• dx1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    20 hours ago

    “Greatest fool” description relies on the precept of its utility or demand returning to zero in a near-future timeframe. If people have utility for “the thing”, that won’t be the case.

    • ubergeek@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      19 hours ago

      There is no utility really, for ponzicoins. You can’t make anything from it. You can use it to make anything. You can’t eat it. You can’t hydrate with it. And you can’t use the notes to summon military aid.

      I suppose you can buy drugs with it. Maybe.

      So yes, it’s a Greatest Fool game.

      • dx1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        19 hours ago

        Yes, for the limited subset of ERC20s or whatever you describe as “ponzicoins”. Things that actually do nothing, particular not doing anything more than L1 cryptos but “this is yet another token”, are not really adding any value. But I would be really surprised if you can name any more complex contracts than ERC20s (or ERC721s), which is where the work in the space actually goes.

          • dx1@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            13 hours ago

            Yes, work. Smart contracts are designed, programmed and, if they’re done right, rigorously audited for correctness. Then you have user-facing interface and everything surrounding that as well. Look at the documentation of AAVE, for one example.

            And this isn’t even getting into the protocol level (L1 or L2) work either. Bitcoin was relatively simple, Ethereum is not. They’ve spent years crafting these systems to function for PoS, L2 support, sharding, rollups, etc., at scale.