@preethi: I put together an analysis to quantify profit. I’ve included screenshots in my post. Any way I can attach my source file?
Awesome! If you upload it to Google sheets and the post a link, that should be good
This is speculating on the future. We don’t know if or when they will solve it. Such Trustories can be created for every Bitcoin competing token. Since this cannot be proved, I don’t think it should be a valid claim.
Stake: Challenge claim [100 CRED]
Claim: Transaction count is a poor proxy for dapp usage.
My stake: Back claim (50 Cred)
My argument/evidence: Unlike traditional web apps which didn’t have a monetary value associated with every interaction, dapps are different because they do have value associated with every interaction. Therefore, transaction count gives an incomplete picture of the health of a dapp. While there is no canonical metric (yet), measuring dapp usage sensibly requires looking at different things. For example, transaction volume is a big one. If you go to this ranking site, what you see when you order by “Transactions” is a different picture than what you see when you order by “Volume”. Cryptokitties is #1 by transaction count, but it pales in comparison to FCK, dice2.win, IDEX, and Augur based on transaction volume.
What other metrics should we be looking at to measure the health of a dapp? For example, is DAUs and MAUs still a good metric to take into consideration?
This is a great analysis Paul. I wonder if the claim could be re-worded so that it’s verifiable or falsifiable? Is there some measure of Centralized/Decentralized that you could use?
I’d like to back your claim (50 Cred) as well.
Claim : Transaction count is a poor proxy for dapp usage.
In my opinion, it’s difficult and unfair to use some universal metrics to evaluate and compare DApps/ protocol tokens nowadays. To compare amongst DApps, I think one should first classify DApps according to its application nature (e.g. Gambling, Games, Prediction Markets, Decentralized Exchange (DEXs), etc.)
For example, a popular gambling DApp can easily have higher transaction volume than a DEX DApp because for the same stack of tokens, the gambling process between 2 parties can be many transactions as long as they keep gambling, but DEX process between 2 parties is just a one-time transaction.
Then, one needs to also take account different underlying protocol platform. A EOS gambling DApp can scale up transaction counts quicker than a ETH gambling DApp. (DPoS vs. PoW, trade-off between scalability and decentralization)
Therefore, a fairer methodology to evaluate DApps would be to compare a EOS gambling DApp vs. another EOS gambling DApp using the metrics suitable for gambling DApps?
Regarding DApp metrics, I think transaction counts, volume, DAU, MAU are common metrics. But then they should be weighted differently according to its application nature. (Perhaps DAU > transaction counts for gambling DApp, volume > DAU for DEX DApp.)
Interestingly, I just came across CoinDesk’s Crypto-Economics Explorer. There’s a metric called “Network”, where they the measure interests of different token network. The weighted factors of this metric include:
- On-Chain Transaction Volume (52.5%)
- Mining Revenue (20%)
- Transaction Count (20%)
- Count of Nodes (5%)
- Transaction Fees (Miner Fees) (2.5%)
Despite such metric is subjectively defined, someone can also develop weighted metrics for DApps tailored to its use case nature.
Dapp.com Ranking is a comprehensive data tool to analyze and evaluate apps built on blockchains. Using extensive statistics covering dapp contract performance, user performance and community activities, our ranking system utilizes an attention-based model and an adaptive learning algorithm to evaluate dapps comprehensively. Multiple criteria are assessed, including dapp balance, user interactions, dapp risk assessment, the degree of health, community activities and more. See detail for full explaination of Dapp.com Ranking 2.2.1.
Claim: Major global banks have began providing cryptocurrency custodian services
Category : Markets
My Stake: Back claim (100 CRED)
Most major banks based in the US including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley are cautious in dealing digital assets and issuing publicly tradable instruments on top of cryptocurrencies due to the regulatory uncertainty in the region . Goldman Sachs and Citigroup are said to be the first banks to offer crypto custody solutions in the near future, but representatives from both banks have emphasized that the two financial institutions are early in their process of entering the cryptocurrency market.
And at least three giant Wall Street custodians – Bank of New York Mellon Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Northern Trust Corp. – are working on crypto-custody services or exploring it, people briefed on their efforts said.
The patent of BoA, filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office, described a vault system with which institutions can safely store digital assets like Bitcoin. It read: In essence, the system of BoA is similar to the services offered by Xapo, a Hong Kong-based Bitcoin vault company that has been storing over $10 billion in Bitcoin on behalf of institutions since early 2014. With such a system in place, BoA will be able to provide a platform for its clients and large institutions in the finance sector to allocate large sums of money into the crypto sector without concerns regarding security and regulation.
Status: Confirmed. There are a handful of national banks that are offering cryptocurrency custodian services today. The first major bank to offer crypto custody services was Nomura in Japan. As of January 2019, Vontobel Bank of Switerland has launched a cryptocurrency custody offering. An analysis of statements by US banks confirms that cryptocurrency custody services are on the way. Many of these banks are integrating with major crypto custody firms to offer this service to their banking clients and other institutions
Agreed. Will keep that in mind next time.
I was intending to check the authenticity. Point noted.
One question to ask ourselves: Is there a way to falsify this? (e.g. look through whitepaper/code and verify).
My Stake: Challenge Claim[50Cred]
- The claim states that major banks have ‘began providing crypto custody services’ which is not what the sources state:
a. “Goldman Sachs and Citigroup are said to be the first banks to offer crypto custody solutions in the near future, but representatives from both banks have emphasized that the two financial institutions are early in their process of entering the cryptocurrency market.” This indicates that the service is still away in the future.
b. “On the 15th, Nomura Holdings announced that it will begin research on providing custodial services for digital assets such as virtual currencies.”
The coin telegraph source for Nomura states the above. (Had to translate from Japanese to English. Hopefully, no important information was lost.) Hence, the service isn’t ready yet.
- There is a fundamental difference between cryptocurrencies and digital assets. Most of the banks have come forward to offer digital assets based services. While cryptocurrencies are a form of digital assets, no banks have directly mentioned that the digital asset custody services will include crypto currencies.
A Digital Asset is any text or media that is formatted into a binary source and includes the right to use it. Digital files that do not include this right are not considered digital assets. A digital asset can range anywhere from motion pictures to documents and any other type of data one can think of.
a. The official source on the Vontobol website talks only about digital assets.
b. Your source mentions:
Through the launch of a product called Digital Asset Receipt (DAR), Citigroup will enable institutional investors to invest in cryptocurrencies in a fully insured and regulated manner. The link further to Digital Asset Receipt speculates the following: “Citigroup has reportedly developed a product which could reduce the risk hedge funds and asset management firms are exposed to when they invest in cryptocurrencies”. There is no official source stating anything about crypto custody service on the Citibank website.
The closest source available, as mentioned in my sources, provides a 170 page detailed overview of DTR’s project titled “Decentralized Payment Systems Principles and Design”. This could be considered as their whitepaper though it isn’t specifically stated as one.
The paper states the following: “We are targeting throughputs of 5,000-10,000 transactions per second”.
As @ankit mentioned, it is a speculation. No concrete evidence and no code is available on github.
There is no way to falsify it ‘based on my search’. Hence I agree with Ankit that it wasn’t a good claim.
Ok, got it…I’ll look into this.
If ICOs are NOT considered part of transaction volume, it won’t affect the validity of dapp’s claim, so I’ll leave that original claim / backing as is.
Thanks for the challenge! I stand by the original claim. Here are (just a few) additional references demonstrating banks are offering cryptocurrency (not just digital asset) custody solutions. As for the US, I claimed the banks are working on crypto custody and that these services have not yet been made available.
Claim: Gnosis is a prediction market dapp where you can earn money today.
My Stake: Challenge claim (100 Cred)
My Argument/Evidence: The Gnosis dapp is still in progress as per this tweet: https://twitter.com/StefanDGeorge/status/1080517793878065153
Update: I set up a Google Ad campaign in Serbia using “ethereum” in the ad and it was approved!
Here is the ad:
Here is the location set for the ad:
Here is the approval go live email:
Here is the status in my ad campaign manager showing eligible:
Great question @DanielKoff. My initial move may be to break down the claim into its sub-claims. The more I look into this issue, the less I feel a claim like “Ethereum is Decentralized (or Centralized)” makes sense from a verifiability/falsifiability standpoint.
One of the sub-claims like:
“Block reward cuts can be agreed seemingly without objection” has a better shot at being falsified.
I’ll circle back to this issue after I’ve had a chance to digest Preston’s response.
Thanks for the resources. What you have stated is completely valid. However, I still have slight doubts because I couldn’t find a single official statement on any of the bank websites or official press statements about the custody services being specifically for cryptocurrencies and not just broader statements on digital assets. All the sources that I’ve seen and you have provided are either the wrtier’s point of view or claiming that it is insider news.