If a VC firm owns the token, you CAN'T say it is actually owned by the investors of the VC. They only own it indirectly which has a significant distinction in web3.
Whoever controls the token is the one who owns it, just like a stock is not owned by an individual, but rather they are a "beneficial owner" which means the rights are bestowed, but not the actual title which is held at the level of broker, or if you want to go deeper, cede & co. This distinction is critical because that broker can really do as they please with your share including selling it if they have liquidity issues or even lending it out to be shorted which produces a negative impact on the value of your ownership.
This becomes very salient with DAOs. Currently Solice (metaverse building on Solana) is structured to be a DAO but has only 2% available to the general public. The question then becomes, who has voting rights? It isn't the investors of the VCs that has voting rights, but rather the VC itself who controls the governance. So be careful of projects that wrap themselves in the structure of a DAO but then have nearly all governance controlled by the VC and insiders. The notion of a DAO that is 75% VC owned being a legitimate user-based DAO is a farce because governance isn't controlled by those who engage in the platform, but rather by those who seek to profit from it. Those two interests are often in conflict which we see clearly with the current organizational structure, especially in gaming where profit is leveraged at the expense of user experience.
It is probably better to look at web3 as ownership of a digital autonomous self that moves through different digital environments. In this way, we shift from web 1 orientation to the provider to web3 orientation to the user.
Ergo alotted 4.43% of mined tokens for the foundation and development. 95.6% is publically distributed. Ergo is also primed for W3 with it's extended UTxO model. It's a shame you removed the info graphic that included it in the pie charts.
It should be a point of the conversation - what are the limits of public distribution that we are comfortable with, and do we want to push for greater equity? If yes, we must push for truly decentralized and grass-root projects, not flashy centralized regurgitations of trad-fi.
Unfortunately, most people are here for short-term gains and don't care for the philanthropic side of cryptography.
no one owns web3; it's not a technology, it's a decision. it's about the choice to opt-out of existing systems (web2) and opt-in to better, decentralized / distributed, censorship-free solutions. folks are building them!
If a VC firm owns the token, you CAN'T say it is actually owned by the investors of the VC. They only own it indirectly which has a significant distinction in web3.
Whoever controls the token is the one who owns it, just like a stock is not owned by an individual, but rather they are a "beneficial owner" which means the rights are bestowed, but not the actual title which is held at the level of broker, or if you want to go deeper, cede & co. This distinction is critical because that broker can really do as they please with your share including selling it if they have liquidity issues or even lending it out to be shorted which produces a negative impact on the value of your ownership.
This becomes very salient with DAOs. Currently Solice (metaverse building on Solana) is structured to be a DAO but has only 2% available to the general public. The question then becomes, who has voting rights? It isn't the investors of the VCs that has voting rights, but rather the VC itself who controls the governance. So be careful of projects that wrap themselves in the structure of a DAO but then have nearly all governance controlled by the VC and insiders. The notion of a DAO that is 75% VC owned being a legitimate user-based DAO is a farce because governance isn't controlled by those who engage in the platform, but rather by those who seek to profit from it. Those two interests are often in conflict which we see clearly with the current organizational structure, especially in gaming where profit is leveraged at the expense of user experience.
It is probably better to look at web3 as ownership of a digital autonomous self that moves through different digital environments. In this way, we shift from web 1 orientation to the provider to web3 orientation to the user.
Ergo alotted 4.43% of mined tokens for the foundation and development. 95.6% is publically distributed. Ergo is also primed for W3 with it's extended UTxO model. It's a shame you removed the info graphic that included it in the pie charts.
It should be a point of the conversation - what are the limits of public distribution that we are comfortable with, and do we want to push for greater equity? If yes, we must push for truly decentralized and grass-root projects, not flashy centralized regurgitations of trad-fi.
Unfortunately, most people are here for short-term gains and don't care for the philanthropic side of cryptography.
no one owns web3; it's not a technology, it's a decision. it's about the choice to opt-out of existing systems (web2) and opt-in to better, decentralized / distributed, censorship-free solutions. folks are building them!
Am new to Pomp subscription. It said there will be 5 letters per week but I have received only 1 in last 8 days. Is it the case with everyone?
Thoroughly enjoyed and agree with that unbiased breakdown.
Love watching the BBS. Subscribed to these newsletters because of it. Keep doing what you do best pomp!
I follow you regularily and bros excellent obs. Thanks ATB DSB
One of the best tech Substacks out there. Thanks for everything you do, Comrade Pomp.