I don’t want to leave this topic unrelated. I’ve been convincing myself that the philosophical questions behind the technology of money, and tackling the change that it drives, are what gives meaning to the societal change. Leaving the deep discussions outside of the scope removes this driver.
Because primarily there is an economy, then much of the answers to how, what and for whom to build (the main questions of economy as i was taught in the economic school) already answers many of the concerns of the technology, probably almost all of them. Then we open the discussion about the type of economy to build in a decentralized and permissionless system, the main properties that validates people’s participation in the forum, for example.
Still, what I observe is that even though there is one main token DOT for the relay chain, its different properties in different contexts like XCM, PoP, NFTs, etc make the same token actually a composition of many products, and this makes it harder to tackle and discuss because it adds complexity on a system in which a few wallets have advantage of managing, they are the main stakers.
I don’t want to build a maximalist argument here, but I think it has been proved that if you solve only one problem - the economic one - then the value will increase organically. This needs some context of course to bring the interest of investors, but my thesis is that just a distributed economy that could build stability is more than enough to drive value, together with the computational aspects of the trilemma being solved.
Adding more properties over this seems to be adding friction to investment. i open the discussion now with less economical arguments, but rather a more open view inviting to anyone to discuss this very openly. Openness will be a key driver in the evolution of this industry.