That would be indeed very nice to visualize, I’ve asked the initiator of the topic before for this.
Also, for what it’s worth, a few days ago the numbers were as follows:
the richest 5000 accounts held 86% of currently circulating ADA
Just to throw some numbers out there, not deriving any judgement from this.
Lastly, I specifically said “a few days ago” because in the meantime I’ve checked the numbers again – this time for the richest 100 holders – and there has been some consolidation, i.e. the last person on the list now holds more.
Perhaps this aspect is what ADAlove feared? I don’t know. Who knows? Is that bad? Good? Just natural? People will make up their own minds.
Have a pleasant evening, everyone.
P.S. I despair at the level of vitriol that some people have brought into the conversation. So blind to the fact we’re simply a bunch of guys/gals, and I literally mean a few dozens, who are discussing things. No one’s getting sent to the electric chair, none of use have any power to actually do anything significant by themselves.
Ok 5000 Holding 86%, I can believe that at current point, and I am probably among them. I still dont see any specific issue raised, and I call to anyone who can, to do. I will answer @werkof in a moment.
Well first… The original founders and adopters of crypto were mainly libertarians, aka “pure capitalist” even the anarchist segment are actually capitalist, they just dont know.
For the essence of capitalism to work you need fundamentally strong and honest money, which is what crypto will provide.
Yes there will be a top 10% who holds 80% of the assets, or even more concentrated this will always happen over time. That group changes all the time, the same 10% are going to be very different 50 years later. This is the natural order of things. For every 100 born, most are not leaders, most are not creators, most are not innovators, most have no interest in building and cultivating assets. They just benefit from the yield of these assets, and thats OK. We all become more wealthy in this process, this is why today even the poorest in countries who have had lots of capitalism have more convenience and higher living standards than kings 2000 years ago.
Most people just work, get a salary, spend it. When they die, they left nothing behind in this world. No assets, no creations, what they gave in (their labor) equals the value they consumed. A zero-sum actor. No assets were created (surplus) - and thats totally fine, nothing wrong in this - but this is why the most amount of assets are always in a small segment of the population. It is not because they “took” these assets from anyone, these assets were created out of thin air. Additions to the economy, it is not a zero-sum game. Of course you can create straw-man examples, but on a total sum net-basis this is how it works in a free market.
To the point, you bring up the governance by rich people as bad, lets say there are 5000 that owned 90% of ADA. Whats the point? What are they going to do collectively? What is there incentive? How are they going to rip-off anyone? Tell me exactly how, give an exact specific scenario and situation. Not some vague conspiracy, that it is somehow obvious.
Even if I run my own company for almost two decades, and my country (Italy) is having one of the highest tax rates (because the southern part is professionally, largely and illegally avoiding them) I can’t resist to raise my voice here for a certain balance and protection against a constant move of money away from the poor people upwards to the richest 10%.
Look at this graphs over time to understand what I mean: https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality/
If crypto - significantly governed by such people and companies - will become a global standard (or at least one way) for such financial transactions, then I expect a huge increase in involved people and volume. All of this at full cost of the lower half of the worlds population.
thats quite the opposite of “banking the unbanked”.
counterquestion 1: who does expect that an anonymous system favours a fair and good development?
and regarding your statement:
counterquestion 2: so what exactly is the difference between the current FIAT and the Crypto system you describe?
First any tax-evasion that exist is good for the economy, since the government squanders resources more than anyone. The reason for this is simple, they dont have any incentive not to, and all the incentives to do. This is why we need “for profit” because this is the only mechanism that kills of squandering of resources and encourages growth of resources… and if someone chooses to squander, at least it only affects themselves and not anyone else.
Look, in a free market. Lets say I sell you a iphone, you paid 1000$. Now I have 1000$ but you have the phone? If you look on paper, now I am 1000$ richer. But wait a minute, you wanted the phone more than the 1000$ and I wanted the 1000$ more than I wanted the phone, so its win-win for us both. We both choose to do the transaction for our own benefit and we still chose to do it. So we both created value for each other, we both became richer in this transaction, we created this out of thin air. I dont want the 1000$, I want stuff, but you didnt have any stuff I wanted, thats why we use money, so we dont need to barter directly with each other, but we can quantize the economic input in money, and store it there. So if someones makes a profit in a free market, lets say you accumulate 1 billion USD. Then thats the value you put into the system, to fully understand this you need to go deeper into the mechanics of profit, I cant just explain it over a short paragraph here, Its not completely intuitive.
Now, where everything is being fucked up is when you dont have a free market, aka. where companies can use a government for favors or benefits that inhibitors otherwise free-market competitors. Patents, regulations… Like regulations, or minimum wages. They increase price for doing business, so only larger companies can survive, this benefits larger companies… Min wage. If there was no min wage and regulations unemployment couldn’t exist… The only thing min. wage hurts are people who cant produce the value of the min. wage and cant get a entry into the market to acquire these skills… Because it is economically impossible to hire someone at a higher price than what they can produce.
Well lets first start with Bitcoin… Nobody can govern anything… It would takes a mass mass collusion to alter the ledger. So mass that it is completely unlikely, so unlikely that the threat of it is worth having for honest and sound money (which bitcoin is not, but if it was). In bitcoins case, it would be so costly making it not-worthwhile.
In terms of POS - even if someone wanted to collude, (this is why proof of stake is better) if trust in that currency was broken the value would immediately plummet hurting the mass holders more than anyone else. Its just bad incentive. You actually have to own ADA, being at monetary risk, rather than just having a bunch of mining power (POW)
How is it different from FIAT? Well most gov fiat is controlled by just a very few people in a central bank lol, and they actually control it, and they have political incentives that are not for profit. Which always leads to money-printing - other than that, it means they can seize, or control transactions within that system. But the most toxic part is the incentive… You know a unbacked currency would have never worked, because everyone back in time knew this, it could never have been sold to the public as a unbacked currency… The dollar was backed by gold, thats the only reason people chose the dollar to begin with. The dollar was the claimcheck to the money that was sitting in a vault, which was gold. The dollar was never meant to be the money.
Cardano. The governance structure is not meant to have complete control, I am not sure exactly how it is going to work, but I am sure there are limits of what that can actually do and any control beyond that would have to be done by a hard-fork. Any collusion would be limited in damage of what you could actually do.
Just out of the top of my head (the possibilites are limitless to be honest as long as a small group has a majority voting power. And with small I am talking and group able to vote as a group. As long as there is no laws/rules against it it would be compleatly legal for them to do to and basically a way to take money for free.
Propose and get voted a new system where stake reward is disproportional to amount of ada owned (causes skewed wealth over time say if you stake more than 1 million you get X reward and if you have 10000 or less you get only y reward)
Propose and get voted in geographical limitations and/or other hardware limitations on staking that causes one group/nation to benefit.
Taking some inspiration from real world cases : Propose and get voted in that a majority can purchase all ada of minority user for X cost as compensation (takeover bid)
More real world cases: Propose and get voted in that more ada will be created in a ICO but only if you can purchase X amount of ada or more you can contribute (benefiting the rich holders and diluting minority stake holders)
Hostile takeover of ADA where a majority wants the currency to be sold / distributed into another coin created by whales/groupes so they get a disproportional financial benefit.
I am sure many examples are far fetched but the point is only the creativity is the limit here. Once you have a majority vote in the hands of a group able to vote together as a group you can do all kinds of havoc. And as long as there are no rules protecting against these things they are legally free to do it. I am not saying any of these is going to happen any time soon but in theory and in the future it could happen if there are absolutly no rules on voting.
Great and to the point post, thanks! First one Ive seen. I will address it, with my take on it. These are some great points and potential issues - which can all be solved by putting in place limitations on the governance system, I will get back and address each point of how I see each could be preventable.
Great looking forward to that. Thanks for keeping this discussion civil. I will respect any argument with validity. Lets show that this comunity is more than lambos to the moons and trolls not allowing bridges to be crossed.
Suppose we trust your statement and in best case you know some other whales and can tell us about a whales typical point of view: can you list up at least two, or better more arguments discussed in this thread by ordering it from true/important down to wrong/meaningless.
I know both my request and your answer could be considered highly speculative and written by someone not being a real whale. That’s why it would be awesome to see a real whales statement about his motivation and expectations (I personally would be interested much more in some shared ideas about possible social, moral, global impact, and not if you expect 10, 100 or 1000% of speculative profit.
They will come in waves and take crypto into the trillions. This will make some people upset, they will feel the grassroots movement is dead, simply because, it did not happen the exact way THEY IMAGINED IT!
Yet, these whales can signal in mass adoption! People who are not thinking crypto will suddenly have a choice thrust upon them when the whales raise the market cap toward 3-5% of total global money.
The private investors are the majority in the end . . . If they stay in.
If they leave because of the presence of whales, then the whales will gain market dominence just like the commodities markets, stock markets, bond markets, exc.
Peeps need to remain hopeful, and push a positive message