Die Welt des Internets

Nate Williams, developer at Vocdoni, discusses the main myths surrounding blockchain voting.

Fears over blockchain voting have reached an all-time high

Like paper-based voting systems, blockchain voting needs to evolve and improve as it is used.

Many of us in the digital voting arena have noticed a dramatic shift in public discourse as of this year 2020. Supporters and skeptics are being heard more and more, and it seems more and more people are forming an opinion on the subject. The question is no longer whether or not digital voting will become mainstream over the next decade, but rather how this change will take place.

One of the reasons for this discussion stems from a clearer perception of the issues we hope to move away from, namely voter suppression, low turnout, and the slowness and cost of electoral infrastructure. This year, marked by the COVID-19 pandemic, has taught us that we must be ready to exercise democracy under any condition.

Beyond this reaction to the problems inherent in our current voting systems, however, comes the vision of an entirely different governance model, with deeper citizen participation and engagement.

What if blockchain voting could enable us to self-organize in a democratic and participatory manner on a scale greater than ever? Such a change is made possible by secure, anonymous, universally verifiable and extremely easy to use voting from a mobile phone.

End the myths of blockchain voting

Unfortunately, the fear of blockchain voting systems is at its height. Many critics, including the authors of a recent paper from MIT Medialab’s Digital Currency Initiative, point to the very real issues with this technology that will need to be addressed. Many of them, however, exaggerate these issues, fall into misconceptions, and mistakenly state that blockchain voting is impractical.

So let’s take a look at some of these myths.

Blockchain voting cannot be anonymous

One of the most common myths about blockchain voting is that it prevents voter anonymity. This is true for a system that relies solely on block voting chains. Likewise, anonymity is certainly a challenge.

That said, as my colleagues and I on the Vocdoni digital voting project point out in our response to the aforementioned MIT document, this necessity is achievable. The technology to sever the link between a voter and their individual ballot, while preserving the ability to verify, already exists (with some room for improvement).

MNBCs High Priority – Whether it’s the People’s Bank of China , the European Central Bank or the US Federal Reserve , their current obsession seems to be central bank digital currencies (MNBCs). With this major concern in mind, these large institutions do not have time to take care of their smaller counterparts, who are starting to suffer from the rise of Bitcoin Circuit reviews.

Adapt, or die (and in silence, please)

It’s a hell of a message, not very nice, that Jon Cunliffe , the vice-governor of the Bank of England (BoE) has just sent.

At a BoE meeting in London, reported by Reuters , the central banker explained that he did not care about the problems that domestic banks may have in the face of the growing adoption of cryptocurrencies and other digital currencies!

“Our job is not to protect the business model of the banks (…) The banks will have to adapt. Our job is to make sure that if the banking business model changes, we manage the financial and macroeconomic consequences. “

Traditional banks caught in the crossfire

Between the technological and economic advances represented by cryptocurrencies, on the one hand, and the digital currencies of central banks , on the other hand, commercial banks may no longer have a very large role to play in the economy of tomorrow. In any case, not without great efforts to adapt .

If Jon Cunliffe is so dry and sharp with the smaller banks, it is because he also fears for the life of the central banks themselves. For the vice-governor of the BoE, there is not a second to lose , the politicians having to also make the question of an MNBC their priority .

„We need [digital currencies] to get onto the political agenda fairly quickly, before it is too late, and politicians to find out that certain developments [of digital currencies] in the private sector do not match. not to their regulatory framework. „

For something like Bitcoin which would have „no intrinsic value , “ according to Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey, this panic and rush might even seem quite paradoxical .

I følge data samlet av podcast Crypto Voices er bitcoins utledede verdi nå høyere enn hele valutaen til den russiske rubelen. Assetdash.com sier også at Bitcoin er verdens største aktiva etter markedsverdi.

Kan du høre meg nå?

Klemt mellom Verizon og Home Depot, er Bitcoin nå en av de største eiendelene i verden, ifølge assetdash.com. De beste spillerne på denne listen inkluderer gigantiske selskaper som Apple, Amazon og Alibaba.

Dette setter bitcoin bare to flekker under S&P SPDR ETF Trust, den største ETF i verden. Denne ETF sporer ytelsen til S&P 500-indeksen og representerer 306 milliarder dollar i aksjer. Sammenlignet med valutaer gjør Bitcoin Up like bra. Inkludert gull og sølv er bare 10 valutaer verdt mer enn bitcoin når det gjelder markedsverdi.

I følge Coingecko er den totale markedsverdien for alle kryptovalutaer rundt 428 milliarder dollar. Denne verdsettelsen vil sette krypto på rangeringene over Walmart og Tesla.

Markedsverdi er ikke den eneste måten å måle verdi på. Tross alt kan sprøytenarkoman og bobler øke både etterspørsel og priser. P / E-forholdet til Tesla er nesten 863. Med andre ord har Teslas pris i gjennomsnitt vært 863 ganger årets inntjening. Om fremtidens potensielle inntjening vil tette dette gapet, gjenstår å se, men bare å ha en høyere pris tilsvarer ikke virkelig høyere verdi – bare en høyere markedsverdi

I noen grad sammenligner bitcoin med offentlige selskaper å sammenligne epler med appelsiner. Bitcoin er en butikk med verdi eller valuta, og (i utgangspunktet) er de eneste faktorene som driver verdi tilbud og etterspørsel. Det er ingen aksjonær- eller styremøter: bare mer kjøp og salg.

Konvertering av valuta

Hvis eiendeler som aksjer ikke er en så god analogi, kan bitcoin lettere sammenlignes med valutaer. Crypto Voices ‚graf setter bitcoin et punkt over den russiske rubelen når det gjelder den monetære basen. Den monetære basen er mengden av alle likvide eiendeler i en valuta, i teorien i det minste.

USA hadde en estimert monetær base på $ 3,9 billioner i 2016. Japan har en mye høyere monetær base enn de fleste andre land. Hvis bitcoins markedsverdi ble likestilt med basen, ville den rangere høyt – veldig høyt. Crypto Voices sa at verden over $ 14 K per bitcoin var en verden der den digitale valutaen var en stor aktør.

Andre kilder er litt mindre oppmuntrende. Fiatmarketcap.com hevder at den russiske rubelen er verdt omtrent 50 millioner BTC, eller rundt 723 milliarder dollar. Selv om det virker nedslående at bitcoin bare noen gang har en sirkulasjon på 21 milliarder kroner, er det viktig å huske at mengden rubler i omløp er ubegrenset.

Alt er imidlertid ikke slik det ser ut til. Estimater av fungible eiendeler varierer, spesielt med tanke på bredere perspektiver som futuresmarkeder og gearing. Bank of International bosetninger hevder at bare $ 5000000000 eksisterer, men estimatene kan også være så høye som $ 18 billioner.

Uansett er bitcoin fremdeles opp rundt 36% siden for 30 dager siden. Nylig har bitcoin slått sine egne 2020-høyder og har anstendig Wall Street-støtte. Med flere Wall Street-selskaper som legger til bitcoin i sine statskasser, øker bitcoin seg til et sted nær topp selskaper og valutaer.

Uniswap holds a vote on governance thresholds. The community decides.

The Uniswap community is currently voting for the first time. She has until October 19 for this.

To debate lower thresholds are here for submission of governance proposals and quorums

In recent weeks there has been a lot of discussion and criticism related to the governance framework of the Protocol. In a contribution from the market research platform Glassnode, it was stated that with its current structure, only the centralized competitor of Uniswap Binance would be able to successfully submit a governance proposal. Although the latest proposal refutes this claim, the effectiveness of the framework remains questionable.

Uniswap governance currently requires parties wishing to submit proposals to hold 1 percent of the total UNI delegated offer. A quorum requires 4 percent to be able to agree. Since there is a supply of 1 billion UNI, these thresholds are 10 and 40 million tokens. At the current UNI exchange rate of around $ 3.30, that means you have to hold $ 33 million or $ 132 million.

That makes reaching consensus a difficult task

Dharma, a protocol that promises user-friendly access to DeFi for crypto beginners, has proposed lowering the threshold to 0.3 percent (or 3 million UNIs) and the quorum threshold to 3 percent (or 30 million UNIs). There are currently over 30 million yes-votes and 624,701 no-votes. The vote is still running for six days.

Uniswap continues to dominate the DeFi world in terms of both exchange volume and total value invested.