Decentralized Applications Are Market Serial Killer

Featuring Dan Morehead

Dan Morehead from Pantera Capital was one of the first major investors in Bitcoin and the early cryptocurrency technology. With the advent of tokenization, Dan assesses the impact that the next wave of decentralized applications will have on the world’s most valuable data monopolies and where the winners will emerge, as the Blockchain disintermediates venture capital in a post-capitalist era. Filmed on July 10, 2017, in San Francisco.

Published on
20 July, 2017
Topic
Business Strategy, Technology, Crypto-currencies
Duration
62 minutes
Asset class
Crypto-currencies
Rating
39

Comments

  • BT

    Brian T.

    21 6 2018 14:28

    0       1

    a RV Token perhaps? A penny for your thoughts anyone?

  • BT

    Brian T.

    21 6 2018 14:28

    0       0

    a RV Token perhaps? A penny for your thoughts anyone?

  • bs

    bob s.

    18 1 2018 19:41

    1       0

    Thank you Dan, you are brillant. Mike is very smart and likeable too but maybe RV can interview you next time with someone who understands your subject matter better and directs the interview less. Congrats on a great return year!

  • LK

    Lyle K.

    8 1 2018 02:22

    0       0

    DAN MOREHEAD + MIKE GREEN=Picasso painting

  • RD

    Ryan D.

    5 10 2017 15:03

    1       0

    MIke's questions and analogues were insightful but Morehead's responses were a little guarded and vague. He didn't deliver an example of a killer app or deep message about blockchain that makes a skeptic step back and go 'ok I can see how that could play out or really be a game changer'. I enjoyed some of Moorhead's original work on RV but this was a little weak.

  • AG

    Alexander G.

    4 10 2017 15:09

    0       0

    I liked new interesting ideas

  • RF

    Ryan F.

    29 9 2017 15:23

    0       1

    Goldmoney.com “The announcement means Goldmoney is the world’s first publicly traded and regulated financial service to offer insurable, auditable and anti-money laundering compliant exposure to cryptocurrencies.”

  • MS

    Matt S.

    19 9 2017 14:36

    0       0

    Interesting that he promotes Bitstamp as being the only regulated exchange in Europe... and he just happens to be the chairman of the board of directors!

    https://www.bitstamp.net/about_us/

    So he's saying we're headed for a Neo-Communist culture with the blockchain? I feel there is some truth to that. Caveat Emptor.

  • MN

    Marcus N.

    16 9 2017 10:23

    0       0

    I would have liked to have heard some discussion about the recent forks, or clones of Bitcoin / Bitcoin Cash BTC / BTH, and Ethereum ETH / ETC.

    If you regard these cryptos as 'equity', then it's a stock split, if they are currency, it's money-printing. A currency stock is not finite if a minority of stakeholders can ram through, by fiat, a doubling of the stock of money.

    Either way it is inflationary, something that is not possible in the pm space absent the discovery of a transmutation alchemy process, or 10 new Grasbergs.

  • CM

    Corey M.

    1 9 2017 05:14

    3       2

    Guy seems a bit impetuous and indifferent to his own biases rather than trying to interrogate them.

  • HK

    H K.

    23 8 2017 21:15

    2       0

    A system that could actually reward the hard work and original thought of the creators instead of the ones who recognized greatness and marketed the idea to the masses. Hope this or some derivative of the system comes to fruition.

  • SL

    Seth L.

    23 8 2017 17:51

    0       0

    Can someone kindly post the direct web links for the material referenced in this interview directly to the comments? The Milton link doesn't seem to work for me. Thanks

    • MS

      Matt S.

      19 9 2017 11:05

      1       0

      https://realvision.wetransfer.com/downloads/fb320b1bbcaf6ede7901ca22ea7d2b2920170720151104/9f3c84

  • @.

    @Steve ..

    2 8 2017 08:34

    1       0

    Why ripple?

  • @.

    @Steve ..

    2 8 2017 08:19

    0       0

    12.5 btc every ten minutes is 1,800 / day , 657,000 annually ; by his word - however, is he speaking wrong a white paper ? Ive got to find that!

    • JS

      Jack S.

      18 8 2017 22:57

      1       0

      The reward block continues to shrink as time goes on.

  • RM

    Ross M.

    30 7 2017 05:42

    0       7

    In the fullness of time the only useful thing of value coming from cryptos is blockchain. The more I watch people trying to convince us that crypto money is here to stay the better Gold looks. This is just a case of enough rope and another form of pretend money (FIAT) will go by the wayside. It's just like Tulips, South Sea, etc. bubbles.

  • GM

    Greg M.

    27 7 2017 13:19

    0       3

    He is either wrong or lying about these companies being founded with no capital. Mike Markkula provided 250K to fund Apple Computer. Jobs, Woz, and Wayne received financing to start the company. Wayne had assets they could seize. This is basic econ - capital is never going away.

  • CE

    Carl E.

    24 7 2017 16:47

    2       2

    Long term, I'll take the opposite side of the short gold/long bitcoin trade mentioned in this video.

    • MS

      Matt S.

      19 9 2017 11:03

      0       1

      agreed.

  • ww

    will w.

    24 7 2017 01:45

    4       0

    Some very thought-provoking societal-organizing-principle ideas that Dan and Michael bring up. But also, several instances of dangerously muddled beliefs:

    1] in Dan's thoughts on a 'post-capitalist' era - Dan cites a
    very flawed Oxford Amer Dict definition of 'capitalist': the irrelevant term 'WEALTHY' of that definition is a relative adjective, but rife w/ pejorative sentiment among a growing portion of the public. Yes, there has to be at least SOME forbearance of immediate consumption (to accumulate any capital in the first place). But a person need not already be "wealthy" - as the term is understood by the ordinary person - to practice capitalism. Ever heard of 'sweat equity', 'human capital' or 'intellectual capital'?

    2] a bit later, when Michael says he's not sure why it (Dan's
    vision of a contribution-based distribution of wealth) has to be
    'post-capitalist':
    Dan speaks of a society where "to each according to their
    contribution", then in the next paragraph he says that's why
    communism failed and all the other bastardizations of that* idea
    failed because it actually wasn't possible. [to operate socially
    that way]

    Here Dan has apparently conflated the concept of 'a society
    where distribution of money is based on contribution' with a
    supposed bastardization of that organizing principle ('Communism').

    But, Marx's communist organizing principle was "FROM each
    according to his abilities" (contributions), not TO each according to his abilities" (contributions)!

    * possibly unclear antecedent: presumably, Dan is referring here
    to a society where distribution of money is based on contribution?

    These points may seem somewhat academic or of little importance. But they're NOT! Muddled thinking leads to muddled conclusions, and ideas most definitely have consequences.

    • MS

      Matt S.

      19 9 2017 11:03

      0       0

      TLDR

  • JM

    James M.

    23 7 2017 13:43

    2       0

    A useful overview of the space for some people but to me it was very VC slanted and not focused on the token/crypto market as I hoped. There was little new content. The first question asked was the best in my opinion - investing in the company vs. the coin/token. "It depends" was the answer. IMHO ripple and likely ether are the former and people need to be wary. Its a partisan space with many pumping up their investments, but I think most would agree, start with bitcoin and migrate from there. Dollar average over time, its a crazy market right now with lots of room to go either way.

    • JM

      James M.

      23 7 2017 13:51

      8       0

      PS / Request: Id far rather see an update from Tuur, or get some people in on either side of the block size debate. Jihan vs Core etc. Or get Vitalik on to answer some tough questions about scaling, ICO dependency and regulatory effects, laws of ETH immutability etc. You guys are well respected I am sure you can get some big names and pick up some new audience along the way with some promotion in that space.

  • AL

    Alex L.

    23 7 2017 03:08

    4       0

    One thing I'd like to point out. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bitcoins are subdivisible down to something like 0.00000001 BTC. So it's not exactly accurate to throw around "There are only 21 million of them", now is it? Surely if you can send 1 BTC as 10 transactions of 0.1 BTC, then each of those has their own address and thus digital real estate?

    • JM

      James M.

      23 7 2017 12:34

      1       0

      The smallest unit of a bitcoin (1 / 100 million) is called a Satoshi. There are only 21 million full bitcoins (less when consider lost ones) and 100 million times more Satoshis. Other units names can be found at: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Units

      You are correct that in theory you need only use 1 satoshi to put data on the network, though the fees would be a lot more than 1 satoshi at todays prices.

    • EF

      E F.

      24 7 2017 01:11

      1       0

      You are right sir and I recall having read somewhere that it could be split into even smaller units if agreed upon, would love to hear if the experts around here know anything about that

    • PN

      Paul N.

      28 7 2017 06:03

      1       0

      Yes you can modify the software to divide satoshis into even smaller units and i believe it doesn't require any sort of hard fork of the whole system.

      In terms of 'real estate' you can use 1trillionth of a bitcoin to stamp a piece of info into the blockchain. But like James said the transaction fees are where the cost is. Right now it's about 0.6 cents/byte of data you want registered on the blockchain. It's possible in the future that that cost could be 10-50x higher.

  • JM

    James M.

    22 7 2017 06:56

    5       0

    Excellent interview! I think blockchain technology is incredibly exciting and maybe revolutionary. I do not want to suggest a gold v Blockchain currency comment. I would hold both. However there is a value to Gold especially due to volume/value/privacy/logistics that I dont think is being appreciated enough in the current crytpo/gold debate specifically as opposed to the value of blockchain in its own right. That is gold can be held of the grid and by far the most private available store of value at the moment and for the last 5000. Yes there are security issues but then there is with every asset digital or physical. Due to its low volume to value it can be be moved fairly easily (at the moment) and is a trusted, well recognized internationally median of exchange. Yes the powers that be could put significant or total constraint on it as they can with almost any asset crypto included I would suggest , however I know others would say I am wrong on that. I find that unlikely as the rich and the powerful need that asset that is gold for diversity in their immense wealth. And the fact that most people in the west dont hold any gold. Add to this the increasing threat of cyber warfare and cyber criminality and I think Gold comes out way ahead in the wealth protection question. If Dan is correct and we see an ever diminishing ownership of gold in favor of blockchain currency then I think peoples wealth will be more vulnerable than if it was held in physical product like gold. However the comment Dan makes on the madness of hoarding a useless piece of metal in exchange for millions of manual labor hours I can totally agree on, but as they say from where I,m from "You can only piss with the cock you've got" and this is the system we have so we must operate within it while incrementally trying to improve it collectively.

    • MS

      Matt S.

      19 9 2017 10:58

      0       0

      if gold sells off as people invest in BTC, I will be buying up all that gold.

    • RF

      Ryan F.

      29 9 2017 16:04

      0       0

      "Increasing threat of cyber warfare.... gold comes out way ahead"
      You can store crypto in an offline "cold storage" wallet that uses the best cryptographic security anyone has created. Ledger nano s and keep key are the two most popular. Using a secure enclave chip structure they are able to keep your private keys safe from hacking (even key loggers cannot track pin code input because the pin is input on the device itself inside the secure enclave architecture and only confirmation or denial messages are exchanged with the host computer. Secure enclave is the same tech Apple uses to secure biometric data on iPhones). Is it perfect? Probably not, but neither is gold. If someone breaks into your house they can take your gold, even if it's in a safe (could just use a torch to open the safe)... if a robber took my ledger nano s they would have a very difficult time accessing the wallet without knowing my 8 digit pin. If you keep your gold in a vault storage facility, sure that is very safe, however the storage company is still subject to government capital controls and the gov could easily halt withdrawals, if not just confiscate the gold altogether.
      Now, you could argue that if the protocol loses favor (btc or eth) then the asset becomes worthless regardless of how securely you can store it. However, I don't see that happening... if one protocol falls our of favor it will be because another has proven itself superior, therefore prompting a transfer of value from one to the other... The reason I believe this is that people are looking for a way to sidestep the financial industry because the frequency and magnitude of asset booms and busts have become ever increasing since the beginning of deregulation and low interest rates. They want a good store of value (and a diverse portfolio, don't only want to own gold) As such, people worldwide will continue to seek out assets that have limited or no counter party risk and cannot be subjected to capital controls by governments. Not to mention that the current administration supports blockchain based assets and is unlikely to restrict them... Can't predict the future, but as of now it's a promising technological advancement and something worth having exposure to. Use it for portfolio diversification!! (btw Goldmoney.com just added support for crypto)

  • JS

    John S.

    22 7 2017 06:29

    1       0

    Spread the word: We want the brightest blockchain companies in the USA. Trump admin is friendly and go to spots are SF, NYC, Scottsdale, AZ, Austin, TX

  • JS

    John S.

    22 7 2017 04:58

    9       1

    More interviews of crypto/blockchain power players. Please use an interviewer that has at least conducted a transaction in it.

    • RF

      Ryan F.

      30 9 2017 03:10

      0       0

      Epicenter and Unchained are both good podcasts to resource
      Would also like to hear from Mark Cuban about Unikoin

  • TL

    Tianyun L.

    21 7 2017 16:07

    7       0

    I wonder if Mike can persuade Peter Thiel to do an Interview. I think he is probably one of the greatest minds on big picture thinking.

  • JB

    John B.

    21 7 2017 11:43

    0       0

    4:30 check

  • GD

    Gustavo D.

    21 7 2017 07:51

    0       0

    @Gordon there will always be narratives, but understand that the miners are only custodians for transactions. At the its purest level, Bitcoin does not even require inexpensive transactions to succeed. It just needs to be secure. If you do not have security of ownership, then you are not the owner of that asset. One day, we will recognize the importance of this.

  • KB

    Kenneth B.

    21 7 2017 05:33

    0       0

    Dem 15 year olds gonna go catnip on the sea crypto monkeys

  • RA

    Robert A.

    21 7 2017 00:11

    7       0

    Another great job by Michael Green and a big thank you to him for his continuing efforts on our behalf. Not many have the background and gravitas to handle this cutting edge interview which I happened to view on the day Goldman Sacks promoted Bitcoin which jumped 15% on the promo. What a great interview; interweaving crypto currencies, Economics and Political Science. RV remains on the top of it's game!

    • js

      jacob s.

      21 7 2017 00:22

      11       0

      it didn't jump because GS promoted it. It jumped because BIP91 locked meaning SegWit is being activated finally which avoids the UASF on Aug 1st.

      https://coin.dance/blocks

    • PN

      Paul N.

      21 7 2017 06:34

      7       0

      The price jumped from 1800 to 2900 in like 4 days on the Segwit/No chain split news. This is why charts aren't the be all and end all of investing. Everyone was overlaying the bubble cycle chart on top of the bitcoin chart and calling the end of the bull market without understanding what was happening in the ecosystem itself.

      News matters and the fundamentals of bitcoin just got 100x stronger. Segwit enables/helps dozens of second layer applications which have been waiting patiently for its activation.

  • js

    jacob s.

    21 7 2017 00:02

    10       0

    hands down. real vision is worth more than my college degree.

    • JH

      John H.

      21 7 2017 06:32

      1       0

      Couldn't have put it better myself.

    • JL

      Jordan L.

      22 7 2017 04:35

      1       0

      Dan Morehead never ceases to absolutely blow my mind. His combination of knowledge and ability to articulate that knowledge is bar-none in the crypto space. His first 2 Real Vision vids (The Chain series) were what convinced me of the value of Bitcoin. Bravo for putting this together.

  • KS

    Kim S.

    20 7 2017 22:12

    2       1

    I see both pros and cons to crypto. Great technology not a reliable store of value. During this interview what suddenly popped into my head was "Pokemon cards "....
    But seriously enjoyed some of the comments in the interview but can't take him seriously on "store of value" nor monetary history. The US has defaulted 3x. And ironically that should be evidence in favor of cryptos.

    • PN

      Paul N.

      21 7 2017 05:53

      3       0

      The bet is that bitcoin eventually becomes the stable digital store of value in the future as the market gains more liquidity, more infrastructure, more adoption, etc. I think by the time it reaches that point (if it does) most of the upside as a speculative investment will be gone.

      Forget the big price swings, bitcoin is a long term story IMO.

    • KS

      Kim S.

      21 7 2017 22:43

      0       0

      The technology may be a long term story. That doesn't show an understanding of store of value nor an understanding of money or how it's control and value are influenced. Not understanding how a sovereign defaults is somewhat analogous to not understanding what causes a society to effectively choose a currency.

    • KS

      Kim S.

      21 7 2017 23:26

      2       0

      Let me be more specific after watching it again. If I want to get out of a future repressive country and can't sneak my wealth in my pocket across the border, it doesn't matter how "rare" bitcoin or Ethereum is at the time. I simply need a current trusted currency I can transfer to and from. And for that type of purpose any established blockchain will do. I don't need to hold it 10 years prior. If I can't get in then.... it's because I can't safely use the technology. So it has no use.

      Both metals and blockchain have potential uses in problematic times (over fiat) but the metals are truly rare. Anyone can make a better blockchain. (or new technology).

    • PN

      Paul N.

      22 7 2017 00:33

      1       0

      Sure, but the market will generally gravitate toward a single crypto because money has such strong network effects. Whether bitcoin or something else i dont know but i dont buy the argument about lack of rarity. Anyone can make a better facebook, a better google, or a better internet protcol but all of those things are tremendously entrenched and are virtual monopolies despite no barrier to entry for competitors.

      The bitcoin blockchain is the backbone of the whole crypto space, its the only one that has proven it can be secure at scale and btc continues to be the reserve currency of all crypto. I think it will be extremely hard for any competitor chain to overcome that.

    • KS

      Kim S.

      22 7 2017 14:17

      2       0

      Okay so let's say bitcoin holds out as currency. Whatever else I hold of value (ie land, my business, home) can be converted to bitcoin if I need to transact). Conversely holding it when you don't need to transact in it now is speculation that backbone will be maintained.

    • PN

      Paul N.

      22 7 2017 22:39

      1       0

      Same can be said of money itself I guess but in practice people always have cash lying around in their wallets or checking accounts so they can pay quickly and directly without needing the extra step, however quick the step becomes.

      In any case I think the free market will decide that bitcoin is a worthy store of value and money due to its properties (divisible,limited supply, transactable, fungible, etc).

      On a side note i wonder how volatile the value of gold was when the free market was gravitating toward using it as a currency. Back then there were no price charts...

  • KA

    Kristian A.

    20 7 2017 21:10

    12       0

    Any interview involving Michael Green is excellent...more please!

    • NG

      Nicolas G.

      20 7 2017 21:13

      2       1

      Hi Kristian, you can vote in the link below for another interview of a crypto expert by Michael Green. Thank you for your support!

  • NG

    Nicolas G.

    20 7 2017 20:49

    12       0

    Please vote (Google Form) if you wish to have Andreas Antonopoulos being interviewed in RV TV. A two questions survey (Y/N and Interviewer). Results will be sent to Milton by 31.08.2017. No email or sign in required so please vote just once. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSepxvm3u6mL2bN4vsZ86Tt9SQQj1XBuKHZjGKkKcKfkowuV-A/viewform?c=0&w=1&includes_info_params=true

    • js

      jacob s.

      21 7 2017 00:20

      1       0

      +1

    • NG

      Nicolas G.

      21 7 2017 04:57

      0       0

      Thanks! Interesting results.

    • NG

      Nicolas G.

      22 7 2017 09:41

      1       0

      Wow! 35 votes so far and Mike is beating the RV founders! Keep voting please and thank you for your support. We will make it!

  • TK

    Thomas K.

    20 7 2017 20:33

    7       0

    Best Cryptocurrency interview on RVTV so far by a mile.

  • RB

    R B.

    20 7 2017 19:14

    0       0

    Fantastic insight on cyrpto!

  • DS

    David S.

    20 7 2017 17:58

    3       0

    Major risk is political. With the stroke of a pen, China could eliminate Bitcoin as a currency for Chinese like the state of Hawaii did for different reasons. As I recall, a Chinese banking official said Bitcoin might be used in a saving account, but it is not a currency (CNBC). In Bitcoin's wild west days it could worth a great deal more than today, but long term governments will not allow it to interfere with their monopoly if there is any way to stop it. DLS

    • TM

      The-First-James M.

      20 7 2017 22:35

      4       0

      This is the problem David. I don't think there is any way a Government can actually stop it. Sure, they can make it more difficult to get into and out of the ecosystem via exchanges, but then anybody determined enough can just fall back on a peer to peer exchange. Telcos could block online wallet providers, but this would become an expensive moving target and do nothing to stop people using private hardware wallets. All you'd then need would be a Bitcoin-friendly jurisdiction in which to access your Bitcoin wallet, and you're in Business. It's possible to store a wallet in paper form with a private key recovery seed (usually a number of random words in a specific order acting as a recovery seed), or even memorise the recovery seed phrase, so it would be easy to bypass Customs officials searching laptops for Wallet software or searching for hardware wallets. I am sure there will be at least one Government desperate enough to try in due course, but they'll make themselves look stupid and inept in the process...

    • TM

      The-First-James M.

      20 7 2017 22:36

      1       0

      Just to follow up the start of my previous comment, from the perspective of a Bitcoin user, it's a nice problem for Governments to have. ;)

    • PN

      Philip N.

      21 7 2017 01:28

      1       0

      Governments haven't really had a hard go at it though. If they really decide to stop crypto currencies they will start offering deals you "can't refuse" to people to rat out crypto transactions and then they will use asset forfeiture to destroy those involved in the transaction.

    • PN

      Paul N.

      21 7 2017 06:00

      0       0

      Governments have had a good shot at trying to end online piracy, online & cash-based drug markets, and online gambling and they've been failing miserably for the last 2 decades. These systems are decentralized, anti-fragile, and the hackers are consistently 5 steps ahead. When Ross Ulbricht was arrested and the Silk Road was shut down, 1000 new Silk Road-like websites appeared on the Internet the next day.

      Keep in mind there ARE some parts of the crypto industry they can exert control over (i.e. the exchanges) but so far they simply want to regulate them and make sure AML/KYC is complied with. I think shutting them down will prove counterproductive as they will no longer have central points of control that they can monitor, and it may force crypto users to invent/adopt decentralized markets.

    • DS

      David S.

      21 7 2017 22:40

      0       0

      I do not believe governments can eliminate digital currencies like Bitcoin. Government intervention will attenuate there value. In addition, I think that most governments will have digital currencies themselves. Bityuan will be totally under Chinese control. DLS

    • ww

      will w.

      24 7 2017 02:20

      1       1

      @ Paul N - but Ross Ulbrecht's life has been destroyed, just the same.

  • TH

    Timo H.

    20 7 2017 17:12

    6       0

    No word about the scalability of the networks. Ethereum is able to process less than 50 transactions/sec globally. to be shared by all the applications running on the ledger. Any popular app will bring the entire network onto its knees. One ICO already did it.

    • DB

      David B.

      20 7 2017 18:08

      2       0

      Scaling issues are typically a good problem to have. Many early stage companies and technologies had to overcome scaling challenges and the investors that held on saw the benefit while those that exited didn't.

    • TH

      Timo H.

      21 7 2017 04:11

      1       0

      Investing in a *protocol* that may need to be *rewritten* to solve its scalability issues is a hugely risky business.

    • TH

      Timo H.

      21 7 2017 06:51

      9       0

      To expand a bit on this:

      Buying Ether is not an investment in an "Ethereum Company", which does not even exist. It is a bet on the financial and technical viability of the Ethereum protocol *as it exists today*. If you don't have a clear view about the technical viability or about the potential business cases of the protocol, don't touch it!

      If the protocol design proves to be a fundamentally flawed one, requiring a major re-design of some of its foundational components, as I fear is the case with Ethereum, the value of the currency of the protocol may be way less than what it is today. It can even go to zero, if someone makes a better version of Ethereum protocol and creates a new network from the scratch. Then every application, that was built on Ethereum, but was not thriving because of lousy performance or missing privacy (the other big issue with Ethereum), gets ported to the new network to have a chance to become a popular application. Because everything is nowadays Open Source, such move is highly possible, even probable. With a great probablility, the "Ether 2.0" of the improved network would have nothing to do with the current Ether currency although most of the source code of the new protocol were borrowed from the original one. The original Ether would then hyperinflate, just like any other currency nobody has any faith on any more.

      I'm not saying this for the fun of being a party pooper. As much as I like Ethereum's big ideas, I've had to abandon it as a potential platform for any real applications because of the technical issues I encountered a while ago and for which I haven't seen any credible solution candidates yet.

      Crypto-based Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLT) will have a huge impact on many things, but the impact does probably not come from the cryptocurrencies as such but from a bunch of other things, that you can do on the ledger. Cryptocurrencies are not probably even needed for achieving the big benefits of decentralized transaction management networks. A fiat currency properly integrated with such ledger would probably suffice.

    • DB

      David B.

      21 7 2017 13:34

      1       0

      You make terrific points, Timo. Yes, Ethereum is not a company, it is a technology. Many technologies, the internet itself for example, had many growing pains and challenges trying to scale. That did not portend the technology's demise rather its massive potential. These are such early days it is nearly impossible to know what protocols will survive and which will not. Any participant in the blockchain space, whether developer or investor, would be crazy to put all of their eggs in one basket. That said, first mover advantage and the network effect it creates is also powerful and does give an advantage to the bitcoin and ethereum based protocols. Those developers and users now have significant resources to refine, enhance and upgrade the technologies. What an exciting time!

    • RK

      Roger K.

      26 7 2017 22:35

      0       0

      RV has made an effort to catch up to the today's hot topic, I wanted to say this is too little and too late. We need industry ( crypto ) insiders on both side with in-depth knowledge.

      Timo what do you think about the EOS ? Does it look like ETH replacement ?

  • JH

    Joel H.

    20 7 2017 16:51

    3       1

    Many interesting points on crypto, thanks for that. So much food for thought. Feels some what undermined unless you show me you understand gold. I feel like you can't contextually understand gold unless you show me you understand the banking system, the bond markets, and currencies and where we're at in the cycle. The analogy of burying gold under a pyramid makes me worry about the validity of other thoughts. Also weird that ethically speaking humanity is at a point were a 90% devalue of 'money' isn't considered a default. I don't know.

    • JH

      Joel H.

      20 7 2017 16:55

      0       0

      Again though, appreciate the guest.

  • KA

    Kevin A.

    20 7 2017 16:49

    1       0

    I thought there were many tech companies that lose billions of USD quarterly... Netflix, Snapchat, Uber...etc. Doesn't mean they require capital?

  • KA

    Kevin A.

    20 7 2017 16:01

    7       0

    "The AVERAGE American spends $23 of their data plan on the adds and malware that are being downloaded on their devices" ... Hilarious!

  • SS

    Stefan S.

    20 7 2017 15:30

    3       8

    Bitcoin up 3,000% in four years, therefore it is a "great store of wealth". NO, it's an unregulated penny stock, which you cannot short.

    • KA

      Kevin A.

      20 7 2017 16:25

      1       0

      Agree, but nearly all crypto CAN be shorted on exchange, and ARE. Multiple exchanges offer margin trading.

    • GD

      Gustavo D.

      20 7 2017 17:41

      1       1

      You're right, it is not a great store of wealth. It's the first non tangible asset that actually provides "security" that can not be provided by gold or dollars, or stocks. Secure from any type of influence.

    • GS

      Gordon S.

      20 7 2017 21:21

      1       0

      @Gustavo: Secure from any type of influence? You must have missed the recent miner "civil war" about BTC?

    • TM

      The-First-James M.

      20 7 2017 22:41

      1       0

      I recently closed an unsuccessful Bitcoin short on Kraken, so not sure where you got the idea from that it can't be shorted (possibly the Macrovoices interview with Keith McCullough, who seemed a few years behind CryptoCurrency events).

  • M.

    Milton ..

    20 7 2017 15:12

    17       0

    Exclusively for Real Vision viewers, Dan has curated a list of must-read Bitcoin resources for those who want to dig deeper into the cryptocurrency.

    Download the full list here:
    https://we.tl/q35XEBr1xv

    • EK

      Emil K.

      20 7 2017 19:22

      2       0

      Thank you Dan, thank you Milton.

    • MD

      Mathieu D.

      23 7 2017 11:18

      0       0

      Thank you for sharing. Fantastic interview.

  • DB

    David B.

    20 7 2017 15:12

    13       1

    I was so excited when I saw that Mike Green was going to be interviewing Dan. Mike has clearly shown his brilliance in previous RV interviews and Dan understands Bitcoin, blockchain and digital assets like no other. A couple of things struck me as I watched and listened. First, like many of us who try to get our minds around this space, Mike kept trying to make analogies. The more I learn about these technologies, their use cases, network effects, etc, the more I realize that analogies all fall short. It may be the case that age and experience are more hurtful than helpful as those of us who have been looking at the world through the same lense for 40 or more years have to unlearn some of what we hold as "truths".

    In explaining that we may be entering a post-capitalistic world, Dan talks about the ability for tokens to reward early developers and community members in ways never before seen. Old schoolers, myself included, would argue that wages and/or equity ownership (capitalism) already provide a similar reward structure. If we only focused on the developers, that may be true (or at least more true). But Dan also made a point to reference "community members". And this is where the token model really makes a difference. Imagine if as an early user of Facebook or Google, you not only got to use the service but were rewarded for using and promoting it. Centralized models of accumulating wealth and knowledge are inferior to decentralized, tokenized models because they effectively hoard wealth and knowledge. Tokenization is likely to spur creativity through shared knowledge and incentives. Very exciting stuff! Terrific interview!!

  • PU

    Peter U.

    20 7 2017 14:59

    1       0

    could really make out the name of the white paper . . . is it Ken White Paper?

    • M.

      Milton ..

      20 7 2017 15:13

      3       0

      Peter - check out the full reading list from Dan Morehead here: https://we.tl/q35XEBr1xv

    • GS

      Gordon S.

      20 7 2017 21:17

      0       0

      Thanks Milton! RV going next level again! Amazing :).

  • AD

    Arvydas D.

    20 7 2017 14:27

    0       0

    Excellent Interview

  • PN

    Paul N.

    20 7 2017 14:18

    7       1

    The positive discussion on ICOs is very troubling to me. The tokens arent decentralized or immutable, the issuer can make as many of them as they want, and they dont give you a claim over company assets or a share of the profits. Their only "value" is that the issuer forces you to buy them in order to purchase their services, an artificially contrived bottleneck which makes transacting less efficient and adds exchange risk in an already highly volatile low liquidity environment. Theyre clearly just vehicles for speculation and making the issuers rich. In fact they add unnecessary complexity to what would otherwise be interesting projects. Fortunately for them the new money in this space cant distinguish between centrally issued digital ponzi tokens and genuinely decentralized bearer assets with real use cases.

    In addition it seems obvious to me that these tokens are unlicensed unregistered securities and every financial regulator in the world is going to be looking at the Companies issuing them when things start to go wrong. I think the consequences of this mania will be dire.

    • TM

      The-First-James M.

      20 7 2017 14:40

      3       0

      I have heard a number of smart cookies expressing the view that the SEC will be all over the ICO space as soon as something dramatic goes wrong. However, I do agree with Dan M that what we're seeing here is the evolution of an entire new economic structure. If I could purchase ICO tokens for equity in the Business, I'd happily do it.

    • PN

      Paul N.

      21 7 2017 06:30

      0       0

      If the token genuinely gave you a piece of the business issuing it then it would indeed be very interesting.

    • RK

      Roger K.

      26 7 2017 22:45

      1       0

      I totally agree with you Paul N. Token ICOs are wild west at the moment. Investors are simply at the mercy of the ICO founders whom are not obliged to anything.

  • TL

    Tianyun L.

    20 7 2017 14:12

    2       1

    Good interview by Michael, pointed at all the flaws of bitcoin/crypto without being overly insulting to the coolaid drinkers.

  • PN

    Paul N.

    20 7 2017 13:17

    14       0

    I often wonder whether Gresham's Law is even true. We've seen in bitcoin that when the price is in one of its bubbles, transaction volumes and ecommerce activity skyrocket. This is because bitcoin holders become genuinely wealthier and can spend more. It's also a form of cashing out.

    We also see that when interest rates on deposits get to near zero or negative in real terms, savings rates increase because people need to save more money to reach their savings goals and their consumption falls.

    Also, keep in mind that for bad money to continue circulating, people have to continue to be willing accept it and hot potato it to someone else. If I'm running a store in Venezuela would I continue to accept the hyperinflating peso? Or will I move to a sounder, better money like USD or bitcoin? Transactions are as much about accepting the money as spending it.

    A lot of economic theorists have predicted the collapse of bitcoin because it will become so valuable noone will spend it when actual human activity suggests the exact opposite. And hey, if bitcoin is going to collapse by reaching 6 digits I'll be hapoy to ride that wave up!

    • PN

      Paul N.

      20 7 2017 14:31

      0       0

      I meant bolivar obviously

  • PU

    Peter U.

    20 7 2017 13:11

    1       7

    what's with his pupils? Is he tripping on bitcoin?

    • PU

      Peter U.

      20 7 2017 15:00

      3       0

      it was a joke

    • MS

      Matt S.

      19 9 2017 10:22

      0       0

      A-type personality... a predator ;)

  • Nv

    Nick v.

    20 7 2017 11:49

    4       0

    Excellent and thought provoking. Refreshing to hear the perspective of people who understand money, rather than just technology

  • JS

    John S.

    20 7 2017 11:44

    2       0

    Very interesting conversation.

  • JE

    Jos E.

    20 7 2017 11:21

    7       0

    Very interesting. Fascinating to hear the perspective of a seasoned financial professional in this space. Felt somewhat like a lot of Kool-Aid had been drunk to me but as Michael says, history will be the judge. Seemed to be a lot of talking past each other with a few of the questions - I would have appreciated it if Michael had pressed him a bit harder in some areas. Great interview overall though, thanks Michael.