> Not real-world projects. As discussed in the introduction, I am only discussing projects that have real-world effects outside of cryptocurrency balances. Gemini, Circle as exchanges, and Algorand as a Blockchain implementation, don’t qualify here – they don’t actually add real-world utility other than moving tokens around.
Interesting take. These are very different "projects", but I don't see why they don't qualify as "having real-world effects".
Gemini and Circle are corporations that provide stablecoins backed by USD reserves (gUSD and USDC). The tokens these companies have created can be moved around on various blockchains without an intermediary and used to pay for goods and services.
Algorand is a blockchain protocol that can be used to build decentralized applications (similar to Ethereum). There are many "real-world" projects built on Algorand, for example lofty.ai (tokenized real-estate investing).
I don't see how the author defines "real-world utility" and why Algorand, Gemini and Circle wouldn't qualify. It seems like the author is trying to cherry-pick a few failed blockchain projects in an attempt to smear the whole industry.
for example lofty.ai (tokenized real-estate investing)
Agree, IIRC this is a YC baby as well and will easily be a $1-10B startup over the next 5-10 years. They have unfortunately become less generous with fees since launch but the core product is still extremely solid. Probably should just keep my mouth shut because homes move so quickly now, but that wouldn't be in the spirit of SV.
Both Omen and Augur appear to be dead. Omen isn't online, Augur isn't available on the US but their email signup is broken and they haven't posted on social media in a year.
"Company is a fucking joke. I invested upon launch and there's still nothing usable after half a decade. Been seeing the same "roadmaps" for 5+ years. Company raises hundreds of millions and can't manage to launch a simple UX for prediction markets lmfao..."
That's unfortunate to hear, I haven't followed these projects in a while. Looks like their competitor PolyMarket is now the most popular prediction market: https://polymarket.com/
Polymarket looks interesting but crypto/blockchain isn't necessary for prediction markets-- with Polymarket you still need a trusted entity to record whether the event happened. There are much more legitimate non-crypto prediction markets -- this new one is actually federally regulated in the US https://kalshi.com/
Some of these prediction contracts can be resolved using a decentralized oracle (I know this is the model Omen was trying to implement).
But even if there is a trusted entity involved, a smart contract I can interact with directly using blockchain transactions is better than having to provide my picture, passport and SSN to some company that builds a database of all my trades. This problem is even worse if I move to a jurisdiction where you need to be accredited to play, or where prediction markets are illegal.
For many of these financial applications, crypto/blockchain isn't strictly necessary, but it can be very useful.
Eh, by that logic you shouldn't consider any fintech company to be "real world" either because they just involve moving bits around in the banking world.
The difference is that you consider the traditional banking world legit and the crypto one scammy and fake, which is a perfectly valid opinion to have, but completely begs the particular question of whether any of this shit has real world utility.
Those bits moved around in the "crypto world" represent real world things. Do you also believe that email has no real world applications because it just involves moving bits between computers or that the money in your bank account isn't real because it's just some bits in a database?
> Not real-world projects. As discussed in the introduction, I am only discussing projects that have real-world effects outside of cryptocurrency balances. Gemini, Circle as exchanges, and Algorand as a Blockchain implementation, don’t qualify here – they don’t actually add real-world utility other than moving tokens around.
Interesting take. These are very different "projects", but I don't see why they don't qualify as "having real-world effects".
Gemini and Circle are corporations that provide stablecoins backed by USD reserves (gUSD and USDC). The tokens these companies have created can be moved around on various blockchains without an intermediary and used to pay for goods and services.
Algorand is a blockchain protocol that can be used to build decentralized applications (similar to Ethereum). There are many "real-world" projects built on Algorand, for example lofty.ai (tokenized real-estate investing).
I don't see how the author defines "real-world utility" and why Algorand, Gemini and Circle wouldn't qualify. It seems like the author is trying to cherry-pick a few failed blockchain projects in an attempt to smear the whole industry.