Is there true Value creation in Ethereum's decentralization philosophy?

Economics
1

The Ethereum ecosystem is nascent and yet it already has achieved financial inequality by the very nature of its design. People with superior financial resources have had a head start and reaped significant benefits in contrast to most of the users. These are the new Elites.

Their power is the Ether which despite its novelty has value only in relation to the traditional currency it is denominated in usually the USD. (Thus IMO a global financial system collapse would make the ether worthless and destroy all value created)

Could this situation have been avoided during the early years of design by making the expansion of the blockchain via mining a very inclusive process? Was this a priority issue?

Is there a case for sharing mining rewards with the actual users of the blockchain on the basis of transactions because without users the chain will simply not grow and expand?

Should not the miners be compensated for their CAPEX + OPEX + fixed ROI% by the Foundation and the Users?

Is there a case for a DAO + Defi solution to the above proposal with participants being the Foundation, Miners, and Users?

Hence, we can foresee a future of development that inequitably rewards the elites because of the distinct financial advantage they enjoy.

Are we simply exchanging a physical world order for a supposedly decentralized digital world that similarly does not guarantee financial fairness and equity?

Is the problem also with the notion of value which is still identified with the value of a crypto in the USD?

Is there a need for a paradigm shift in the notion of economic value using a trustless digital metric that allows for a wider level of participation and equitable distribution of benefits?

Would this not lead to a disruptive change and transformation of the real economy via the Daaps/DeFi/DAO community?

Is this not true value creation, equitable distribution, and decentralization?

1 Like
2

Why still obsessed with miner/mining?
If someone were to have a time machine, travel back in time, change history, and introduce Bitcoin as a PoS instead of PoW, today everyone would be obsessed with PoS just as much.
In this world, it is inequality that perpetuates all existence, without any prejudice on what is right/wrong.
It is us that put right/wrong (moral standards) onto such inequality, as if being equal/unequal is right/wrong.
You can never find a world where everyone is equally intelligent/stupid, equally righteous/corrupt, etc.

1 Like
3

The Ethereum ecosystem is nascent and yet it already has achieved financial inequality by the very nature of its design. People with superior financial resources have had a head start and reaped significant benefits in contrast to most of the users. These are the new Elites.

  1. On the contrary, Ethereum is inclusive in its design. All are free to participate. It also allows for the creation of decentralized applications which can distribute equity directly to users. These factors are among those that make Ethereum a vehicle for equality and inclusiveness.

Their power is the Ether which despite its novelty has value only in relation to the traditional currency it is denominated in usually the USD. (Thus IMO a global financial system collapse would make the ether worthless and destroy all value created)

  1. This is a fallacy. The fact that U.S. persons denominate prices or wealth in USD does not make the things denominated in USD worthless if the dollar was to collapse. Their house would still provide a roof over their heads, their Ether could still be used just as previously. In fact, if beleif in the dollar was to collapse following run-away inflation, ETH would become very valuable as the new decentralized means of exchange.

Could this situation have been avoided during the early years of design by making the expansion of the blockchain via mining a very inclusive process? Was this a priority issue?

  1. This statement is vague and hard to follow.

Is there a case for sharing mining rewards with the actual users of the blockchain on the basis of transactions because without users the chain will simply not grow and expand?

  1. Please note that transaction fees are needed since block-space is limited. If further economic value was to be distributed to the addresses that transact, this would incentivize them to simply pay more for transacting, starting a feedback loop raising transaction fees. However, with EIP-1559, the transaction fees will now be redistributed to all holders of Ether by burning the fees. Here it should also be mentioned again that one great thing about Ethereum is that users have receive equity in the dapps they use, simply because they used them transacting. One example is Uniswap.

Should not the miners be compensated for their CAPEX + OPEX + fixed ROI% by the Foundation and the Users?

  1. They are already compensated through mining rewards. The size of these rewards will be related to expenditure.

Is there a case for a DAO + Defi solution to the above proposal with participants being the Foundation, Miners, and Users?

  1. No.

Hence, we can foresee a future of development that inequitably rewards the elites because of the distinct financial advantage they enjoy.

  1. On the contrary, PoS limits economics of scale for securing the blockchain, as opposed to PoW. Thus smaller investments can generate the same level of rewards as bigger investments.

Are we simply exchanging a physical world order for a supposedly decentralized digital world that similarly does not guarantee financial fairness and equity?

  1. No, we are giving every person on earth the opportunity to acquire equity in the future of finance. Please define “financial fairness”.

Is the problem also with the notion of value which is still identified with the value of a crypto in the USD?

  1. No, please see point 2.

Is there a need for a paradigm shift in the notion of economic value using a trustless digital metric that allows for a wider level of participation and equitable distribution of benefits?

  1. Yes! There is a need for a cryptographically secured digital metric, that could be used for example as a currency, while also allowing for wide participation and equitable distribution of rewards for securing it. We could call such a digital metric a “cryptocurrency”, and use Ethereum for realizing the stipulated broader goals.

Would this not lead to a disruptive change and transformation of the real economy via the Daaps/DeFi/DAO community?

  1. Yes!

Is this not true value creation, equitable distribution, and decentralization?

  1. Yes!