Like for example, the crypto kickstarter that tried to buy a copy of the constitution? Nevermind the fact that the geniuses in charge didn't realize this didn't give them merchandising rights, when the bid failed, returning the money was a legitimate problem. Hell, even collecting the money was hard, for the same reason - gas fees.
Sure, there are ways around gas fees using second layer chains or whatever, but it's STILL not any more useful than just using fiat currency and existing systems.
Just solutions in search of problems. Kickstarter-style platforms are NOT a problem that fiat currency doesn't solve. Adding blockchain, even just for payment, doesn't solve this problem that doesn't exist.
The constitution DAO was pretty successful application of the tech. Within a week, they went from idea to public fundraiser, raised more than they would have been allowed to on Kickstarter or GoFundMe, had immediate access to the funds, and paid 0% commission compared to what most corporate platforms would charge. When the bid failed, donors were able to seamlessly exchange their PEOPLE tokens for their initial deposit. The whole process was faster than Kickstarter’s 14 day settlement.
The fees could be mitigated by using a rollup.
They lost the auction because their maximum fixed bid was public knowledge, but another application of this tech could just activate the funds toward the goal such as putting it toward carbon removal.
Disclosure: I was one of the donors and I knew the risks and also the fees involved, and I was satisfied with the whole process. A low fee tech like this on a rollup would be great.
But forget kickstarter. We are talking about identity. Tell me how you could implement, e.g, a twitter-like application where no single entity can kick you out. Assume that the data does not need to live in a blockchain, and each user's data is portable between different servers. The only thing a (willing) server needs to have is a way to authenticate your identity. How would you do that without blockchain?
I want to stick with the Kickstarter example a bit longer, as "banking the unbanked" is to me one of the few claims of potential crypto applications that I care about.
Blockchain technology is at this point well over a decade old, yet we can still only talk about its benefits in hypotheticals. You claim that a decentralized, crypto-based alternative to Kickstarter would be valuable in those places where institutions are not functional. This seems like something that could be tested today, as opposed to in some nebulous future. So where are all these applications that financially emancipate the proverbial Somalian farmer? I haven't really seen any concrete, significant success stories, much less any that justify the fossil fuels we're burning to maintain these systems.
I suspect this has to do with the strong correlation between corruption in general (which would drive one to adopt crypto alternatives) and poor or nonexistant education (which is needed for the tech literacy to use crypto and not be scammed at every turn). I don't know how to solve that problem.
> But forget kickstarter[...]
I don't know how to solve that problem without blockchain; I also don't know how to solve it with blockchain.
> I also don't know how to solve it with blockchain.
I'm aware that there are several projects that aim to "bank the unbanked". The existence of projects that claim to solve an issue does not prove that the issue is solved or even addressed. I don't see any numbers or even anecdotes on how effective these projects are at achieving their goals.
How many formerly unbanked are now banked thanks to blockchain? And I don't mean that theoretically, as in, "any Somalian farmer could in theory access banking services through the blockchain right now", I mean "how many people who had no access to trustworthy financial institutions in the past, are now actively using blockchain-based alternatives for financial services?"
This is the falling for the same all-or-nothing trap that I pointed out in the very first comment. We are never going to go from "unbanked" to "banked exclusively thanks to the blockchain". What is going to happen (and is happening) is that these projects will bring "people who don't have access to service X" to "blockchain project that creates an alternative to service X".
Examples:
- People in countries with strong capital controls can now participate in a global economy through blockchain transactions.
- People living in countries with poor monetary policies and weak currencies can protect some of their wealth by buying stabletokens backed by stronger currency.
- Communities without access to money markets can now issue their own local currencies and create their own credit cooperatives.
- Sex workers and "sin businesses" who are denied access to payment processors (no matter if political or economic reasons) can use web3 to not only accept payments, but also as a way to distribute their content without intermediaries.
In all of the examples above, it might happen that the situation in the "traditional" system changes and the groups start getting access. But until they don't have it, it's nice to know that they have an alternative.
A country with repressive or non-functional capital/monetary controls will just jail people using cryptocurrencies unless they turn over their wallets. They can also use an accusation of having a wallet as pretext for indefinite detainment or punishment. Such countries aren't likely to have functional governments or even free access to the Internet. Even TV and radio are tightly controlled in such places.
whose laws?
- Sex workers from countries where prostitution is absolutely legal are affected by, e.g, Mastercard pushing for blocking transactions and almost forcing OnlyFans to drop all their adult content. All because of extended overreach from American politicians.
- A lot of these countries with strong capital controls have a lot of loopholes in the legislation by design, so that the elites can find a way to move their capital while the middle-class is forced to carry all the burden. There is a saying from a Peruvian politician: "For my friends, everything. For my enemies, the law", which perfectly illustrates the situation.
Crypto is not illegal, it just democratizes these loopholes. If History can teach any lesson, whenever the middle-class finds a way to enjoy the same privileges as the elites, it does not end up in a repressive reaction from the government, but in the normalization and formalization of the "informal" behavior.
- Same thing for holding stabletokens. In Brazil there is no regulation against holding crypto. The problem is that Forex is not something for retail. Too many fees, taxes on fiat and the impossibility of making deposits in foreign currency make it difficult for "retail investors", but a lot of elites have access to external markets where they can hold USD/EUR/GBP to protect themselves.
I could go on... but the point I am trying to make is that in the places it doesn't take an extreme case of Authoritarianism or Poor Economic Development to face a situation where the institutions fail.
What do we have to show for it? I'm asking for concrete data, or even just some anecdotes. You list some projects and how these projects could, in principle, help people. How many people are helped by them (even indirectly by improving access to traditional services)? Is this number proportional to the cost of running these systems?
Do me a favor: go check my project (https://hub20.io/about). If minimally supported, it could very well become THE system to "bank the unbanked". Afterwards go check the "Contribute" link. See how many people are supporting my work.
But something like a Kickstarter-ish crowdfund system could be using a blockchain contract to handle funding and escrow, while the rest of the website is hosted in a standard web2 way. Suddenly it’s a “web3 project” where users are able to interact with and even own records in the contract, outside the context of a single frontend website.