I really fail to see why it being peer reviewed is not a strong point in favor of the project. If blockchains are supposed to be something other tech is supposed to be built on top of, then shouldn't it be build with the help of the scientific method? Breaking things moving fast doesn't work all the time you know ?
>>photos of Hoskinson with his mouth open taking selfies in various parts of the world
Honestly don't really know how to answer this. For someone who isn't interested in cardano you seem spend a lot of time stalking a blockchain ceo ;)
Because peer review doesn't mean nearly as much for the credibility of something as people think it does. It basically just means two other qualified people looked over the research and said "There are no obvious flaws in methodology or reasoning," it doesn't mean that the reviewers verified every claim made or that they agree with the conclusions reached.
Even though academia is not perfect, it seems like going through peer review is on many dimensions better than not doing so. For instance, you get feedback and you document your reasoning and approaches for others to learn from. The only argument against it that I could see is added cost in terms of resources and time invested but for something like a blockchain it seems worthwhile to take the plunge.
>>photos of Hoskinson with his mouth open taking selfies in various parts of the world
Honestly don't really know how to answer this. For someone who isn't interested in cardano you seem spend a lot of time stalking a blockchain ceo ;)
>> disclaimer: I hold none of either
congratulations!