there will be always a small group that has more power (and risk) then the rest!
nope. its to provide a censorship free p2p, secure ledger + to replace would mean to act in the same way (it technically can not - its deflationary vs inflationary fiat)
The idea is to change the financial system. Staking will allow any holder to get rewards - they will The Banks - so we wont need them anymore
The whales will be dictators if they are allowed to be.
For control…
What can they control, if the network si decentralized and you can always opt out (dump)
They can control voting, staking, and success or failure of ADA.
Ever thought about the fact that there are so many communists because you always call them that way if they don’t agree 100% with you? (just joking)
No seriously: I suggest we try to clarify what we’are (not) talking about. It seems to me this would explain a lot of misunderstanding and anti-communi(ty)st conversation happened in these threads.
The question is: are we talking about investments, sidechains, governance, votings and decisions for projects/companies/businesses running inside Cardano (using it like roads for vehicles moving on it) or are we talking about how Cardano itself should be governed, developed, adapted (means: how and where are we going to build streets, security-checkpoints, tolls, …)
Regarding the first one I’m mostly with you: people and investors can leave such a project if they don’t agree anymore. Voting power should count 1:1 on the monetary stake.
And in such a use case I also agree: it’s just a piece of software acting as a digital tool for the project’s and investors requirements.
But when it comes to the “rulesets” (not to use that fearsome word “regulation”) how a blockchain has to work, evolve and affect people in and around its ecosystem then I clearly tend to a common western-worlds methodology: democracy based on equal world citizens. In such a case it’s not just a piece of software you can leave, fork or ignore but something named in 50 years along with well known economic systems.
In best case then it’s called a big evolutionary step. In worst case it will be placed in libraries close to a book titled “mein Kampf”
democracy “descentralized” decision making, but still kept the financial part centralized. Now, with blockchain tech, with a chance to store/move/ value p2p (money/currency ppl wanna call it) and with Staking - we all are our own banks! We dont need centralized banks or govs. People in this group (forum) come from 1st tier countries who never personally experienced an economic default of their country
nope, I meant a new economic model decentralizing both decision (or governance) AND financial part, but in a democratic way considering people and not money in the centre of this universe.
1 brain <=> 1 vote
and not
1 $ or 
<=> 1 vote
I presumably believe in this approach because I do not think that staking, speculation and gambling create the added value of our society, but what our brains and hands create.
Ex: John, he is 35 years old, he worked his ass off in the last 15 years so he bought 100k ada. Bob, has 20 years, he only has 1k ada. Why should their “vote” be equivalent? You miss the decentralized part of the topic! The goverment = the consensus exist + you, accepting the rules that are in place when you join the network!
By simply having ada (and potentially staking) you govern and you are your own bank. Bob will get the same reward (10% a year) as John. If Bob votes for smth that turns out to hurt the value of ada, he only “risks” 1k. John risks 100k - he has a x100 incentive to make the vote that would help the network grow (aka price grow)
I agree with you on this example … if we talk about a business, project, investment where John, Bob and everone else can choose if they join, work their asses off, risk, cooperate or leave.
But I don’t see it as a valid and good example for people living on this planet. Money shouldn’t be the only value and power. What about Lisa who busted her ass at home caring for her parents and raising the two kids? In your coordinate system, she has nothing to say, no voting power … really?
What about different wealth levels all around the world? FIAT-systems usually are bordered and so don’t have to care about. But decentralized global monetary systems must care about such different systems. Especially when it comes to governance, and even more when this new crypto-systems claim they would go to bank the unbanked people. Following your ideas, they wouldn’t go to unbank but much more to rule them.
Again: let’s clearly differentiate between
A.) projects/companies/businesses: requiring investments, having risks and giving profit.
They can split, fork (if it’s only a piece of software), grow, disappear, …
B.) economic systems/rulesets: defining general and comune waypoints, directions, taxations (for A.)
They shouldn’t split and become adversaries like USA/UdSSR, North vs South Korea or BTC vs BCH.
Maybe my English is not good enough to express this in fine words and details but it appears very crucial to me that such things become also clearly explained and defined by IOHK. Maybe they prefer covering only A or B by defining itself only a solution for A or B. That’s ok for me. But I would have serious concerns if a system A or B should be the universal solution for both.
BTW: don’t forget that most other Crypto’s beside their ecologic disastrous footprint don’t even have considered this challenging questions. As I said some days ago: it’s not only a technical/logical/programming challenge but at least the same a social question how and if such a decentralized system could rule itself. (in a noticeable and continuos better way than what we have now)
Exactly, first the whole whale thing is highly exaggerated, I looked at the top richest 100, and if we look away from the top 5, two of which is OHHK and Binance/upbit. Its minuscule, If for every 1 holder risk is exponentially lower. EVEN if someone HELD 50% of all ADA (which will never happen). Do you think he would be malicious? NO, cause it would hurt confidence in ADA and someone who holds 50% of ADA would have the most to lose of the value going down.
For every whale the chances goes down exponentially, even if there was a 1000 whales held 50% of ADA, if you do the math behind it, the risk is so low it should be inconsiderable.
And someone who owns more ADA = more votes, has so much more incentive to be educated on what is being voted on - I have complete faith in this way of governing things, since it has been done forever and works VERY well.
It is obvious that there are many people in this thread that are acting out of greed and not concern of the actual risks. They want to enhance their own share of ADA, for their own personal gain.
This concern is the smallest of every concerns and challenges that faces ADA. No one has even made a successful crypto-currency yet that has been adopted, so how about we work on that first. Bitcoins intrinsic value is still close to 0, It is just a ponzi-scheme. Ive never met a real adopter of Bitcoin, someone who saves, takes contracts in bitcoin, paid in bitcoin. Never met one yet, never seen one yet - and no businesses accept bitcoin, they get paid in dollars and these bitcoin are being sold on exchanges again to other speculators. Which means the only real demand for bitcoin at this point is price appreciation. The more bitcoin “adoption” there is, places you can spend your bitcoin, the more pressure on the supply side there is, hence it is self-defeating.
Bitcoin will fail 100%, ADA has a small small tiny chance, if it gets mass adopted in Africa and used as a standard in combination with smart-contracts… The alternative is to be backed by something, I think there is no way around this eventually, if ADA doesn’t, someone else will. If we are backed by assets, then everything is secure, it doesn’t even need mass adoption, the assets itself secures the value. I know many proponents against this due to centralization of failure, but I dont share that opinion, since I want crypto to actually work.
There is no historical evidence for something being backed by nothing can be used as money, NONE, Its never happened - and there are very logical and economically reasons for that.
People say the Dollar is backed by nothing, but that is not true, it derives its value from we being forced to pay our taxes in dollars hence creating this massive demand, hence why transacting in it is a necessity. This is why unbacked currencies in every country have a market value, secondly since their products are sold in that currency. Cryptocurrencies dont have a backing by force, it is a backing by choice.
Btw everyone can see the genesis distribution block here, https://www.cardanohub.org/en/genesis-block-distribution/
This whole whale thing is completely overblown
That link is so old!!! Nothing is new and yes - 1000% overblown
They show it as a novelty and try to turn our people against Cardano!
Yes. Unless she is a single mom with 20 children and couldn’t work for 20 years and no one in the family can stake and gain rewards - yeah, this is how it should work. It’s an incentive “based” system not a “social” one. The reason is again the same - its decentralized, to “care” about Lisa you need a centralized (social system) that thinks. Here we have a p2p network.
Let’s say Lisa has a husband and 2 kids, I would not agree that having children is total incapacity of producing some value 
Sure, the output will be lower for a short period of time, but the dynamic of family work change with children. Parents usually are not anymore “beginers” at their job, their output value grow over time with experience and the “pressure” that comes from “providing” for the family. The “escape” from the welfare debt fiat system will hurt a lot of people who are used to live off the gov money. Not ppls fault the system is messed up like this. No way out without tears and sweat
great article! all types of money seem to have this problem. bitcoins first big rise was supposedly influenced by 3 major buyers alone.
Actually, there are 3 projects, but only 2 require any significant funds, which my own group is providing because they are corporate blockchain projects. However, one of the corporate projects could help incrementally decrease the ADA volatility in various ways; so, I will contact CF/IOHK directly about that one when the time is right to see if they want to be a partner with us. We have some important patents and unique tech and experience, which the team does not have. Additionally, if CF likes the project idea, then there will be many ways for our community to be involved, too. This will take a while though; so, it’s too early to make any more specific public statements.
The third project is purely a community project, which up to this point I was really excited to share in the forums, but the nasty troll is so toxic that I can barely even look at this thread anymore. So, when I’m ready, I’ll contact all the thoughtful members of our community privately to see who wants to be involved because it’s really a fun and interesting project that will amplify our collective energy. I don’t need any funding or any other support for it, but we might do a Kickstarter/Patreon/etc project so that everybody involved can share in both the expenses and profits if they wish.
I’ve been traveling over the past couple days with a lot of time stuck on airplanes; so, I had some time to read this book because I wanted to gain some more insight into why trolls behave the way they do. These trolls are why I never like Twitter or Facebook and I don’t participate in any other public forums because life’s too short to be around toxic trolls. They vomit through their keyboards and then act surprised when people don’t like their vomit.
Dear nasty troll: Charles himself has talked about EVERYTHING I’ve ever posted with respect to forking (as @SDL38 enlightened you here and my response regarding Charles’ comments about Microsoft). Does that mean Charles is a malicious troll, too? Additionally, Charles has talked many times about how Cardano’s democratic structure is one of the most important things that differentiates it from other blockchain projects. Does that mean Charles is a communist, too?
You might be happy with (benevolent) dictators running your economy, but many people are not; and we have a right to explore creative ways to resolve it without having our positive discussions destroyed by your constant false accusations, ideological slurs, and personal attacks.
You claim to hate communism, but you try to censor us like comrade Stalin. Stop distorting my words and over-simplifying everything and slither back into your cave, nasty troll.
I’ve been mostly keeping out of this but that out of context quote on CH is a nasty, cheap trick which I think should be deleted.
I’m not convinced that this concentration of power is a real issue here* but I’m open-minded about it, and I’m disgusted by your “debating tactics”.
Sign me up as one real person who wants to explore.
*Across politics and economics generally, I agree with @ADALove that the tendency for the rich and powerful to become ever more rich and powerful at the expense of the rest is a very real issue.
OK man… if it’s a decentralized network and the token is traded on an open market - always some will have more and some will have less. The basic idea of big vs small - is unjust, unfair.
Only way the eco-system works for all stakeholders (tiny/gigantic) is to always have an open market (we do) and an identical reward system. As I pointed out a thousand times, a 100 mil stake will get the same (10%) a year reward as an 1000 ada stake. Yes, it’s proportional - I think its great!
Let’s look at Btc’s POW - I will ignore the part about mine centralization in China and Bitmain. Look at the Incentive part - miner’s only incentive is to get more btc! (the invest in energy and hardware!) and sell it a higher price (dump - control the market) So. You can mine Bitcoin (cheaper then others - unfair), if you have a way to get cheap energy and cheap hardware!
No way you can do smth like this in Cardano’s POS. Only staked ada will get you more ada - so the incentive is dramatically changed from btc’s miners - ada’s stakeholders have a direct incentive to hold/stake and not dump.
ps
Look now - who is trying to fork and damage the network? The whales or this dude?
Only way to make it “fair” is so each person can only have a fixed amount. And a System of having one digital id for each human
Am also laying low as I think the thread has turned toxic and as I think we don’t have the answers necessary to be able to assess the question. The initial question seems to be a relevant one, and while I don’t know if there is an issue or not, I’d like to have some insight in this issue. A mere post from Cardano addressing this issue in an adequate way would suffice.
I like constructive, rational and respectful dialogue that serves to enlighten all involved. I’m not into emotional discussions that aim to score points in any possible way, and tries to impose views on others. Don’t want to spend my energy on that… And I feel that I’m not the only one here…