Developers pointed out the “monopolization of content and data” in centralized social media platforms as a reason to create a decentralized alternative.
  • ekZepp@lemmy.worldEnglish
    12·
    1 year ago

    Either he didn’t know a thing of the Fediverse (and i find that quite improbable) or this is the usual trash advertise for some future half- coocked platform.

  • foggy@lemmy.worldEnglish
    5·
    1 year ago

    But Steemit Already exists. And it sucks.

    Karma has value, you get some Steem Coin or some shit.

    Sounds neat but you can just buy the coin and use your money to manipulate the platform

    • Xotor@feddit.deEnglish
      5·
      1 year ago

      Sadly not for what they want. They want it based on their blockschain. And thats just not a good idea.

        • LetsGOikz@lemmy.mlEnglish
          51·
          1 year ago

          It eludes you because you’re a reasonable person who understands it’s not necessary lol. Cryptobros and the blockchain are the very definition of “a solution in search of a problem” - a lot of great work has been put into this technology that sounds cool on the surface and that seems like it might be able to uniquely solve some problem, but they’ve yet to actually come up with anything of value (unless you see broad value in more efficiently scamming people or laundering money).

          • SwingingKoala@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
            16·
            1 year ago

            Actually, you’re entirely wrong. I saw the value of bitcoin and the blockchain as a payment system in 2013. I just don’t see any other valid use for blockchains.

            • LetsGOikz@lemmy.mlEnglish
              51·
              1 year ago

              I saw the value of bitcoin and the blockchain as a payment system in 2013

              And yet it has failed to provide any real value in that front in over a decade of existence. Bitcoin itself and similar L1 blockchains are too horrifically inefficient and (aside from debatably Monero?) they haven’t truly been any more private than traditional payment methods. L2 blockchains don’t even help solve the problem of transaction speed/efficiency enough for widespread adoption, and other techniques such as sharding have problems of their own that harm viability as a valuable payment system. And none of this even touches on the instability in value of the currencies themselves - even “stablecoins” aren’t safe, as we’ve seen from the collapse of several in recent years. The blockchain does not provide any broad value that is not already provided in better ways by other solutions that already exists - hence, “a solution in search of a problem”.

              • SwingingKoala@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
                25·
                1 year ago

                Do you believe that you’re smarter than the free markets? Going from $20 to $30000 clearly shows it has value, you just fail to see it.

                • LetsGOikz@lemmy.mlEnglish
                  41·
                  1 year ago

                  Going from $20 to $30000 clearly shows it has value

                  It has increased in price due to artificial scarcity and speculation, not on its merits as a payment system or technology. Even most dedicated crypto traders these days don’t even try to pretend that the price is tied to it’s underlying value as a system, they are well aware that the price is largely tied to being traded as a speculative asset. Price does not inherently correlate to underlying value, especially since I was never talking about monetary value to begin with and you bringing this up distracts from my point that it provides no additional broad systemic value as a platform.