After reviewing the patent, I’ve reached the conclusion that Claim 15: “Shared security” is self evidently invalid (yes, examiners have been known to make mistakes). Confirmation of this comes via @burdges acknowledgement (in a different, but still relevant, context):
This is also consistent with previous observations that strongly suggested the game theoretic claims were similarly either false or mistaken:
The non-crypto-obscurantist translation for all that is: this is pure scam - security is by assumption alone, and the various crypto-obscurantist claims seek to obfuscate that simple fact.
The patented shared consensus security claims depend on a token value >$0. Specifically, as I read the patent detail @rphmeier and @gavofyork either never possessed such an invention for the shared security properties they claim (see para [0145]), or were mistaken. Either way I don’t see any invention disclosed that supports their assertions.
Detailed description elements which are vacuous when the token (stake) is near worthless or worthless (DOT=$0), among possibly other paragraphs:
- [0052]
- [0064] - [0066]
- [0077]
- [0091]
- [0098]
- [0100]
- [0102]
- [0103]
- [0145]
- [0262]
Interestingly, this is the only patented Ponzi-style scheme I am aware of. It is also the most sophisticated.
How to understand this in the context of prior Ponzi schemes:
- Cryptography projects are to crypto-currencies what charities were to Madoff; they provided a veneer of respectability, real prestige, and good-will.
- Crypto-obscurantism as a old-school confidence trick (SEC Investor Alert: Ponzi schemes Using virtual Currencies):
- “…the latest innovation, technology”: Cryptographic security, distributed consensus proofs etc
- “…the promise of high returns”: double digit returns to staking
- “…rather than engaging in any legitimate investment activity”: the stored data loses its secured property whenever… DOT=0 or some neighborhood of that value