* Smart Contracts
* Homomorphic Encryption (not just obfuscation) for Privacy, Fungibility
* Σ-Mining (anyone mining on the DERO network can earn rewards based on the amount of work contributed, instead of a ‘winner-takes-all’ reward model)
* Account model
* Written from scratch in Go
It's been a pleasure to work with, and the community is great.
I’m not sure all types of money have this characteristic, but debt-based money in a fractional reserve banking system certainly seems to. The banks are perpetually insolvent because the time structure of their assets (loans) doesn’t match the time structure of their liabilities (“deposits”). At any time a bank run can bring them and the entire economy down. Sure, the government guarantees their deposits, but AFAIK they don’t provide anywhere near enough insurance. Not to mention the moral hazard it creates for banks to act recklessly.
It’s been a while since I read up on the topic, but the origins of fractional-reserve banking sound a lot like fraud that got blamed on the hard money that exposed it. (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1933550287)
People (demos) and power (kratos) tend to not go well together, which is why the US was founded as a democratic Republic with strictly limited power. Many of the founders viewed the state as a necessary evil.
Ben Franklin referred to the US as “A Republic, if you can keep it." I think it’s fair to say we haven’t. Power is no longer viewed as an evil to be restrained, but the solution to our problems.
We need to realize the state is force, and force is rarely the solution to our problems. In most cases it creates more problems than it solves.
This is my biggest qualm with building a company aimed to sell (either to public markets or another company). You are binding yourself to pursue as much profit as possible through whatever legal means possible. Even if those legal means go against everything you stand for, you have to pursue them because you have a fiduciary duty.
> Even if those legal means go against everything you stand for, you have to pursue them because you have a fiduciary duty.
This is not true, and never has been even a little bit true (in the US). It's a commonly misquoted trope.
Assuming your company happens to be public (the only way this matters) - you still can do whatever you like as controlling CEO short of outright fraud or negligence. If you decide to switch your Fortune 500 company to it's sole goal being charity - you could definitely do that without going to jail or being liable for anything.
You might lose your job though.
If you own a private company you started yourself and own the equity? You can do everything up to and including burning the building down.
Burning down a building that you actually for-real own might not be illegal, but be careful what you tell your insurer. The fire marshall might be annoyed as well, so warn him first. I wonder if the EPA would have questions as well...
They can sue yes, less likely to win. Modern courts really don't want to second-guess management strategies, and instead focus on things like fraud, conflicts of interest, and misrepresentation. If the company openly said that they are going to pursue policy X because they think this is in the long-term best interests of the company, and some shareholders sue to argue that it isn't, courts are rarely going to step in and try to determine that management should've pursued some other strategy. For one thing, they aren't really equipped to determine what would be the right course of action (valuing things like "goodwill" is not really an exact science), and for another, shareholders already have a mechanism for resolving those questions among themselves: shareholder votes.
Instead, to win a shareholder lawsuit you usually need much more of a smoking gun, things like being able to show that the CEO pursued a certain deal because his brother owned the other company, or that a group of controlling shareholders are having their chosen board take certain actions that deliberately screw over minority shareholders, that kind of thing.
Was probably going to happen eventually since Lyft and Uber offer a better product, but it's interesting that the big ride sharing companies aren't profitable yet either.
> The world is a better place with lots of smaller companies.
I would tend to agree. What's troubling to me is central banks pouring money into the big tech companies. How are small companies supposed to compete with a printing press?
Even if a world with lots of smaller companies serves consumers better, consumers' votes don't matter when central banks can steal their votes via a printing press and give money to the big tech companies.
I was wondering the same thing.. Maybe the developer was able to remotely flip a switch after the app went through approval to change its behavior and app review didn't catch it? What's really surprising is how long it's been out (almost 2 months)
I can see that by using Microsoft CodePush or similar. But you can't change the description, in app purchases or title without going through the approval process again.
* Smart Contracts * Homomorphic Encryption (not just obfuscation) for Privacy, Fungibility * Σ-Mining (anyone mining on the DERO network can earn rewards based on the amount of work contributed, instead of a ‘winner-takes-all’ reward model) * Account model * Written from scratch in Go
It's been a pleasure to work with, and the community is great.