53 Matching Annotations
  1. May 2022
    1. Subsidiarity, which uses “data cooperatives, collaboratives, and trusts with privacy-preserving and -enhancing techniques for data processing, such as federated learning and secure multiparty computation.”

      Another value of the data cooperative model might be that each individual might not have time to research and administer possible new data-sharing requests/opportunities, and it would be helpful to entrust that work to a cooperative entity that already has one's trust.

    2. In general, I would say that I think there are only a few circumstances in which markets produce good incentives and distributions, and that these depend heavily on publicly accountable governance that set up their rules.

      Amen. This resonates with my concern about systems that want to govern human relations without humans at the center. It's not like I believe having humans at the center of our relations guarantees good practices and outcomes (we have ample proof it does not), but rather that NOT centering humans in human relations may cast aside what's good about humanity along with what's bad.

    1. 在 Monegro 发表总结的 2016 年,Web3 一词还未如今天一般流行,但他还是提出了一种新的范式,也就是反过来,把协议层做厚,应用层做薄,不同的应用共享协议层提供的基础数据,比如用户的个人信息、支付等等。当这些基础数据和能力都沉淀到协议层之后,应用层就不需要重复造轮子,也就会轻量化许多,有机会更加去中心化,更开放。

      Monergro Web3 新范式 协议层做厚 基础数据和能力,沉淀到协议层

  2. Mar 2022
    1. So where does this leave us? The Open Network Learning Mooc has a focus on using open platforms and Open Education Resources; except for the Adobe Connect Pro software being used for webinars. This model of openness signifies a significant move forward in making education accessible and flexible for all participants. However there is still a long way to go before the huge amounts of knowledge and information locked down in courses and databases is made more available. In Primary schools, with the majority of students under 13, an LMS seems logical because of privacy issues. However for older students, university students in particular, and all of the life-long learners out there who can’t access/afford/etc formal learning, open learning makes far more sense. A brilliant debate, carried out over a series of blog posts is a must read for anyone interested in this area. It begins with a polemic by Leigh Blackall, stating there is no need for any type of learning environment at all…and is responded to by Dave Cormier who points out some salient arguments for the PLE. Harold Jarache and Miguel Guhlin join in the debate (see the comments) with responses of their own (sadly the links to these are now dead :-(). These great minds were debating over 5 years ago a topic that is still developing today.

      To my experience, much of online collaboration 'in the open' is making use of google, facebook, twitter etc. Since the article was published, issues of data integrity have been discussed more frequently. The issue of 'who owns my data' is also raising privacy questions for PLEs. Interesting to follow the web3 development here to see what might be possible.

  3. Feb 2022
    1. It aims to build a decentralized, scalable cloud-like platform that can store data, perform computation, and support community-driven governance. It’s addressing the issues plaguing traditional internet, such as relatively low data security and an oligopoly consisting of big tech companies.
    1. Don't get me wrong. I am not a fan of centralization. I started building a decentralized, permissionless system almost a quarter-century ago. It would be wonderful if we could figure out how to build a Web that would resist centralization. But all the technical and financial cleverness that's been poured into cryptocurrencies hasn't succeeded in doing that. Why? It is because It Isn't About The Technology.

      Exactly ... (hey you technosolutionists out there). It either does not have solutions or if it does they are likely a) structural and, even more likely b) ontological in nature ...

    1. In conclusion, the fact that stablecoins or Bitcoin itself acquire the aura of saviours in countries hit by inflation, like Turkey, is nothing more than a measure of the desperation of the people: they will clutch at straws. Stablecoins offer Turks no respite from inflation that buying euros or dollars cannot offer. So, why buy Tether instead of dollars or euros? Why rely on the shadowy characters running a private currency board? Only because the latter deploy good marketing to exploit desperate people.


    2. But, and this is a gigantic but, DAO-like tools will not bring about this new society in which DAO-like tools are useful. (Nb. We can already see how DAOs are being usurped by regressives and real estate moguls in the United States.)

      Indeed and spot on ...

    3. To think that Bitcoin can solve the problem of money, or the problem of the state, is to misunderstand what money is or what states do. Every exploitative socio-economic system is predicated on what the minority running it can make the rest do for them (who does what to whom, as Lenin famously put it). Money and the state are epiphenomena of this system. To believe that you can fix money, or that you can fix the state, is to demonstrate a devastating innocence regarding the larger exploitative system with which they are integrated. No smart contract can, for example, subvert the labour contracts that underpin society’s layered patterns of exploitation. No NFT can change an art world where art is a commodity within a universe of commodified people and things. No central bank can serve the interests of the people so long as it is independent of the demos. Yes, blockchain will be useful in societies liberated from the patterned extractive power of the few. However, blockchain will not liberate us. Indeed, any digital service, currency, or good that is built on it within the present system will simply reproduce the present system’s legitimacy.


  4. Jan 2022
    1. The other two tools more or less emerge to help us scale coordination: institutions and markets.

      Yes ... and we are wearing "structure goggles" here. We are entirely ignoring culture (and being). We scaled coordination for example through religion - which isn't a corporation or a market. Furthermore corporation and markets only work because they are embedded in trust networks and cultures.

      And the problem is once we are wearing our structure goggles we are limited to a certain kind of (mistaken/very limited) diagnosis and cure.

      the basic point is we aren't going to innovate much in governance (at least not in structural terms). Democracy, markets, hell even companies, have been around pretty much "forever". We can invent tools that help them scale in informational terms - but most of the other scaling is going to come from other areas most notably culture and being.

      cf https://lifeitself.us/2017/09/10/four-types-of-problem/

    1. Software can’t single-handedly solve for the “completeness” of every contract, but it can help — and through token enabled ownership, it can help communities overcome the bootstrap problem to fostering innovation. 

      Indeed to the first part. ... and how can it help? Plenty of good answers to that e.g. software and tech allow us to track more things making them observable to all parties and hence contractable on. But how does that relate to the blockchain?

      And similarly on token-based ownership: how does that overcome the bootstrap problem (and what is that problem? A lack of capital, a lack of cohesion etc?)

    2. But if we accept that contracts are simply decision logic — akin to computer programs, then contract theory gives us a framework for thinking about different types of smart contracts and crypto-enabled projects — and how they can scale (including governance of them).

      That's a very big "accept". What do they mean by "decision logic"? Most contract systems seem quite different from decision logic in that there are whole sets of institutions and stuff (courts, laws, constitutions, governments, culture) dealing with that which is "incomplete" in most contracts including enforcements etc

    3. Let’s start by identifying projects that are (mostly) “complete”. These projects aim to specify a system end-to-end, minimizing the need for subjective interpretation, renegotiation, and external governance. In software terminology, the goal of these systems is to be “correct by construction”. Bitcoin’s proof-of-work mining is one such system. Bitcoin’s completeness is a function of its verifiable computation — deterministic hashing algorithms plus hard-coded game-theoretic incentives. Together, these consistently drive the system towards the outcome of producing a correct chain, while minimizing the need for human interpretation or external decision-making.

      Right ... a few questions here. First, what happens if someone steals my bitcoin via fraud or similar? Then we suddenly need enforcement etc.

      Second, how is that different from current banking system that also largely runs without human interpretation. The key difference (as i understand it) is the "decentralization" i.e. no central authority. But why does that make it more complete (if anything it makes it more incomplete as bitcoin is so similar).

    1. An aside on NFTs Because they’re “unique” objects, NFTs are a perfect vehicle for wash trading. You can easily ensure you only wash trade to yourself. The common scheme is to wash trade with yourself until some credible dunce buys the NFT from you at your manufactured “fair” value, leaving you to walk away with real money.
    2. Offshore crypto exchanges like Binance offer absurd leverage in the 20-125x range. But the exchange is both a broker offering leveraged products and the clearinghouse of the leveraged trades. This can easily create “failure to deliver” situations from the clearinghouse side. Take this example:
    3. While people think the main innovation of cryptocurrencies are public blockchain ledger transactions, the vast majority of crypto trading happens on private centralized exchanges.


    1. Uniswap's protocol, and the product offerings built on top of it, are widely used in the crypto space, driving a need to provide a high quality user experience on the product and support front. This is compounded by prominent forks such as Sushiswap, which additionally place Uniswap Labs under significant competitive pressure. But treating community members as end-users conflicts with the desire to treat them as stakeholders, discussion participants, or governance leaders. This conflict is visible in the Discord where support crowds out other conversations, but also in the fragmentation of stakeholder types across different platforms, as we address in the next section.


    1. Imagine if a portion of that 12+ trillion USD that central banks made went to set up local food systems that sequestered carbon and ended world hunger.

      Forgetting the wild numbers: just ask ourselves, most of that money went into buying government bonds ... and what did (democratically) elected govs do with that? They chose to spend it the ways they did ... presumably because at least in part it reflects what their citizens wanted ...

    1. My first impressions of web3

      First impressions on #web3 (or #w3b as I like to call it), from Signal founder Moxie Marlinspike.

    2. I don’t think it would have taken off because this is a gold rush. People have made money through cryptocurrency speculation, those people are interested in spending that cryptocurrency in ways that support their investment while offering additional returns, and so that defines the setting for the market of transfer of wealth.

      Yep! This is a gold rush and the main thing driving it is there is a big bubble plus a large part of that bubble has to spend in crypto as they can't exit to fiat due to regulatory barriers.

    3. Partisans of the blockchain might say that it’s okay if these types of centralized platforms emerge, because the state itself is available on the blockchain, so if these platforms misbehave clients can simply move elsewhere. However, I would suggest that this is a very simplistic view of the dynamics that make platforms what they are.

      Indeed ...

      However, I would suggest that this is a very simplistic view of the dynamics that make platforms what they are.

    4. MetaMask doesn’t actually do much, it’s just a view onto data provided by these centralized APIs. This isn’t a problem specific to MetaMask – what other option do they have? Rainbow, etc are set up in exactly the same way. (Interestingly, Rainbow has their own data for the social features they’re building into their wallet – social graph, showcases, etc – and have chosen to build all of that on top of Firebase instead of the blockchain.) All this means that if your NFT is removed from OpenSea, it also disappears from your wallet. It doesn’t functionally matter that my NFT is indelibly on the blockchain somewhere, because the wallet (and increasingly everything else in the ecosystem) is just using the OpenSea API to display NFTs, which began returning 304 No Content for the query of NFTs owned by my address!

      Indeed ...

    1. What I learnt from Francesco Nachira and his interest in constructivism and theories of language and cognition is that decentralisation can never be just about decentralising infrastructures. One always needs to have a requisite strategy for decentralising institutions as well.So that’s why we always aimed at the decentralisation of economic and political power as the necessary condition of possibility that was needed to deliver on the true emancipatory potential of decentralising digital infrastructures. When I look at the promises made by the proponents of DAOs and NFTs, they seem to believe that technology itself would somehow do the job: once we code a DAO correctly, it will ensure a new institutional form and that form would have revolutionary effects, etc. This seems to me short-sighted and also very inward-looking.It’s not, of course, only about decentralising power. It’s also about creating new institutions to keep old power – which, by now, has taken on new forms – in check. Where are these new institutions when it comes to crypto and Web3? Everyone seems to believe that big tech platforms and Wall Street and Hollywood will just stand idle as they are being disrupted by “crypto.” Does this really sound plausible to anyone?

      Exactly: they believe that "technology itself would somehow do the job".

    2. Well, first of all, I don’t see how Web3 – focused as it is on the creator economy and tokenisation – would allow us to deal with questions regarding infrastructural power and the industrial policy of the future… things like broadband, 5G, data centres, cloud computing, AI, quantum computing, microchips, the next generation of batteries. It’s not just the advertising business models of Web 2.0 that should concern us. What does Web3 offer us here? Not much. The Web3 discourse accepts today’s status quo as a fact and moves on to discuss all these other aspects.Most of the stuff about DeFi seems to me just a temporary phenomenon – the result of central banks’ inaction and delay in grasping the threats that come from leaving this industry unregulated. In this sense, China seems to be seeing through all the Web3 rhetoric and asking the right strategic questions, both in terms of controlling the whole stack, from batteries to AI, to establishing control over the FinTech sector in a way that would reduce risks to the country’s overall financial system. Europe, of course, doesn’t operate in the same political climate, so acting so resolutely about Web3 might not be an option (also for geopolitical reasons). It’s hard to imagine Chinese policymakers spending any time discussing Dogecoin.
    3. This purely technical effort at decentralisation also falls short in thinking about the political and social institutions that are needed to take full advantage of this decentralisation. The big questions that I – and you – have been raising over the past decade, with regards to the political economy of data and infrastructures, of technological sovereignty, of the geopolitics of the stacks, all seem to have dropped the agenda completely. What is being “decentralised” is the ability to extract value and make money, incentivising even further the financialisation of social behaviours. Worse, it seems that people pushing the Web3 agenda have learned very little from the experiences of all the other movements, from free software to Indymedia to the rise of digital democratic cities, that did try to build a more decentralised and democratic digital sphere.

      Nails it pretty well and there is probably something inherent in the technical approach that guarantees falling short here.

    1. Crypto has transformed grassroots-level organizing. For the first time in history, it is possible to economically align networks of strangers into working together by using programmable incentives and providing them with tools to make decisions and govern shared resources in a decentralized manner.

      How? How has crypto transformed this? Why and how is it "the first time in history to economically align networks of strangers"? Didn't markets do that?

      Or if the emphasis is the 2nd part of the sentence then it begs the questions of: "how". How are programmable incentives doing that?

    1. This setup means that #projectTokens will form and dissolve as necessary. If everyone leaves, all ETH will be refunded and all #projectTokens will cease to exist. If you buy in early, you will get more tokens for the same price. If you buy in later, you will get less tokens for the same price. If you sell back into the pool, you will get less ETH per token vs selling back into the pool when the outstanding supply is higher.The value derived from curved bonding is that it rewards participants for being early and buying tokens in that project. If they leave at a later point, selling their #projectTokens back into the communal pool will net them a reward. The reason you want separate tokens for separate projects is so that it more easily fits the value being produced from these separate projects. The crypto-economic feedback loops necessary to sustain certain systems will only work if the value being produced is mapped to its own token. For more info, read here:

      Isn't this just the same as any equity investment model where later investors get less than earlier investors ...

    1. When I first read this explanation in the OlympusDAO documentation, I laughed and laughed. “Well yes right,” I thought, “the way a Ponzi scheme works is that early ‘investors’ get rich as long as later investors keep buying more.” Sure, (3, 3). “If we all keep buying this thing its price will go up and we will be rich” is absolutely the main financial theme of 2021, but it is an irreducibly silly theme and I would be embarrassed to formalize it with game theory. 

      (3,3) = ponzi scheme ...?

    1. The world experienced a sort of collective delusion around the worth of what is, essentially, a fabric sack of beans. In hindsight, bubbles rarely make sense. “It’s a flaw in the human character,” says Jeremy Grantham, market historian and bubble expert. “No one is immune, no matter how smart you are.”
  5. Dec 2021
    1. Does a “Web3” that depends on Twitter for its mar­ket­ing and coor­di­na­tion chan­nel really deserve the name?
    2. Ethereum is the locus of most of this work — hey, who named that client library web3.js, anyway?—so it’s not unrea­son­able to read “Web3” as “Ethereum-powered inter­net”.
    1. Mirror is the next big change in the long history of symbolic communication. Through a decentralized, user-owned, crypto-based network, Mirror’s publishing platform revolutionizes the way we express, share and monetize our thoughts.

      How? how does fact it is "user owned and crypto based" change (let alone revolutionize) how we express and share our thoughts. Monetize maybe??

    1. There was a Web 2.0 and people spoke of Web 3.0. Now it all seems to be moving to the moniker web3. Perhaps because of the ability to search for the name or to turn it into a hashtag? #Web3.0 just doesn't work on Twitter which wants to treat the decimal as a period.

    1. Most of the descriptions I’ve seen focus on mechanisms - block chains, smart contracts, tokens, etc - but I would argue those are implementation details and some are much more likely to succeed than others. (E.g. I think using private keys for authentication/authorization is obviously better if you can get over the UX hump - SSH has shown us that for decades.)

      Most descriptions of Web3 focus on mechanisms — blockchains, smart contracts, etc — but those are implementation details.

  6. Nov 2021
    1. Centralization vs decentralizationIn the table below, we list some of the broad-strokes advantages and disadvantages of centralized and decentralized digital networks.Centralized SystemsDecentralized SystemsLow network diameter (all participants are connected to a central authority); information propagates quickly, as propagation is handled by a central authority with lots of computational resources.The furthest participants on the network may potentially be many edges away from each other. Information broadcast from one side of the network may take a long time to reach the other side.Usually higher performance (higher throughput, fewer total computational resources expended) and easier to implement.Usually lower performance (lower throughput, more total computational resources expended) and more complex to implement.In the event of conflicting data, resolution is clear and easy: the ultimate source of truth is the central authority.A protocol (often complex) is needed for dispute resolution, if peers make conflicting claims about the state of data which participants are meant to be synchronized on.Single point of failure: malicious actors may be able to take down the network by targeting the central authority.No single point of failure: network can still function even if a large proportion of participants are attacked/taken out.Coordination among network participants is much easier, and is handled by a central authority. Central authority can compel network participants to adopt upgrades, protocol updates, etc., with very little friction.Coordination is often difficult, as no single agent has the final say in network-level decisions, protocol upgrades, etc. In the worst case, network is prone to fracturing when there are disagreements about protocol changes.Central authority can censor data, potentially cutting off parts of the network from interacting with the rest of the network.Censorship is much harder, as information has many ways to propagate across the network.Participation in the network is controlled by the central authority.Anyone can participate in the network; there are no “gatekeepers.” Ideally, the cost of participation is very low.

      Web2 vs Web3 Centralization vs Decentralization

    1. Or the PIs who enjoy and excel at raising funds can do so and even re-deploy it to the right scientists, akin to founders who become angel investors and venture capitalists.

      Sounds like a Self-Organized Funding Allocation (SOFA): https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol24/iss3/art29/

  7. Oct 2021
    1. TiddlyWiki es un microwiki o wiki personal que incorpora varías de las ideas de Theodor H. Nelson, en particular enlaces de doble vía y transclusión en sólo un archivo HTML + JavaScript + CSS.

      Lo mas potente que he visto hasta el momento de este motor de wiki es su portabilidad y la forma en como es posible extenderlo. Muy util para trabajar con comunidades con poca o conectividad nula e iniciarlos en conceptos como los wikis. Aún asi, creo que estas herramientas podrian incluir en un futuro la posibilidad de escribir de forma simultanea en tiempo real. Quizas lo veamos con la web3 :)

  8. Sep 2021
    1. Active Indexers, Curators and Delegators can earn income from the network proportional to the amount of work they perform and their GRT stake.
    2. Curators are subgraph developers, data consumers or community members who signal to Indexers which APIs should be indexed by The Graph Network. Curators deposit GRT into a bonding curve to signal on a specific subgraph and earn a portion of query fees for the subgraphs they signal on; incentivizing the highest quality data sources. Curators will curate on subgraphs and deposit GRT via the Graph Explorer dApp. Because this occurs on a bonding curve, that means that the earlier you signal on a subgraph, the greater share of the query fees you earn on that subgraph for a given amount of GRT deposited. This also means that when you go to withdraw, you could end up with more or less GRT than you started with.

      cryptoeconomics still amazes me, how everything can be an opportunity for 'investment'

    1. A smart contract is a code that executes a set of conditions required for a trade to occur; if one condition fails, then so does the trade. Thus, by adopting blockchain smart contracts to trade ownership of their work, an artist can ensure resale royalties as a condition for the transfer of title, meaning they automatically get a cut of any future sales of their work.

      This is an interesting idea with smart contracts.

    1. “The internet is now a place where everyone has an inventory.”

      Also the decentralized nature of it all makes it so interesting to explore. Keep your inventory in your own wallet on your own domain under your own terms.

    2. This entire world is built on the assumption the internet will never die, which reflects a pretty big cultural shift in how we think about technology.

      I get dizzy from reading what is happening with new ideas like NFT, Web3 and blockchain. It's all a big blurry tangled ball of wool I need to unravel. What most surprises me is how gamified the movement is.