Polkawatch

Polkadot dencentralization analytics

[Polkawatch @polkawatch]

As Polkawatch turned 3, it's time to review @Polkadot's decentralization progress.

An image is worth a thousand words:

Details:
https://t.co/HtiBdAWoqJ

Now and back then:

[Polkawatch @polkawatch]

@D0tSama @ultracoconut Great, then JAM tokens should be transferred to DOT owners exclusively.

[Polkawatch @polkawatch]

@WebThreeCapital @nejc52005601 @D0tSama But how is the ownership implemented?

DOT may end up running on JAM, not the other way around.

JAM is essentially a separate chain, or?

[Polkawatch @polkawatch]

@D0tSama Seems like the perfect opportunity to give value to DOT.

1 DOT = right to keep X state on JAM.

At the end of the day DOT holders paid for it.

[Polkawatch @polkawatch]

Planning decentralisation from the very start.

Bitcoin certainly did it.

[Wei Tang @sorpaas]

While Polkadot JAM is discussing having more tokens ($JAMKB), in JAR Chain we want to have less tokens: the protocol is coinless. This is what a L0 blockchain should be like -- totally community-owned, truly decentralized, anti-capturing.

No one owns 15% of the total supply so that they practically decide everything (like in DOTDAO). And, in JAR, cooperative consensus ensures that you have a right to choose if you don't like the existing system -- while the base layer global state stays shared.

https://t.co/cHMWfPrhAd

[Polkawatch @polkawatch]

@giottodf The thing is... you are loosing the money anyway.

No wonder even central banks are buying shiny rocks like crazy... like it is 4500 BC.

Innovation around value seems to be tough nowadays.

The only reason should be Token = Value + Functionality

[Polkawatch @polkawatch]

@stakenode_dev If one entity can do that, by it's very definition, the coefficient is exactly 1.

Could they ever do that with Bitcoin?

[Polkawatch @polkawatch]

We have been repeating this fact for ages.

The unwillingness to process facts by many in the polkadot ecosystem is appalling and most irresponsible.

178 is neither good or bad coefficient, it's a lie.

[Wei Tang @sorpaas]

Official account quotes utterly wrong data without verification.

Turns out the market is not stupid. You can't manipulate your way up.

We proved it before. The Nakamoto Coefficient of Polkadot is At Most 25. The often cited value of 178 is almost certainly wrong: https://t.co/7Ev8WoNFYD

[Wei Tang @sorpaas]

Official account quotes utterly wrong data without verification.

Turns out the market is not stupid. You can't manipulate your way up.

We proved it before. The Nakamoto Coefficient of Polkadot is At Most 25. The often cited value of 178 is almost certainly wrong: https://t.co/7Ev8WoNFYD

[Polkawatch @polkawatch]

@giottodf Arrogance is a great problem in the ecosystem.

Quick minds like W3F @filippoweb3 raised the issue in his early community appearances.

[Polkawatch @polkawatch]

Very nice and compact.

Most of our problems come from believing our own stores instead of perceiving reality itself, which is a key source of growth.

But there is a key part of our nature that I cannot fit in this model.

Imagination, innovation and their outcomes... inception is not part of reality. Perhaps even bound to egos and story making...

However it is a strong part of our nature. We are the monkeys that left the trees (our reality at the time) for... tools and I guess dreams.

Perhaps stories and egos are, after all, an important part of our nature, regardless of the suffering the bring along the way.

Perhaps we need those stores to keep going.

[Polkawatch @polkawatch]

Governance v1, was just as good or perhaps better than OpenGov.

OpenGov had a alienating effect on the community.

Polkadot could easily be used to implement DAOs, any DAOs, which now use discord instead.

Have those DAOs take council sits.

Yet the root cause of all polkadot issues is still not being discussed.

[Polkawatch @polkawatch]

@AltcoinDaily Impermanent loss implies impermanent gains.

[Polkawatch @polkawatch]

@samwhoo @giottodf They probably sit on an amazing AI training database now.

[Polkawatch @polkawatch]

@JPodhorsky Perhaps we should start analysing the ways in which the ETH ecosystem is superior to ours.

It's obviously not all about tech.

[Polkawatch @polkawatch]

@polkaworld_org @Polkadot Can we see also the not so nice numbers?

What do we have to be better at?

"Hallelujah" analytics won't help the eco much.

[Polkawatch @polkawatch]

Innovation is a discipline in itself.

While it is common that there is only a fraction of projects that reach general availability, it is fundamental to have a structured approach to fail fast and fail cheap.

Innovation is a search process, basically.

These practices have been in place for decades even in the most traditional organisations.

Polkadot needs a structured approach to innovation.

@Web3foundation grants program is not too bad actually. You should count the number of projects that consolidated and divide by total program cost to measure performance.

Most of the "waste" of the treasury is actually value lost of the token by far, even considering the general downtrend, when comparing with peers ecos ike Tron.

The most fair way to describe the outcome of OpenGov is lost of opportunity.

We should have invested differently, probably on more projects but with a much better practice that ensured a fail fast fail cheap outcome.

Products are not going to pop by themselves, without products infra has no use.

The community cannot be just Parity, if so, we will fall behind in terms of growth.

Another thing that I believe was weak is supporting project consolidation.

For example the ecosystem had EVM 4 years ago, when transaction speed and cost were scarce differential advantages. Projects like curve finance came to the eco from eth. Why polkadot 2.0 now and not back then?

Some initiatives got strategic support, others didn't. But now EVM is strategic 4 years later?

Our ecosystem rushed into JAM, with massive support, diverting attention from a good go to market and platform adoption goals.

While it is OK to start r&d of 3.0 and 4.0 while pushing 1.0 to market an effort to keep the adoption focus of 1.0 would have come handy.

The questions that bother me is whether there is a common root to all these issues? And how do we do next.

It's obvious that the ecosystem is repositioning, addressing the root cause in the process would definitely help.

[Polkawatch @polkawatch]

Innovation is a discipline in itself.

While it is common that there is only a fraction of projects that reach general availability, it is fundamental to have a structured approach to fail fast and fail cheap.

Innovation is a search process, basically.

These practices have been in place for decades even in the most traditional organisations.

Polkadot needs a structured approach to innovation.

@Web3foundation grants program is not too bad actually. You should count the number of projects that consolidated and divide by total program cost to measure performance.

Most of the "waste" of the treasury is actually value lost of the token by far, even considering the general downtrend, when comparing with peers ecos ike Tron.

The most fair way to describe the outcome of OpenGov is lost of opportunity.

We should have invested differently, probably on more projects but with a much better practice that ensured a fail fast fail cheap outcome.

Products are not going to pop by themselves, without products infra has no use.

The community cannot be just Parity, if so, we will fall behind in terms of growth.

Another thing that I believe was weak is supporting project consolidation.

For example the ecosystem had EVM 4 years ago, when transaction speed and cost were scarce differential advantages. Projects like curve finance came to the eco from eth. Why polkadot 2.0 now and not back then?

Some initiatives got strategic support, others didn't. But now EVM is strategic 4 years later?

Our ecosystem rushed into JAM, with massive support, diverting attention from a good go to market and platform adoption goals.

While it is OK to start r&d of 3.0 and 4.0 while pushing 1.0 to market an effort to keep the adoption focus of 1.0 would have come handy.

The questions that bother me is whether there is a common root to all these issues? And how do we do next.

It's obvious that the ecosystem is repositioning, addressing the root cause in the process would definitely help.

[Polkawatch @polkawatch]

@alice_und_bob In 4 days? Or 4 years ago?

https://t.co/ZdmHR0MAnV

[Polkawatch @polkawatch]

There can be tyranny in web3 too.

Why not?

Humans just can't handle power in any shape or form.

Whether it's monarchy by God's grace or a delegation of millions in token voting power doesn't make any difference.

Once humans find themselves in a power position they misuse it, consistently.

[Polkawatch @polkawatch]

@hydration_net Not really, but wondered many times what is backing it.

Callateral and it's valuation? Couldn't find it in the app.

The auto peg module sounds exactly like Terra's UST, doesn't sound good.