Eth is getting prohibitively expensive to run anything on (like 50 dollars per transaction or whatever), a lot of people will be looking for an escape. Cardano is more efficient, less congested (for now), and has a scaling solution in the pipe (Hydra). Hydra was validated by some pretty convincing tests in the paper
As far as good governance, naming the scaling solution of your crypto currency after the biggest dark market seems a strange choice if you want to appeal to institutional investors.
Ethereum also has a scalling solution with Ethereum2 in the pipeline and Polkadot which is the other contendor has already implemented a good scalling solution.
I don’t really know how long Cardano will take to roll out. Smart contract capabilities aren’t live yet. I believe them when they say “soon” (The Ethiopia deal had to be predicated on it),
This seem strange. On the one hand you say that the what’s good about Cardano is roadmaps. On the other hand when it comes to one of the most important features, they just say soon.
It’s unclear to me why you would need smart contracts for identity and thus the The Ethiopia deal had to be predicated on it.
Eth also has scaling solutions in the pipe, but Hoskinson considers them too experimental, and not very likely to work in time, and I’m inclined to believe him, as he is intimately involved in the technical research process, and he does not seem vain about imitating what works.
I don’t think “Our approach is better” is generally a very trustworthy statement. It would make more sense to look at what people who are independent have to say.
Good questions. (Aside from the one about Hydra. I don’t think many potential investors are going to google hydra and then confuse a dark market for a scaling solution. I don’t think many of them are going to google hydra in the first place and I think the ones who do will know the class of object they’re looking for. An aside, they also named their development suite “Plutus”, which another crypto project has tried to claim, but I’ve never heard of that project before and might never hear of it again and don’t remember what it was.)
I wouldn’t trust most people who say “Our approach is better”, but Charles keeps generating plausible signals of actually having deep, impartial knowledge of every approach so I am inclined to trust this one. I’m not really sure if it’s reasonable to expect to find a competent advocate of a crypto stack who is not deeply invested in its success, in fact, a lack of investment from an advocate should probably read as weak evidence of insincerity.
Aside from the one about Hydra. I don’t think many potential investors are going to google hydra and then confuse a dark market for a scaling solution.
The issue isn’t simply about confusion but about well-thought out naming choices. I don’t see any good reason to use the name.
Hydra has 600% year over year growth and there’s a good chance that it will be talked about a lot more in 2-3 years.
I’m not really sure if it’s reasonable to expect to find a competent advocate of a crypto stack who is not deeply invested in its success, in fact, a lack of investment from an advocate should probably read as weak evidence of insincerity.
Some people and broadly invested and have spread their investment over multiple different projects. I would consider those to be more impartial then the founder of a project.
The reason to call it “Hydra” is that the scaling solution works by “growing” “heads”. It is very hydra-like in its behavior. It might have been named before the marketplace was a (visible) thing? (They may have been developing it for a while)
As far as good governance, naming the scaling solution of your crypto currency after the biggest dark market seems a strange choice if you want to appeal to institutional investors.
Ethereum also has a scalling solution with Ethereum2 in the pipeline and Polkadot which is the other contendor has already implemented a good scalling solution.
This seem strange. On the one hand you say that the what’s good about Cardano is roadmaps. On the other hand when it comes to one of the most important features, they just say soon.
It’s unclear to me why you would need smart contracts for identity and thus the The Ethiopia deal had to be predicated on it.
I don’t think “Our approach is better” is generally a very trustworthy statement. It would make more sense to look at what people who are independent have to say.
Good questions. (Aside from the one about Hydra. I don’t think many potential investors are going to google hydra and then confuse a dark market for a scaling solution. I don’t think many of them are going to google hydra in the first place and I think the ones who do will know the class of object they’re looking for. An aside, they also named their development suite “Plutus”, which another crypto project has tried to claim, but I’ve never heard of that project before and might never hear of it again and don’t remember what it was.)
I wouldn’t trust most people who say “Our approach is better”, but Charles keeps generating plausible signals of actually having deep, impartial knowledge of every approach so I am inclined to trust this one. I’m not really sure if it’s reasonable to expect to find a competent advocate of a crypto stack who is not deeply invested in its success, in fact, a lack of investment from an advocate should probably read as weak evidence of insincerity.
The issue isn’t simply about confusion but about well-thought out naming choices. I don’t see any good reason to use the name.
Hydra has 600% year over year growth and there’s a good chance that it will be talked about a lot more in 2-3 years.
Some people and broadly invested and have spread their investment over multiple different projects. I would consider those to be more impartial then the founder of a project.
The reason to call it “Hydra” is that the scaling solution works by “growing” “heads”. It is very hydra-like in its behavior. It might have been named before the marketplace was a (visible) thing? (They may have been developing it for a while)