Cryptocurrency is the new frontier. Hold a claim in the right location, and you have a chance at building a multi-generational estate.
Most ICO designers think like real estate developers: sell property titles, use the money to develop protocol & community. The failed 80,000 acre California City development (*1958) serves as a warning to investors: one sexy story does not a metropolis make.
BTC/LN ~ TCP/IP
Bitcoin is becoming a platform—a protocol stack with many features:
- store of value
- low trust wealth transfer
- confidential transactions
- tokenized securities
- high volume payment network
- smart contracts / programmable money
1/ European cities have organic shapes because citizens lacked foresight & capital to do urban planning.
US cities emerged from a game theoretical bind: both capital _and_ foresight abt the commercial potential were available to all, hence a "race to develop" became inevitable.
2/ The North American opportunity was so huge (and technology sufficiently advanced) that its urbanization truly was a race: to prospect for the most promising land, to claim a stake, to grow its value via marketing.
3/ I think there's an analogy to be made with cryptocurrencies, which I've suggested before: twitter.com/tuurdemeester/…
4/ Of course long term development and growth will only happen in places that actually add value - US history is rife with stories about failed cities. twitter.com/tuurdemeester/…
5/ So where does Bitcoin fit in this story? I'd argue that it has developed much more like European cities did, in a perpetual state of organic growth, capital shortage, and relative unawareness about its own potential.
6/ Does that mean Bitcoin is doomed, like many cities in Europe historically, to suffer from the "law of the handicap of a head start"? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_th…
7/ Imo not, because there's virtually no limit to the functionality that can be built _on top_ of Bitcoin. Propelled by its network effects, Bitcoin's dominance could stabilize at 80-90% or higher—a "black hole" protocol. twitter.com/TuurDemeester/…
8/ I think the jury is out to what extent complementary cryptocurrencies will accompany Bitcoin for the long term. One criticism I disagree with, is that the commercial development of an altcoin by definition put that coin in the categories of "centralized", "scam", or "doomed".
9/ The reason for this goes back to my first tweet: in a post Bitcoin world, both capital _and_ foresight about the commercial potential of cryptocurrencies are available to all, hence a "race to develop" (commercialization) has become inevitable for any new protocol.