Re:Introducing A16Z Crypto
by slg on Monday June 25, 2018 @05:12PM
(#17395835)
It is just the next round of the "Uber for X". Little attention is paid specifically to what that technology and business model provide. We end up getting hundreds of startups that use the buzzword to secure funding but quickly flame out when they realize that the advantages don't really matter to their specific market. However that doesn't mean there are not viable "Uber for X" or blockain business ideas out there.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Introducing A16Z Crypto
by endlessvoid94 on Monday June 25, 2018 @05:19PM
(#17395883)
Totally fair point. It's especially great for the investment world -- especially VC, which only needs one billion-dollar exit to make a return. So this makes sense!
Which basically sums up my problem with it. It is sad that the primary angle anyone looks at this from is as an investor or even a VC. That results in lots of wasted time, money, and specifically for most blockchain businesses wasted carbon ouput.
Re:Introducing A16Z Crypto
by endlessvoid94 on Monday June 25, 2018 @06:04PM
(#17396222)
If the only problem is that we've wasted a lot of time, and in the end one company builds one product that changes the world, then maybe it's worth it.
The existence of a positive net result is not sufficient justification for a poor, inefficient, or wasteful process that led to that result.
Re:Introducing A16Z Crypto
by workinthehead on Monday June 25, 2018 @06:34PM
(#17396409)
It is if you're a utilitarian.
I am not a philosophy student, but I think you have that backwards. My last comment was fundamentally a utilitarian one as it is about maximizing efficiency and minimizing waste. You don't see utilitarians walking around talking about "a sufficient level of good for a sufficiently large group of people".
Re:Introducing A16Z Crypto
by workinthehead on Monday June 25, 2018 @07:42PM
(#17396794)
That's incorrect. In your original comment you referred to "a positive net result", which the utilitarian will always prefer by definition. Perhaps you are confusing utility with efficiency?
>which the utilitarian will always prefer by definition
That is the heart of our confusion here. You are comparing it to a neutral state. Yes, a utilitarian would prefer any positive outcome to that. However, I was implying that there was another path that would have resulted in an even more positive result but through inefficiency we were left with a lesser but still positive result. That waste of resources like time and money is equivalent to a waste of utility that a utilitarian would obviously oppose.
Re:Introducing A16Z Crypto
by workinthehead on Monday June 25, 2018 @10:20PM
(#17397435)
> I was implying that there was another path that would have resulted in an even more positive result
Ah, the old "I intended the exact opposite of what I said" ploy.