The Man Who Used the Blockchain to Steal the Mona Lisa ...

An Ethereum based work of art just sold for $100K. A bit of hype right now around NFTs, but Ethereum's high-end crypto art market is actually really interesting. Overview here.

An Ethereum based work of art just sold for $100K. A bit of hype right now around NFTs, but Ethereum's high-end crypto art market is actually really interesting. Overview here.
With DeFi markets sputtering earlier this week, crypto twitter seemed to suddenly shift its attention to the next shiny new thing this week: NFTs, or non-fungible tokens.
But NFTs aren’t new. In crypto, the concept has been around for over 5 years. However, this market cycle, they are inherently more interesting. Today, I’ll briefly sum up what NFTs are and dig into one fascinating aspect of this market: high-end crypto art.
What are NFTs
Items that are fungible can be replaced with another identical item without anyone caring. For example, any $5 bill can buy a hotdog just as effectively as any other. Bitcoin, ether and pretty much any crypto asset you see on fall into the “fungible” bucket.
Items that are non-fungible are unique and can’t be exchanged 1 to 1. The simplest example being art. Try asking the people at the Louvre to swap your 5 year-old’s crudely painted hand-turkey with the Mona Lisa and you’ll experience true non-fungibility.
So in the crypto world, NFTs are simply tokens that represent something unique. Unsurprisingly, NFTs attached to unique pieces of purely digital artwork are gaining steam.
Crypto’s Art Scene
In many ways, much of crypto is simply the recreation of existing human behaviors in a purely digital environment. Markets. Trading. Lending. Borrowing. Speculation. As such, it should be no surprise that markets have formed around trading and speculating on works of digital art.
Like NFTs, crypto art markets have been around for years. As with NFTs and DeFi as a whole, the underlying technology is much more mature this cycle. Add in the fact that there’s a ton of freshly created wealth in the space from DeFi’s casino summer, and you get a crypto art market that’s heating up. After all, investors need to park all those DeFi gains somewhere.
Nowhere is this combination of technological sophistication and wealth on display than in this piece from Matt Kane titled, “Right Place - Right Time” that sold for almost $100K on a platform called Async Art.
Right Place - Right Time
If you look at the above screenshot of Matt Kane’s work, it just looks like a cool piece of Bitcoin art. What’s under the hood is what makes it interesting. Kane wrote an algorithm that’s tied into a BTC pricing feed. Every 12 hours, the algorithm updates the piece based on Bitcoin’s volatility from that day, which you can see on display in this GIF.
In addition to being an evolving work of art, there are a few other components that make this interesting. For one, Kane has retained an ownership token that allows him to fine-tune the piece over time - a novel aspect of NFT based artwork that allows the artist to retain some level of control over the work. Artwork no longer has to remain static, and instead, can adapt and evolve as an artist builds upon their work over time.
Secondly, as this piece responds to the rhythms of bitcoin volatility, it will mint 210 individual NFTs based on significant days of movement. For example, say BTC hit’s $20K, a new NFT will be minted and sold based on what the piece looks like on that day. Whoever buys that NFT will have the ability to claim a physical print version.
The next point of interest are the rights baked into the sale. The work was purchased by a collector going by the name of TokenAngels. As the piece generates and sells new NFTs, TokenAngels will receive 21% of each new sale. So in addition to the potential for the work to increase in value, it’s also a productive asset. Again, something fundamentally new, all codified into the underlying work
A Shift in the Balance
Traditional art is a $65 Billion dollar market, with the balance of power firmly in the hands of wealthy collectors.
There was an infamous contemporary art sale in the 1970’s by a collector named Robert Scull. Scull bought up works from living artists around the world from $600-$10,000 and then sold them at auction for many multiples of his purchasing price. All-in-all, Scull’s total collection sold for an unheard of $2.2M ($14.7 million adjusted for inflation today).
While this auction is credited for the birth of the highly speculative contemporary art market, Scull was criticized for how little of the windfall went to the actual artists. For example, Scull bought a piece from an artist named Robert Rauschenberg called, “Thaw” for $900 and sold it for $85,000. Rauschenberg didn’t see a dime in royalties.
NFTs come with the benefit of more artist-friendly terms, leading to a shift in the balance of power between artist and collector. Note that TokenAngels receives 21% of the residual NFT sales from Matt Kane’s piece, not 100%. Similarly, an NFT art marketplace called SuperRare bakes a 10% creator royalty commission into all secondary sales - something Robert Rauschenberg would have appreciated in 1973.
A New Frontier
More artist-friendly terms along with curated marketplaces like SuperRare and Async Art are attracting a flood of new artists into the space. For a profession that’s notoriously impoverished, the allure of large amounts of money sloshing around these markets make crypto art even harder to ignore.
In addition to Matt Kane, we’re already seeing early signs of a new breed of artists. Another name gaining steam is an artist that goes by the name of Pak. In true crypto fashion, Pak is completely anonymous and there’s speculation over whether their art is the product of one person or of artificial-intelligence produced by a collective of engineers. Pak has over 140K twitter followers and has sold over $350K in NFT artwork, including this piece that recently went for around $10K.
Given that this is crypto, it’s also worth noting just how ripe these markets are for manipulation. Imagine how easy it would be for a whale to purchase a Pak piece for $10K, sell it to a friend for $25K, buy it back for $50K and then sell it to an unsuspecting speculator for $100K. Wash trading has already become problematic on a platform called Rarible and undoubtedly is taking place. (Rarible has recently introduced platform fees in order to disincentivize wash trading, although it likely won’t be a bullet-proof solution to the problem).
What’s Next
Wash trading aside, all of this speaks to the fact that the NFT hype isn’t without merit. These are new behaviors uniquely made possible through new marketplaces primarily built on Ethereum. And crypto art is only the beginning.
NFTs can and will be used to represent other non-fungible items. The obvious being other forms of creative outputs like music. Less obvious but equally intriguing are financial contracts like insurance. Imagine taking out a policy on your work of art that insures against loss of the work’s private keys.
The integration of DeFi primitives into the NFT space is accelerating rapidly. For example, using a platform called NFTfi, you can now post your NFT as collateral and take out an ETH denominated loan. Another platform, Niftex enables NFT holders to fractionalize their assets into multiple tradeable tokens. While these applications are new, it’s not hard to see them taking off alongside the rest of the crypto art and NFT market.
In a few decades, the rise of Ethereum art markets might be comparable to Robert Scull’s introduction of the speculative contemporary art market. The key difference is that this time, artists will be well compensated for their work. Perhaps the masterpieces of the future will be on display in galleries held in metaverses like Decentraland, each insured by NFT policies, on loan from the collector with the original artists still collecting royalties on their work years after inception.
Source: Messari
Stay up on all-things NFT
Mason Nystrom has been a great source for all-things Web 3 and NFTs, so give him a follow on twitter,
More resources (paywall warning)

submitted by CryptigoVespucci to ethereum [link] [comments]

How Prices are Formed - We All Seem to be Confused

I've been perusing the sub lately, and I see people debating about how the price of Bitcoin is generated. People are getting into arguments saying that scarcity generates the price, and others saying that the inherent value of Bitcoin determines its price.
This is insane and it needs to be cleared up. If you'd like to learn more, beyond what I write here, check out the millions of free hours of lectures, videos, articles, and books available at
What I write will be a rather crude representation of very detailed ideas that you can learn more about at
1) Nothing has inherent value.
Sorry, inherent value doesn't exist.
Humans flush shit down the toilet, while flies swim to it for a buffet (to further prove the point, research "nightsoil");
Drawing modern-day hentai-porn takes just about as much effort as the original painting of Mona Lisa, yet one sells for millions while the other is available for free online;
Up until as late as 150 years ago, one of the most valuable things to our economy today - oil - was seen as a horrific nuisance. Farmers would wake up one day and have black goo ruin their crops and they wouldn't be able to sell their farms because no one wanted it - their lives were ruined. Now, decade-long wars are fought for control over it;
Water is the most important substance on the planet for life, yet giant cities with millions of people are built in deserts and the stuff is handed out for free, and even pumped full of chlorine and used in fountains.
Nothing has inherent value.
2) All value is subjective.
All value is in the eye of the beholder.
This is a loaded statement and has a lot of information packed into it, so let's break it down into a few sub-sections
2.A.) Humans have goals
Humans have goals - they recognize that their lives could be better in the future than it is now, and they can contemplate a way to achieve that better life.
2.A.a) This means time exists and it moves forward
If our lives suck now, and we can imagine - and actually accomplish - a way to make it better, then time must exist.
2.A.b) This means that "things now" are more valuable than "things later"
No one wants to have a shitty life at any point of their life. Thus, ending suffering immediately - or pre-emptively avoiding suffering - is preferred to ending suffering later
(Psst: this is why "loans" and "interest rates" exist)
2.B) Not everyone's goals are the same
Many of our goals are the same, but not all of them. Some people desire to become gods of the universe, some just want to make cartoons for a living, and others would rather be non-stop strung out on drugs.
2.B.b) People can trade! (Provided private property exists)
If we all have different tastes, then I don't mind giving you a peanut butter sandwich in exchange for a turkey one. Children will begin trading after Trick-Or-Treat because Sally likes Twix, while Jimmy likes Kit-Kats.
Trading can only happen when the parties involved both agree to do so. It is, per se, always viewed as profitable before the trade happens. Barring fraud and horrible accidents, everyone always benefits from voluntary trade by definition. This is why socialism ALWAYS fails. Sorry, kids: Socialism IS death.
2.B.b.a) Trading is difficult
If you have a chicken, and want pickles, you're a chicken-having-pickle-wanter. You'll need to find someone with pickles who wants chickens, a pickle-having-chicken-wanter. (Thanks to Walter Block for this fun phrase)
This is difficult and really stifles the development of an economy. How many farmers need A.I. technologies for Google Cloud Services? None, that's how many. Thus, A.I. can't be developed because the programmers would starve (or, at least, there would be a strong incentive to NOT be a programmer).
2.B.b.a.a) A common medium of exchange facilitates trade
Money makes trading easier! People have goals, and so do other people, but their goals might not correlate and so countless professions are unsustainable. People eventually see that they can obtain these other professions if they simply create a local medium of exchange (money). Everyone is better off with money.
2.B.c) People's goals and desires are revealed through action, not speech.
Liars exist. People might say they want to be the world's best Oncologist, but they spend all their time playing League of Legends. It sucks, but, the person reveals that, indeed, they want to vegetate in front of their computer.
Bitcoin's Subjective Value comes from the fact that PEOPLE WITH THE GOAL OF HAVING STABLE MONEY OBSERVE THAT (a) money can be used to ease trade, (b) paper monies are completely controlled by sadistic megalomaniacs, (c) precious metals are too heavy and difficult to hide to travel around the globe easily, (d) and Bitcoin is a money that doesn't have these problems. Thus, the goal of having a stable, free, uncontrolled, worldwide money can be accomplished via Bitcoin. THIS is why Bitcoin has VALUE - people GIVE it value via its ability to help them achieve their goals.
3) Value alone doesn't generate prices - It takes two to tango
Prices are generated via a sort of auction system. If I have a tomato, I can go to a market and start yelling that I want to sell a tomato. The people in the market who view the tomato as a means to achieve their goals will then begin bidding on how much to pay for the tomato.
As they bid, the bidders one by one drop out as the price becomes too high for them.
4) Many products are fungible
When you buy 3 turkey sandwiches from the same store in the same order, they're largely the same. Even though the lettuce on each sandwich might have come from different heads of lettuce, the onion slices might have come from different onions, the tomato slices might have come from different tomatoes, the bottle of oil or mayo might have run out half way through the second sandwich and had to be replaced by another bottle, or the person making one sandwich might have been different from the person making the other sandwiches...
...they're still pretty much the same sandwiches.
They're fungible.
4.A) We use products for what we think are our most important goals first.
If you're on a small island alone, and you know you'll be saved in a week, and you have 20 gallons of water, you'll put aside 10 gallons (or so) for drinking, and use the rest for bathing, watering plants, or whatever else.
However, if a storm comes through and destroys 5 of the 10 gallons you set aside for drinking (so now you have 5 for drinking, and 10 for "other"), you don't have to worry about dehydration. You'll just reassign 5 of the "other" water gallons into "drinking" gallons. After all, they're all fungible, and 'watering plants' is a less important goal than 'drinking and living'.
(Thus, disasters are NOT good for the economy)
4.A.a) The more we have of something, the less each individual thing is worth to us
If you only really "need" 5 pencils for the year, and you "want" an emergency 10 pencils just in case... but you have 500 pencils, then you won't even bother to pick up a pencil if you drop it on the floor. Why bother? You'd have to go through 2 every day to actually be worried about running out.
Indeed, after the first 100 pencils, they're largely a nuisance. Thus, pencils #101 through #500 are pretty much worthless to you.
However, your neighbors might need some pencils, so you'd be willing to sell them. Even though the pencils are worthless to you, your neighbors are willing to bid up the price to buy them off you.
This is why "Greater Supply leads to Lower Prices" -- If all 30 people in your neighborhood only need/want 20 pencils each, but you have 50,000,000 of them to sell, people don't need to bid very high to convince you to sell one. Hell, you might just give them out for free.
We've literally just used the phrase "people have goals and act to achieve them" to deduce the laws of Supply and Demand.
This is how the price of everything is determined: you have more of something than you feel you need, and you're willing to trade the left-over things for something else; AND someone else wants that thing, and is willing to trade FOR the left-over things with his something else.
*A price is NOTHING more than "What someone is willing to give you for whatever it is that you own". *
The amount of Bitcoin is the amount of Bitcoin, and people with goals will assign a value to it, and this value will run into other people's valuation of it, which will eventually, on an open, free market, generate a price of it.
Again, if you want to learn how REAL economics works, or just get your teeth whet, hop over to where you can learn economics in EASY TO UNDERSTAND terms.
If it weren't for Ron Paul waking me up in 2007 and pointing me to and Austrian Economics, I wouldn't have ever thought about Bitcoin as anything serious.
And remember kids: Socialism IS death.
submitted by EvanGRogers to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Open letter to Bitcoin Cash supporters.

My post history will confirm I'm no fan of Bitcoin Cash or Roger Ver. But I concede that he is winning and gaining ground every day.
So I'm here now with a white flag, to simply state why so many of us believe what he's doing is wrong and invite any counter argument in the comments below as to why we are wrong.
For full disclosure: I no longer hold any BTC or BCH because I believe Roger is about to end both for the following simple reason:
Arguably, nothing has intrinsic value. The Mona Lisa is just a square foot of canvas with a few grams of pigment on it. The only things that give it value are the things that give Bitcoin value: Scarcity and Immutability.
Roger Ver is quite successfully convincing more and more people that Bitcoin Cash is the 'real Bitcoin', with the ultimate goal of taking the Bitcoin name for the fork he calls "My Project".
If anyone can successfully argue that 'this new fork' has more right to take the Bitcoin name than the last one, then the original blockchain and all its forks are no longer immutable and have unlimited supply.
The original Bitcoin blockchain and all the forked chains are worth no more than the pennies it cost Da Vinci to create the Mona Lisa.
If this is not true, please explain why.
submitted by Ovv_Topik to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Book excerpt: Business bafflegab, but on the Blockchain

Here's the next pre-release excerpt, "Business bafflegab, but on the Blockchain" - a self-defence kit for middle managers who've just heard upper management discover this marvellous new buzzword ...
I put it on Hacker News too, and I think it's eminently upvoteable (and maybe you will too):
Book status: I didn't do any editing for about three months for various real-world reasons, but right now I'm on two weeks' holiday and I want to land this thing in that time. (Still don't have a front cover finished ...) Hopefully Bitcoin won't suddenly fork just before it's released.
Business bafflegab, but on the Blockchain
If you’re a business guy you could look at the current construct versus the new construct and say ‘aren’t you just building a big database?’
– Charley Cooper, R3 Blockchain Consortium
As Bitcoin became more famous, its dubious nature became increasingly obvious to mainstream observers. So the buzzword of choice shifted from “Bitcoin” to “the blockchain”, or just “Blockchain”.
This really meant the Bitcoin blockchain, as the goal was to get interest up and the price with it. This particularly picked up around January 2015, when the Bitcoin price had cratered. The value proposition was that Bitcoin was the most secure chain as it had the most hashing power, so everyone wanting a blockchain should use that one. However, the limit of 7 transactions per second worldwide, blocks often being full anyway so transactions can’t get through, and that your Internet of Things light bulb was profoundly unlikely to add enough flash memory for 100 gigabytes of SatoshiDice spam were all a bit too obvious to the prospective suckers.
But by late 2015, “Blockchain” hype had taken on a life of its own as a business buzzword. If in a manner somewhat uncomfortable with its Bitcoin origins.
In the real world, nobody outside the cryptocurrency subculture uses blockchains proper, because they are ridiculously impractical and the most prominent one uses as much electricity as all of Ireland. This means their fantasy life is rich indeed.
Repeat to yourself: if it sounds too good to be true, it almost certainly is.
What can Blockchain do for me?
If you start with “... but with Blockchain!”, then putting lots of different words before “but” isn’t likely to result in something that’s actually useful, not just interesting.
Merkle trees are excellent, and business is about to discover how to use them for tamper-evident transaction ledgers. These will likely be branded “Blockchain,” whether or not the product has anything else to do with blockchains. Merkle trees are the only good part of blockchains.
(If you have programmers and they save their code in Git, it’s got Merkle trees in – you can tell your management “oh yes, we’ve been using blockchain-related technologies for years now ...”)
Business Blockchain marketing claims are largely divorced from tawdry considerations of technical or economic feasibility, mathematical coherency or logical consistency. Normal people see these claims, see obvious uses for them in their own business and are left with the impression “Blockchain” can get them these things.
Some of the claims are sort of true in some sense, others are completely fanciful. Many claims start from a hypothetical use case – often lifted directly from the most fanciful Bitcoin advocacy – then tout the hypothetical as if it were an existing and practical technology.
IBM’s “What is IBM Blockchain?” page[1] is a good example. Almost every “is” statement on that page is a “might” or “could” – no blockchain does all the things it describes in present-day terms, and certainly not Hyperledger, the basis of IBM Blockchain.
Many blockchain schemes promise the magic of full availability of properly cleaned-up data. The actual problem in every case is cleaning up the data in the first place; the barrier that such efforts founder on, over and over, is that no industry’s players want to create such a new monopoly. The proponents’ business goal is usually to become the organisation effectively controlling the newly cleaned-up data, with a monopoly maintained by network effect.
If your big goal is cleaned-up data across multiple organisations, the approach that will get you there is creating a data schema that is so obviously and elegantly the right thing that everyone just adopts it themselves, and a regulator eventually says “hey, use this schema.” Note lack of blockchains. (This is the usual approach in computing, though even there companies routinely try to set themselves up in the role of central octopus.)
If someone is trying to sell you on blockchains, the obvious skeptical questions will get you a long way:
Blockchain marketers frequently claim a prominent company “is using” a blockchain when there’s just been a press release that they are “investigating” running a future trial. This is because an “investigation” is cheap (this book is a legitimate business expense for this purpose, by the way), and worth the PR value in showing you’re fully up to date with current buzzwords. “Researching the opportunities” could mean anything, but almost certainly does mean nothing.
A sure tell of a reality-free writeup, completely detached from earthly considerations, is when a writer talks about “Blockchain”, capital B, no “the”. You should try mentally replacing the word “Blockchain” with “Cloud” and see if the article seems eerily familiar. Also try the previous business technology buzzwords “big data”, “NoSQL”, “SaaS” and “Web 2.0” and see how it works with those.[2]
[1] Nathan C. Bybee. “What is IBM Blockchain?” IBM Blockchain, 2 September 2016.
[2] I commend to you “Ignoring Blockchain Is Corporate Suicide: Why Blockchain is the biggest single threat to all CEOs for destroying corporate value” by Nick Ayton, in analyst newsletter Innovation Enterprise, 7 July 2016. In the several years I’ve been following Bitcoin and blockchains, this is the single worst, stupidest and most incoherent piece of “Blockchain” hype I’ve seen; you definitely need to read it, to inoculate yourself against the worst excesses of this foolishness.
Ayton spends the first third of the article repeating how devastating Blockchain will be to business, the second third making technically garbled or meaningless unsubstantiated claims about the future and the last third on a list of predictions, many of which have already been shown unfeasible and three or four of which are literally out of ’80s cyberpunk science fiction, as if he read too much William Gibson as a lad and thinks Blockchain will make Mona Lisa Overdrive real – “augmented reality using VR and holographic systems will feed off sensory layers that will sit on the Ledger of Things connecting the world”, clearly visible to your new Zeiss-Ikon eyeballs.
I know of one case where a non-technical manager inadvertently sent this link around their company; they quickly realised how relentlessly terrible everything about blockchains actually is – anyone who’s survived in business where sales people exist doesn’t need to be a techie to notice there’s something deeply wrong and lacking in blockchain hype – but the article had by then caught the attention of upper management. The manager found themselves in the position of designated expert and having to quell this idea, mostly by a process of translating why none of this could ever work into sober and considered business speak from the original profanity-laced screaming.)
submitted by dgerard to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

Dissecting the very worst Blockchain article ever, from July. I've suffered for my art, now it's your turn. 1500 words I can't use.

Working on the book. I’m attempting the section that punctures the business blockchain hype. In doing so, I spent a couple of hours a couple of evenings ago adding 1500 words of raw notes that are way too detailed on too insignificant a target. But you can have them instead. I did shove the first two paragraphs of the text below into a footnote.
seed article: Nick Ayton. “Ignoring Blockchain Is Corporate Suicide: Why Blockchain is the biggest single threat to all CEOs for destroying corporate value”. Innovation Enterprise, 7 July 2016. Go and READ THAT FIRST, before you read the usenet-style fisking below.
This is not an excerpt. Well, the first two paras are. But the rest is just my notes as I went through this terrible piece of shit. If you’re amused, good! If you’re not, i’ll try to do better in the actual text.
In the several years I’ve been following Bitcoin and blockchains, this is the single worst, stupidest and most incoherent piece of “Blockchain” hype I’ve seen; you definitely need to read it, to inoculate yourself against the worst excesses of this foolishness.
The author spends the first third of the article repeating how devastating Blockchain will be to business, the second third making technically garbled or meaningless unsubstantiated claims about the future and the last third on a list of predictions, many of which have already been shown unfeasible and three or four of which are literally out of ’80s cyberpunk science fiction, as if he read too much William Gibson as a lad and thinks Blockchain will make Mona Lisa Overdrive real.
So let’s use the Ayton piece as an example, listing the claims.
The first seven paragraphs are claim-free hype about how devastating Blockchain will be if you don’t understand it, repeated. The eighth contains what looks like a factual statement, “based on cryptography that sits above the Internet Protocol network layer”; this is actually technically meaningless. The next bit with a claim in … well:
A plan that considers the supporting acts; AI and Machine Learning, BOTs, and Cognitive computing will accelerate the pace of change and then there is Ethereum.
Someone asked me what Ethereum was… My response: ‘Imagine giving the Internet a dose of Viagra and increasing the dose each day'… The Blockchain Age is here!
Capitalisation in original. There is a form of argument called the “Gish Gallop”, named after young-Earth creationist Duane Gish, in which you throw half-coherent claims at your interlocutor as fast as you can, and if they fail to address any of them you claim a win. It works on the principle that it takes ten times as long to properly refute a ridiculously not-even-wrong statement as it takes to make it. But let’s note that “AI and Machine Learning, BOTs, and Cognitive computing” are barely associated with blockchains, and “bot” is a shortened form of “robot”, not an acronym. The Ethereum claim is … vivid.
Because they have no central friction or variation of the corporate truth and completely disintermediate markets in a single move.
This is an example of the “promise” of Blockchain, in the sense of “strong but unfounded claim”.
It starts with the decentralization of everything, a single version of the truth (Golden Source) that removes the need for constant validation of everything. In the past few decades, there has been an erosion fundamental trust in commerce and especially any transactions involving government and/or banks.
The first sentence appears to contradict itself (how do you decentralise to a single Golden Source of truth?). The second sentence is shaped like a claim of fact, but claims to be measuring a decrease in a subjective quantity (some particular meaning of “trust”) while the economy has grown significantly.
Customers are looking for their version of the truth. This has manifested in ‘negative commerce’ where the focus is placing the burden of proof and risk on individuals and the ‘small people’, whose rights have been diluted and whose identity has been tampered with, as well as a forced reliance on systems that control your credit ratings, delay payments and play with your private information over which control has been lost, leaving people feeling powerless and exposed. With Blockchain, the underlying governance, risk and compliance essentially change, returning control and trust.
The second sentence states a problem; the third claims to fix it, but without specifics. The reader would assume such strong claims are going to be substantiated in detail later, but we’re over halfway through already.
Blockchain is a diversion of power on all sides as it levels the playing field and makes the rules of engagement equal. However, in other areas it gives one a 1000% advantage. Leaving the broader social impact to one side, Blockchain along with its tech friends (AI and BOTs) will remove 90% of the non-value added roles in any organisation and 50% of the value added roles that will require only partial human intervention.
In this paragraph, the implied promise is “You can fire most of your employees.”
And there are Autonomous Agents that moves us one step closer to Distributed Autonomous Enterprises (DOA) that will start with hybrid models that control functions and run Business Units and discrete operations. Time and cycle time will be independent of human interventions. The disruptions I see in a new Blockchain world are:
I would love to think that initialising Distributed Autonomous Organisation (not “Enterprise”) as “DOA” was intentional. The author’s understanding of financial technology and of the capabilities of real-world artificial intelligence appears to be on the level of magic.
At this point the article finishes with a list of predictions and no detailed technical backing for the strong claims above:
  • excess capacity will be sold creating new asset classes, traded by individuals who may live off grid
Excess capacity in what – human resources? Capital assets? The new asset classes presumably means cryptocurrency and similar tokens and their derivatives; the “off grid” appears to be from half-remembered cyberpunk science fiction.
  • all types of value can be stored and controlled by their owners (rights)
This is obviously attractive to business, but there is no detail of what this actually means.
  • new levels of cooperation and collaboration will increase the volume of individual commerce (i-Commerce)
This is not making a substantive claim, and the jargon term appears to have been invented for this article. (A web search on “i-commerce” turns up a software package and a multilevel marketing scheme.)
  • the use of physical cash will reduce by 90% with digital tokens taking over via micro-payment social media structures and the exchange of value itself
Bitcoin already failed to manage micropayments, and the extensions to help it do so (sidechains, Lightning Network) have spent years in development hell. This claim appears to be extrapolated directly from already-disproven hype. The phrase “the exchange of value itself” seems meaningless.
  • people will be able to trade and compete on equal terms with corporations, or without them (banking without banks)
This is the Bitcoin claim “be your own bank”, which turned out so unattractive in practice that even Bitcoin advocates overwhelmingly keep their coins on rickety and unreliable exchanges.
  • the nature of leadership and decision making will change and managers will be accountable in new ways
This is not making a substantive claim.
  • rewards, pricing value and payments will be immediate, transparent and secure, with consensus
This is a common “Blockchain” promise, where smart contracts run on a blockchain with magical zero delay; the “consensus” makes no sense here except in the sense of the blockchain transactions being verified.
  • the concept of GDP will disappear as a means of judging value (output) and the need for double entry and audit will diminish
The first part of this is not substantiated in any manner. The second appears to mean the substitution of a blockchain for an ordinary ledger.
  • new forms of banking (not banks) will enable ordinary people to hold and trade value not just cash and assets
The promise of being your own bank again, and again it is entirely unclear what special sense of “value” he is using here.
  • the costs we associate with many of the things we consume should more than half as unnecessary bureaucracy and intermediaries are removed
This is a form of the ideological libertarian claim that all regulation is unnecessary friction that must be removed, with unsubstantiable claims of gains from doing so.
  • people will create versions of themselves (avatars, social profiles) and will control/manage their online image, content and data, requiring a fundamental change in the law and intellectual property rights
The first part is ’80s cyberpunk fiction, the second is slightly more nuanced ’80s cyberpunk fiction; neither seems to follow from blockchains.
  • operating models will not be operating models but a means of sharing and transporting value as defined by smart contracts, living services and IoT insight
The first part of this is at least a clear claim: that a business’s operating model will be implemented largely in smart contracts on a blockchain. His meaning for “living services” is not clear. “IoT” is the Internet of Things, and it’s not clear how smart lightbulbs or fridges fit in here.
  • standard cost accounting already struggling in a digital world will be replaced as value measurement on the back of entirely new into new asset classes
The replacement of other ledgers with a blockchain ledger, and typing so fast that grammar and basic proofreading fall by the wayside.
  • open free trade will replace WTO using smart contracts helping to close the inequality gap
This is a libertarian fever dream I’ve never seen stated quite so concisely, but there is no mechanism whatsoever by which it would close any inequality gap.
  • augmented reality using VR and holographic systems will feed off sensory layers that will sit on the Ledger of Things connecting the world
Ayton read too much William Gibson as a lad, and seems to be living in hope that Blockchain will make Mona Lisa Overdrive real.
  • Governments will try to regulate Blockchain and will fail
Financial authorities have so far not imposed significant regulation before the fact, but they’ve been moderately active when the perpetrators of egregious fraud interface with real world money.
  • Banks and Financial Services organisations will have their own version of the truth ‘permissioned’ Blockchain’s which is a distorted view of the truth and lies
What the.
  • CEOs and C-suite management teams will be fired more frequently for non-performance where all decisions and corporate conversations will be testament to their tenure
This is a substanceless claim to finish on a fearful note.
First comment on the article: “Did a Markov chain generate this horseshit?”
Ayton has a pile of these, all apparently generated from the same internal Markov chain text generator. You'll be pleased to know he's available for consulting.
submitted by dgerard to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

What makes the Mona Lisa so special? How Much Is The Mona Lisa Worth 2018? 8 Dark Secrets Of Mona Lisa You Will Never Stop Speaking ... Mona Lisa - The ORIGINAL PAINTING in Louvre Museum, Paris ...

How To Secure Your Bitcoin Wallet - 14th October 2020; What You Need To Know About Bitcoin - 14th October 2020; Why should you Choose A Hardware Bitcoin Wallet Over A Web Wallet? - 13th October 2020 With Halving Having Passed, Is Now The Time To Buy Bitcoin? - 12th October 2020 Augur Price Hits New One Year High After V2 Release - 10th August 2020; Press Release: Synergy of Serra – New Cargo ... The Mona Lisa and many other beautiful items we now own are examples of what was 'trending' at that time. reactions What may be trending in the future might be some form of really awesome abstract art, provided the artist has managed to nail down the definition and emotion of the artwork. Mona Lisa. If you could print money from your computer would you? No. That would mean that your friend could also print money from their computer, and their friend could, and so on. They’re based on the Bitcoin ledger, meaning the false deed generated for the Mona Lisa is there for practically forever: an outrageous and potentially business-ending blemish in the face of their mission statement. Blockchain tech isn’t a magical fix for high-value security — there still needs to be trust and standards involved for processes that aren’t just transferring fungible value. Bitcoin core developer Peter Todd defended Blockchain art startup Verisart against Terence Eden June 13 after claims the company believed he had painted the Mona Lisa. ‘Obvious Fraud’ In a Twitter discussion, Todd alleged Eden, who currently runs Open Standards for the UK Government Digital Service (GDS), “misunderstood what Verisart is” after the company uploaded the famous painting ...

[index] [48532] [8516] [4572] [50272] [37889] [28219] [26809] [31743] [27110] [21018]

"African Mona Lisa" fetches $1.6m at London auction

Be like SMART BANANA: Hey, everyone. Today we will make a sort of cultural journey. Ready? Let’s go. A figure on the scene is Leonardo ... If at this precise moment I ask you to say the first famous art work that comes to your mind, you will most likely answer me: the mona lisa, and it makes sense because it is the most recognized ... A long-lost Nigerian masterpiece that had been missing for decades has sold for a record £1.2 million pounds ($1.68 million) at a London auction, more than four times the highest estimate. The ... How much is the Mona Lisa worth 2018? Watch more videos for more knowledge How Much Is The Mona Lisa Worth Today 2018 ... His latest so-called “energy value” analysis implies a rally to $12,800 will take place in the months ahead. In other trending Bitcoin News today: Max Keiser On How He Bought BTC For $1 In ...