Ok - so this is going somewhere interesting. Ultimately it’s a sustainability of funding issue right?
Tokenomics, liquidity, and community
We can reduce this to driving hype, listing and speculation tbh - everyone is very aware that there is no real ‘use’ of these tokens to merit the valuations, other than with the AMMs that churn the system around, but that’s really not creating value.
The major question here is really one of the key aspects of the next post I’ll be sharing - is there another way to sustainably fund the development of these blockchains and their contributors without resorting to private sales and a race to liquidity ahead of any meaningful development or traction.
It is this that I believe is best placed to fulfil the long term vision - else the incentives always drag in one direction.
I’m just not that bullish on DApps > parachains, I think they are two different beasts considering Substrate’s governance focus - parathread to parachain makes sense, tho maybe im misunderstanding the point.
Do you have an example of an existing DApp that you think might/could make this move?
Who would you say has meaningful traction? Interested to know what you think that traction looks like too?
I’m pessimistic about the next cycle wrt to us seeing the same kind of speculative bubbles we saw in the last 10 years. Things are very very different, worse than 2008, and unlike then, governments can’t print their way out.
In a nutshell this is for me the bear case on casino clones and the bull case for Substrate as an employer of contributors around the world.
That’s a great question and one I’ll respond to in the next post as it deserves a longer answer