applepple

The best way to stop global warning is through intervention by Central Banks. We need to create monetary policy which promotes incentives such as green energy and carbon capture technology. We also need to focus on improving battery technology to store excess energy for later use.

We need to introduce innovation permits to restrict who is allowed to work on green tech so that we don't waste effort reinventing the wheel. We need to bring all the top green energy minds under one roof with one director at the top who has a PhD and a proven track record of success at raising capital.

The key to innovation is to reduce competition and increase collaboration. With such focus, it's critical that we don't put the wrong people in a position of power. We need a solid proven track record in academia, politics and/or business - The only way to do this is by looking at the financial track record. The stock market is the only mechanism which we can trust for ranking top people. Mediocre people who can't achieve success in such easy economic times should not occupy positions of power. If they can't make it during such easy fiscally expansionary times, how will they perform during hard times?

We need better leaders with a proven track record and top credentials from top universities.

Innovation can harm efficiency by creating needless competition which is wasteful.

That's why innovation should be in the hands of corporations. The government should introduce laws to require innovation permits to prevent wateful competition.

These permits should be expensive, that way only big corporations could afford them so that will ensure maximum efficiency.

Maybe not completely, but they all profit from having an element of deception. They are drawing attention away from better projects by hoarding all the top spots on all the exchanges and ranking websites. They are destroying the industry and hurting people IMO.

>> So Stellar, Cardano and XRP are all scams?

When Stellar started, they were all about 'Quorums'; trying to imply that this was the secret sauce which would allow it to scale unlike any other blockchain. I initially thought that quorums were like separate shards but after asking around years ago, I found out that it was not the case; all transactions pass through all nodes; exactly the same as a plain old blockchain. These days they barely even mention the concept of a 'quorum' because it was never anything more than a scammy marketing tool.

I don't know too much about Cardano so I won't criticize too much but when I skim-read their whitepaper about 1 year ago, it sounded over-complicated. This is a red flag for me. Also, they are yet to implement smart contracts; so there is a long way ahead. I don't like that they keep bragging about their all-PhD team. In my experience, PhDs aren't good at delivering good developer experiences or limiting the amount of complexity.

I wouldn't say that XRP/Ripple is a scam; but only because they don't make it a secret that they are essentially a centralized crytocurrency with multiple nodes for redundancy. But some could argue that they are a scam based on the fact that they don't solve any of the problems that a cryptocurrency is meant to solve (this critique pretty much applies to all top cryptocurrencies BTW; they don't solve any significant economic problem aside from upholding the status quo; the opposite of what they claim to do).

>> So it's a scam because it doesn't exist yet and it's planned on the roadmap?

It's scammy because they sell it as if it already exists, but it doesn't.

Name any major project and I can tell you why it's a scam.

Bitcoin: Uses the electricity of a country to process 2 transactions per second. Layer 2 solutions such as Lightning Network have some significant drawbacks which make them unpractical and vulnerable to multiple attacks. They've been trying and talking it up for years - No results.

Ethereum: Doesn't scale. The entire ecosystem (including all ERC20 tokens) together cannot process more than 30 transactions per second. New ERC20 tokens have to pay the same HUGE (e.g. $20 per transaction) fees as the mainchain; all tokens slow each other down (compete for resources from each other and drive up each other's transaction fees). They said that sharding was essentially ready years ago but now they've basically canceled it (or 'put it on the backburner' as they like to call it) in favor of extremely complex and vulnerable layer-2 ZK-Rollups solutions which are completely unproven (we don't know what will happen when many projects start adopting rollups; expensive on-chain interactions still need to happen).

Polkadot: They claim everywhere to have 'Parachains'. The reality is that this feature doesn't exist yet. The way it's designed is extremely complex and the scalability benefits are limited because there can only be a limited number of parachains.

Also, one thing which almost all the projects have in common is that they're mostly targeted at developers... Yet as a developer, there is almost always a MASSIVE amount of friction involved in setting up and integrating the blockchains with other systems. For example, Ethereum requires minimum 300GB of disk space to run a node (you need to run a node to do any serious integration testing). Also, the Ethereum node doesn't even provide a basic search feature; you need to use CENTRALIZED third-party services in order to search the blockchain data (that's because the node writes to a file instead of a proper database)... OMG. I could go on and on and on. There is just so much money behind these projects that the entire community will constantly twist the facts and present a severely distorted view of reality.

There is no limit to the amount of deception and self-deception when there is money involved.

There is a massive difference. In monopoly, everyone gets the same amount when they cross 'Go'. If we had taken the rule from the real world, people would be paid proportionally to their net worth (value of all assets). Real life is even less fair than monopoly in that aspect.

If two people own shares of a company which grows at 10% per year; one person owns $1 million worth of shares and another owns $1000 worth of shares. The first person gets $100K worth of additional wealth in the first year, the other person gets only $100... Then the following year, the compounding effect increases the gap between them even more.

Even if that growth was completely natural (no central bank intervention), it would still be unfair... But what makes the system so incredibly unjust is that all this growth is ARTIFICIAL. The central banks print money and push it into the economy; the institutions on the front line then basically use that new money to pay one another for services; thus wiping out each other's debts using the freshly printed money. It's a giant, multi-layer pyramid scheme.

The vast majority of top projects are essentially scams and the real projects are not in the rankings. Even promising projects seem to turn into scams once they get into the top 200 or so. It's as if some wealthy investors buy up a lot tokens from top projects and then threaten the founders to crash the price unless they stop development and start wasting time. I've worked in the blockchain industry for several years and I've seen founders who used to constantly make great decisions start making one terrible decisions after another - It feels like they switched from being productive to being counter-productive from one day to the next. It's as if they're getting paid to NOT innovate.

I'm 100% sure that there is some manipulation going on but I can't figure out why (though I have some wild theories).

Our society is not capitalist. New currency is constantly being printed out of nothing and pumped into the system. That's not a free market. Businesses just follow the money. It can be as inefficient as society allows it to become. As long as most people can ignore the reality.

If the banks were only loaning people money to collect sea shells, then the entire global economy would end up revolving around sea shell collection.

Then some rational people would eventually write books claiming that seashell collection is a bullshit job, we don't need so many seashells... Then people like you would post comments saying "That's not true, obviously we need seashells because capitalism would never allow for such inefficiency."

It would be an interesting experiment if you could show me the GitHub repo of the best written open source FP project you've ever encountered and I could point out its flaws and rank them on a scale based on how critical they are in terms of maintenance and performance.

It's always the case that when I present these arguments above to FP devs, they respond with personal insults instead of counter-arguments. This suggests that they know my arguments are accurate but they are too invested in FP and are in denial - It's emotional, so they respond emotionally.

You shouldn't think of it like "I've been fooled and wasted all this time on FP". You should think about it like "I gave FP a thorough analysis over several years and it was a worthwhile experiment which didn't work out but I learned a lot from it".

I also spent quite a lot of time working with and reading FP code over the last 15 years. That's why I can criticize it with confidence today. It was not a waste.