Would you say the same if the rewards were moved to tokenized communities? If one were able to gain sweat equity in a community token that traded on a DEX for Hive, would that be sufficient?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Would you say the same if the rewards were moved to tokenized communities? If one were able to gain sweat equity in a community token that traded on a DEX for Hive, would that be sufficient?
My reflexive answer would be no.
Given that this hypothetical layer two community token is a derivative instrument that derives all its value from the base layer token, governance of a layer two token with no underlying utility is a fugazi.
From a governance standpoint, why would anyone want a controlling interest in distributing an illiquid rewards pool of layer two tokens? A layer two token will never reach perceived value parity or exceed the perceived value of the base layer token from which it derives its value. A layer two token does not impact governance on the layer one blockchain.
Let's set aside the governance issue for the community token and focus on the alleged exchange of value this hypothetical community token (or, more accurately, "community currency") would somehow provide.
Community currencies are not novel ideas born with the rise of cryptocurrencies. They have existed throughout history (US Depression Scrip) and continue to exist today (e.g. the Kenyan Sarafu Credit).
For the most part, the history and purpose of community currencies (both in the past and the current era) have been to provide a stable money supply in response to a failure within an existing monetary system caused by insufficient liquidity. The community currency addresses the need for a stable money supply to enable transactions that could not occur due to inadequate liquidity. Since the national currency is more fungible, members are more likely to save it [the national currency], using it as a store of value.
Given the only real purpose of a proposed layer two community token would be to allocate rewards of an illiquid derivative token, there is no real transactional value to replace in the traditional sense of a community currency. Historically, community currencies/complementary currencies facilitate transactions of goods and services in an illiquid environment. A proposed layer two community token has no transactional utility which it is enabling due to the illiquidity of the HIVE token. It begs to ask what purpose the HIVE token would serve. What benefit would an illiquid community token on the HIVE chain have that is superior to a community with its independent blockchain and non-derivative tradable token?
From my perspective, abstracting this issue to layer two shitcoin both destroys the value of the HIVE chain and the HIVE token and fails to solve the core issue.