It got so bad that we just said "Fuck it. We're banning all of Brazil." Not an ideal solution, but it beats spending our time chasing the majority offenders. It's the 80/20 rule, where 80% of your problems are caused by 20% of your users.

Now let's pretend somebody builds their new app around this new tech. I love the concept, but how do you keep order? How do you ensure people follow the rules? The only thing keeping users in line would be the fear of losing their "brand" (their username, their reputation). If the new app is something like a chatroom, there's no "brand" to be had, and you can simply use a new name. It would, obviosly be very different if the app were based around file hosting like Google Drive, because you don't want to lose your files, but anything with low retention will likely be rife with misconduct due to anonymity.

On the other hand, it would allow for a completely open internet, that no single government can shut down, which we're seeing happening more and more, with China, Iran, Russia, and Myanmar all shutting down the Internet, or portions of it, when those in power feel there's a threat to the status quo.

[–] darkstar 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

My growth and dividend portfolios are already mostly focused on ETFs, such as LIT and QCLN. The problem is that LIT and QCLN have done so well that they took over my growth portfolio. Selling to rebalance could be one option, but feels like giving up on something that worked, and since they're ETFs and not stocks, I don't feel the need to really sell them since, as you pointed out, they should be relatively safe thanks to being ETFs.

view more: ‹ prev next ›