I, for one, am shocked.
This is the problem with a true blockchain-based distributed exchange. It makes money only from fees. All the exchange does is match orders locked in for a time by smart contracts and tell both sides "go". The exchange operator doesn't get their hands on customer funds, so they don't get to become a big company like FBX.
Think about it: you have no-coiners running around like “why does that need a token!? there is no use case for anything, I looked at the top 100 things on Coinmarketcap…”
Not noticing that they only found things with tokens because it advertised to them effectively, completely missing the products that do not have a token attached
Splitting the protocol fees with a subset of token holders who choose to stake is an ok human coordination mechanism, even gets no-coiners to look and swayed too late by a grifting youtuber at the top of the next bull market
The problem is that this is the very definition of a security, and you will run afoul of powerful regulators in some important countries if you’re offering unregistered securities over the internet to all comers.
> By the way, we didn't plan doing that at the end, after thinking about it a lot, but it meant we would need to gain many users by having a killer product and work for free for very long, like a regular startup I'd say.
Real web3 startups are just like normal startups if you take out the token economics. There do exist use-cases and users, but I'm glad the author had a strong enough sense to do what he felt was right. It's definitely easier now that the bandwagon has mostly stopped, but I think his reaction is a good one to maintain throughout our careers.
Many many years ago Ethereum /smart contract hackathons way were more innocent, at least most participants acknowledged they were working on something useless but fun.
A Ponzi scheme still a Ponzi scheme even if it's using Rust.
That’s not a Ponzi scheme.
The main difference is the lifecycle: the dump is fairly quick and sudden, as the name implies, while the Ponzi can keep digging a hole for decades if it can reach a sufficiently large or wealthy base of fresh investors.
Here's what the actual sceptic would immediately see and say "nah":
Goal: "hackathon during which we had to develop an innovative app or web app using NEAR's blockchain"
Result: "During the hackathon we made a decentralized exchange (DeX or "swap" in web3 jargon) named "Far Far Away Swap". This app's goal was to let our users exchange coins hosted on the NEAR blockchain using an automated market maker (AMM) algorithm"
Yup. Yet another currency speculation exchange. As a more jaded person, I would stop there. However, I see it as a good learning experience for the author, and I wish them the best of luck on their path.
----
This also made me chuckle: "I met many skeptics there. Often they were on the older side of the attendees (most of them were looking like 40 years old)".
Yup :)
I can't imagine how would it look for a founder. It's like trying to swim while being skeptical about touching water.
There have been very few companies I worked for where I "believed in" what they did in the sense of thinking they were doing something amazing and world-changing. But I "believed in" them enough to know they were doing things I found interesting and could afford to pay me.
> I can't be productive and efficient working on stuff I despise.
There's a huge amount of space between believing in something and despising that thing.
> It's like trying to swim while being skeptical about touching water.
I think being nervous about touching water when trying to swim for the first time is healthy and rational, and may even make your ultimate success more likely. I'd be much more comfortable working with a founder that had a healthy amount of skepticism than a founder who was a "true believer".
I suspect I'm purely getting trip up on language here, though, and I probably agree with your underlying sentiment.
Money is only a means to an end.
That said the amount of dishonest scammy behavior around the crypto world is terrible. You don't want to be part of that. You still have to make an honest living to make the world a better place.
Have you tried converting money into power and influence lately? The exchange rate is terrible.
The bay area has hundreds of thousands of STEM millionaires. Does the politics look like they're having a lot of impact?
Admittedly, engineers might not have any particular advantage when dealing with issues like drug addiction - but you'd expect things like water infrastructure, new homes and construction of high speed rail would be well in hand.
No, I suspect most of these millionaires are not doing much to help their communities. This is my point, there are few people with power and influence that are working for good. It would be great if more people established themselves and then started working to better the world.
Unfortunately it's like politics. The people you want in power don't want the power. The people you want to have money and influence tend to avoid it.
People who use this notation (and its derivatives) are committing crimes against humanity.
