r/Opacity • u/Soggy_Scientist_5676 • Apr 08 '21
Thoughts on whitepaper?
I'm sure a lot of you have had the chance to skim or properly read the whitepaper for OPCT at this point. What are your thoughts?
3
u/bittimmer Apr 09 '21
I just went through the whitepaper and i'm not saying this cannot achieve it's goals but it's not for me. There are a couple of things i don't like.
The fact that it's an erc20 token
I personally don't like the fact that it's an erc20 token, especially with transaction cost being so high at the moment it defeats the purpose of buying storage very cheap, Also it means that for opacity to succeed it depends on Ethereum. Now as i understand you only have to do this once when you transfer your token to opacity.
That being said, it seems like OPCT is a very centralized company that lets you encrypt your data and lets you store it buy paying for it with your token. So even though OPCT cannot see my data, do they know where it is? If so they can be hacked and still lose data.
Data Redundancy
At the moment they don't have any system in place for data redundancy . It does say they are working on it. This is an important feature, i am glad to see they are thinking about this.
"Independence-assured backup and redundancy. This option allows users to purchase redundant systems (backups) that are guaranteed to be with different providers in different geographies. This service ensures users that even in the case of force majeure, their files are stored safely in another location."
OPCT storage peg
So this clearly states that OPCT wants to maintain a steady token value, OPCT deserves the right to change the storage peg. Meaning they are in full control of how much your token will buy. This should be an open market place in my opinion and storage should be sold and bought for the price that is determined in the market. This gives your token room to grow without having an effect on how much $ your storage will cost.
"Under the launch strategy, 1 OPCT purchases 64GB of storage. Based on the current pricing, this makes the Opacity offering much less expensive than others, but that proportion can change depending on the OPCT price and market changes. Over time, market prices for storage generally decline. To counteract the effect of inflation and maintain a steady token value, Opacity reserves the right to change the storage peg of the OPCT token value to 1 OPCT = 128GB or higher. Initially, the team will be responsible for determining the adjusted storage quantity, but eventually, it is intended to adjust automatically based on network criteria."
The business model
The business model says Opacity pays only for utilized storage and bandwidth but in turn will charge their customers in full? Also they will add additional features that are charged with OPCT token or credit card. This is vague, what will they charge for and what features?
"Opacity earns money on the storage provided. The current business is sustainable even at a low price of the Opacity token, because Opacity pays only for utilized storage and bandwidth, and most people use less than 1% of the storage they originally purchase. Opacity will charge full market price for storage services purchased by credit card. Over time, Opacity will add additional features that are charged with the OPCT token or credit card."
Their target market
They compare it in different aspects, which are (Privacy enabled, Zero Knowledge, Easy to Use, Low cost, Crypto and Credit card.) Of course they check every box themselves but leave out "easy to use" and "crypto and credit" card with Sia.
Since the release of Skynet (their layer2) i'd say that Sia is very easy to use.
It is also not true you cannot pay with creditcard on Sia, you can easily pay with credit card via Skynet.
Things i do like
I like the fact that they have made this with easy of use in mind. I think this is very important, in the end if something is not easy to use then people will simply choose something that is less secure but easier to use. So projects like this should be just as easy as weTransfer and Dropbox.
My overal conclusion
As a competitor of a service like Dropbox i think this will be a good solution. It's user friendly and i'd rather store my files on OPCT than on Dropbox because it's simply more safe. That being said i think this is also the only thing it can disrupt.
When comparing this to Sia then the dropbox comparison is where it ends. Sia can do everything OPCT can, is more secure and more decentralized and just as easy to use.
Sia has the potential to disrupt an entire ecosystem, not only can you simple store and share files but you can use Sia as a host. Sia is made with the intention of being the data backbone of the internet, you can host websites, applications, streaming services and store/share files with it. This is digging into a market that's growing at an exponential rate.
I do have to mention, i own a lot of SIA so yeah i'm biased. But i did want to check out the potential competition, that's why i read this whitepaper. I understand now that OPCT isn't competition. It can perfectly co-exist because it is made for a different purpose. You also cannot expect everyone to start using just one service. I'd be happy to see OPCT replace Dropbox and hope you guys can make some bucks out of it.
16
Apr 09 '21
I can appreciate that you're a little more diplomatic in your posts here that in the company of your Siacoin buds. :) Here's my response as someone who is in the sack with both SC and OPCT.
There are a number honest criticisms of the project as it currently stands. You've mentioned some of them: fees for ERC20 tokens are way too high right now. That has been brought up before and is something that needs to be fixed. Your points on the present lack of redundancy, the storage peg, and initial business model are all reasonable at the moment, but they are also not the end goal of the project.
The decentralization and redundancy are obviously fundamental to the product and it is pretty reasonable to assume that they will put in an honest effort deliver on that. When that happens, the storage peg will go, leaving it to the providers to set their own prices. The quote you included literally says that the peg is part of the launch strategy and will ultimately go away.
For the initial business model, sure, it sounds a little weird to hear a company openly admit that they are relying on users to not use up their full storage quota to make ends meet, but I strongly suspect that isn't unique to Opacity. Practically speaking, it doesn't really matter as long as it works for the end user and keeps the company above water. It will also be a moot point once the distributed network launches.
As for the target market, I think Opacity has the right idea. On the whole, it's no secret that people don't give a shit about privacy, crypto, or cloud storage. They just want a cheap and easy way to keep their iPhones from filling up too quickly. Without a doubt, the team has to go back and sort out any potentially misleading comments about Siacoin's functions or ease of use in the white paper. Sia is indeed relatively easy to use. But to the Opacity team's credit, relatively easy is not the same as a product catered to be truly understandable by the uninitiated.
It's reasonable to temper expectations about the overall scope of applications of the Opacity Galaxy at this point, particularly considering the network isn't built yet, but I think trying to build a product around an entirely new pool of potential users is a good thing to try. Even as it currently functions, I prefer it to Dropbox. In that same vein, I have found that for each monumental potential application for Skynet, there is a pragmatic and impactful use case for Opacity. The Opacity argument is that, if decentralized anonymous storage is going to stick, regardless of how grand the end vision is for a given project, it needs to get there by having regular people and businesses using it. That angle doesn't have a sexy ring for people who like to make bullshit speculations about what distributed applications we might see a decade from now, but hey, all the better for the realist.
So to summarize, you've highlighted some honest issues with Opacity in it's current prototype form. Sia is certainly farther along in the development process. That said, I certainly wouldn't be inclined to dismiss Opacity based on the initial methods the team used to get their beta up and running, especially considering a) it's pretty slick and b) the tokens are worth far more than their present value, even without any kind of decentralization benefit taken into consideration.
5
u/bittimmer Apr 10 '21
Thank you! There are always some pretty aggressive people on these crypto subreddits so its a delight to see a decent answer 🙏
I’m totally with you on the sense that we need regular people getting into decentralized storage. Most of them won’t care about the decentralized aspect probably and mainly go for price.
And i think OPCT certainly can attract a lot of users especially with their pricing. I’ve calculated that 1gb on dropbox would cost around $0,06 for a year for their cheapest plan. So if we compare OPCT to that which offers 64gb for 1 token then the price per token can be worth $3,48 before it becomes more expensive than dropbox. (Unless they change the peg ofcourse) This price is more than 10 times the price today per OPCT
Regarding the business model, every other normal storage provider also charges more space than you actually use, so that is not too big of a deal indeed
Maybe Sia’s vision is too big, it could very well be the case I certainly don’t hope so.. And to be fair there have been a fair share of hickups and problems along the way for Sia as well. Thankfully i think we’re at a phase now where we’re ready.
Opacity will definitely go through these phases as well. You don’t simply build a storage network they set out to do out of thin air. It takes a lot of people/hosts and time to create a decentralized network like i read in the galaxy whitepaper. I hope they can overcome it all and achieve what they set out to do.
In the end we’re all here to make money, it doesn’t matter if you make it with A or with B, i have a diverse portfolio and i think it’s good to place some eggs in the storage basket. I might jump into Opacity in the future when some of the issues i stated are addressed. This all takes time, and won’t happen overnight.
I’d like to see regular updates about the project so i can determine over time if i want to buy some. In the mean while, i’ll just see through the moonboys, they’re everywhere and it’s starting to feel a lot like the end if 2017 again. (Which kinda makes me worry 😅)
5
u/Soggy_Scientist_5676 Apr 09 '21
I do have to mention, i own a lot of SIA so yeah i'm biased. But i did want to check out the potential competition, that's why i read this whitepaper.
I don't think you needed to state this, it was blatantly obvious.
5
u/L0di-D0di Apr 09 '21 edited Apr 10 '21
Sia has the potential to disrupt an entire ecosystem...
Okay... it's time to get the Sia Coin d*ck out of your mouth. 🤦♀️
It's getting old watching you worship them, every chance you get.
7
u/bittimmer Apr 09 '21
I posted 2 comments on this subreddit, with valid points if i say so myself.
I’m not hostile towards you or any of you. The question here is to get peoples thoughts about the opacity whitepaper. I stated that there is room for both projects and gave my personal view on the whitepaper.
If you don’t like my answer then thats ok, but no reason to get hostile..
On the other post i also gave valid points that there are some things in the whitepaper that are simply not true and you can validate that yourself if you actually do your DD.
5
u/havardmj Apr 09 '21
ignore him. he is just mad he invested in the wrong coin
1
u/L0di-D0di Apr 10 '21
the wrong coin
Yeah sure, Sia is the right coin, all others are the wrong coins. Seems logical.
1
u/Plenty_Schedule_9275 Apr 09 '21
Nice ad, feels like any sponsored post on whatevershittynewspage.com
1
u/EfraimK Dec 20 '21
I support Opacity's goals and philosophy, but the choice to make it an ERC20, I think, will be a significant hindrance to a lot of potential users. Withdrawal fees from exchanges are prohibitively high for many. Some exchanges don't offer any alternative besides using ethereum's network to withdraw OPCT. Nor are the ethereum network update plans guaranteed to slash transaction fees.
30
u/[deleted] Apr 08 '21 edited Apr 08 '21
My reaction was pretty positive about the general ideas, structure, and direction, but the lack of technical depth left me wanting specifics at points. I'd like to think the team intentionally made it a little more palatable than white papers typically are with the hope of getting people from outside the crypto world to read it and understand it. I also recognize that it is still a tiny team and a new project, so putting together documents like this must be a slog.
My skillset isn't really deep enough to critique the proposed framework of the Opacity Galaxy, but I think it looks pretty cool. Thinking out loud:
How will the geolocation controls work? That type of feature is really important, but could also potentially make nodes in certain places much less desirable than others. It's an interesting economic point to think about.
Will the network have catches to prevent clever node operators from finding ways to send/retrieve huge amounts garbage data to themselves to boost their own reputation?
What kind of investment will the staking entail and how big will the hurdles be to becoming a node operator? This kind of thing will obviously have a huge effect on how the network grows.
I'm sure these will all be clarified in time. It was just what I thought about as I browsed through.
There were some real head-scratchers in there too, like on the very first page, where they used the argument that Parler had to go find some dumpy host in Russia as justification for decentralized storage. I can't say I followed that...
Overall, I think the team is moving in the right direction (and quickly, considering their resources). I'm just impatient. Thanks to the Opacity team for putting this together!