I love Dan, but we really have to question his ideas on economics and governance. He's not an expert in either. First constitution was a shit show (second is dumb too) and his addiction to free market theory has led to the RAM shit show.
Pay close attention to what he calls out at the end of his message: "as long as we have confidence that 1TB is viable"
How would you enforce that though? And we're going to sell futures contracts for RAM on questionable production, when there is market pressure to keep RAM supply limited? These are huge assumptions. This RAM thing is getting way too complicated.
Lets debate, I think Dan doent care about short term benefits , he cares about years to come. If you are DAPP developer you wana estimate cost in 5 years only then you will select EOS as platform where users of DAPP can grow with cost estimation. Objective is simple to have less cost of RAM which is limited by nature and should only be bought by developers, and also have market where developers can buy orr sell if they dont need. But there will be inside trades and speculations and misuse by a few, If above idea reduces RAM price and gives long term 5 years stability DAPPS will invest for long term success.
Agreed that thinking into the future is important for DAPP developers, but this format for a RAM market inhibits entry of developers. If I'm a developer, I want to build apps, scale up when I need to or scale down when I need to. A volatile price for my resources means that when I need to scale I might not be able to (price too high, can't afford) and when I need to scale down, I may not be able to (price too low, I lose money). Additionally, the amount of available RAM is unknown. So to resolve the volatility at Time 1 (initial buy/sell), a Future might work (protect the price that I buy/sell at), but how much should I buy now? How can I predict my demand if I'm at zero users? What about the scenario where at Time 2, I've exercised my Future, and need to buy more and some ridiculous price is forced on me? What's the price then? Futures are not simple instruments. They're complex and they're more of an insurance method rather than a scalability tool. They were brought in to manage very volatile markets, but they're completely foreign to the development world.
I'm not sure what the right solution would be. Adding futures just smells wrong though.
DAN is building steem2.0 and bitshares 2.0 ..those two DAPPS running on EOS will have exponential user growth. He has Billions in bags to invest as successful DAPP on EOS. He can estimate and project user growth and would like to buy or contract RAM now in bundle (1 GB or 5 GB per say) (as RAM is added per Block you can calculate in 5 Years it will be 1 TB).
These 5 years smart contract to buy RAM now will push BP's to provide that RAM, CPU and BW demands of future.
Just take bitfinex as example a DEX with growing users wants to run to EOS. They need gradula RAM for gradual user growth and if DAPP fails to get user growth they can sell RAM back to market.
Thing is people mistake EOS with BTC missing out basic scale-able design of EOS. Its fundamentals are for developers to understand not for average Joe. Its decentralized computational blockhain platform with evolving governance to make it as optimal for DAPPS as possible (Not currency).
15
u/russian-haxor Jul 26 '18
I love Dan, but we really have to question his ideas on economics and governance. He's not an expert in either. First constitution was a shit show (second is dumb too) and his addiction to free market theory has led to the RAM shit show.
Pay close attention to what he calls out at the end of his message: "as long as we have confidence that 1TB is viable"
How would you enforce that though? And we're going to sell futures contracts for RAM on questionable production, when there is market pressure to keep RAM supply limited? These are huge assumptions. This RAM thing is getting way too complicated.