This article today comes from the medium 。 authors William Mougayar Discussed in this article token 1.0 and token 2.0 concrete concepts， Of course, I don't think he's really thinking clearly about this concept himself， But he attempted to do so by and web 1.0 and web 2.0 contrasts， Calling on the industry to take a token This thing has a new understanding.。
This is still necessary. How token is understood will likely determine what kind of valuable things we can build on the blockchain in the future. William Mougayar provides some of his own insights, which are very imperfect at the moment, what do you think the token represents? Feel free to add to share in the comments.
PS: I think my biggest contribution to this post is the accompanying header image. Of all the articles written about token on the whole internet platform, I think this header image is the best match :)
token 1.0 and token 2.0
All of today's blockchain applications are not destined for much success. Because this generation of token design is still in the 1.0 stage. Only 2.0 tokens can actually make more valuable blockchain products, and they will deliver more of that value.
When I say the above, I'm not mulling over the future. In fact, all ico projects have now lost their understanding of token "functionality" and are just reaping the dividends of early crowdfunding (in fact, they're cutting leeks). If token really has valuable "functions", blockchain applications will find a real scenario to be implemented.
web 1.0 and web 2.0
When the web came in 1993, all the web applications we developed in the first phase did not enjoy the benefits of the current era of the Internet. Because they have no value in themselves, much less the ability to cash in on that value. And as a result, we didn't see any products or applications at the time that were similar to what we see today, and we didn't address any of the needs that are relevant to this day and age.
Why is this happening? Why is the web divided into two different phases, 1.0 and 2.0?
There are two parts to this.
1. The technology was not yet mature enough and much of the infrastructure was not yet in place.
2. All new technologies must undergo such an evolutionary process. It always takes you a while to figure out and learn the right way to open up the internet. Can't do it in one step.
When new technologies arrive, we all follow the same experiences and methods as before, trying to find a suitable application scenario and landing solution for the new technology. The new technology arrived before we had a chance to figure out how to use it. We are not ready.
For example, the feature that ultimately made the web a huge success was actually the two ways channel, a two-way community type product. Users in the community can produce content and other users can consume that content, it's ugc. pgc certainly has some success, but ugc takes the web's natural strengths and brings them full circle. It is the right way to open the web. So after web 1.0, it took us until 2002 to 2005 for entrepreneurs to really start to understand what the web was and to develop truly native applications.
The same is true for token. We've tried to reuse many of the experiences known from the Internet for tokens, but we haven't found the right way to use tokens yet.
In many projects now, there is too little connection between the technical capabilities of the blockchain and the specific functions carried by the token. Many people would say that we are making a blockchain version of x. This x is a product that already exists in the old world of the Internet. We should be a little wary of such claims, and the first question to ask when encountering such a project is: why does project x need to be implemented with a blockchain? Can it do it without a token? Why do you need blockchain? What is the role of the blockchain? Did it achieve anything that was previously unattainable? Is a token a real token, or is it just a credit?
A token is not a business model. It's great to have a point system within a product, they can increase the efficiency of the flow of value to users, and the increased efficiency is certainly a good thing that But where are the more dope things that the blockchain promises?where is the magic?
Revisiting the innovations brought by blockchain technology
Let's take a fresh look at what's innovative about the underlying blockchain. Looking at the two blockchain projects that have actually made it now: bitcoin and ethereum.
1. bitcoin gives us a natural way to mine, essentially a way to connect many discrete computers in a way that simultaneously rewards each node's computer for the amount of work it puts in.
2. The innovation of Ethernet, on the other hand, is to provide and popularize the concept of running a product (smart contract) on the blockchain to provide the economic logic of paying for it. In human terms, this means that applications running on the blockchain consume Ether tokens, and use the token to spread the cost of the arithmetic and resources paid by each node to the consumers who use the application to pay that cost. At the same time, Etherpad promises that we can develop unregulated, automated apps on a decentralized, common software framework.
Today we are in the early stages of token 1.0, a stage where we understand token as simply a token and points, and this misunderstanding has attracted the wrong projects and the wrong entrepreneurs - entrepreneurs who just want to make a fortune from ico and don't really want to make anything.
We must think carefully about what role the blockchain plays. Sometimes this isn't so obvious that it can't be figured out right away. When Bitcoin and Ether were still in their infancy, the success they would have achieved by today was also unforeseen. They are themselves fraught with uncertainty. But it's everything that all great innovations need to go through.
How do we get out of this innovation rut?
The first and most important step is to re-understand the innovation that blockchain brings. We must properly design the most critical functions of tokens, rather than deifying them and claiming that they can do everything.
Remember one thing: essentially, the function that tokens play is a hypothesis that needs to be proven in the market.
What kind of feature is designed to perfectly reflect the nature of token?
1. In a given kind of trading market, all intermediaries and third parties can still function, and function well, if they disappear. This is where token can come into play. For example, blockchains are very good at automatically executing some fixed type of action, scenario, logic, or "state".
2. token needs to be treated as a reward for providing some kind of work. Regardless of whether such work is calculated by the pc, or is the result of human labor. This is also known as incentive. But incentive is now interpreted by too many people as something that encourages users to try a product. The blockchain is an engine that automatically distributes rewards, and it can assign tokens to nodes that complete an outstanding piece of work. Bitcoin, ethereum and steemit are designed to do just that.
3. blockchain can be decentralized in a given process or organizational structure. Whether it's decentralization in terms of architecture, politics, logic or technology. Of course, decentralization for the sake of decentralization is the wrong approach. Decentralization must lead to better security, better decision making, better collaboration, better benefit sharing, or better fault tolerance, otherwise decentralization means nothing.
4. blockchain can invalidate regulation. Distributing regulation and control opens up many possibilities, but this decentralized, distributed autonomy can only be achieved slowly, not in one step. This is why I think the 1.0 token model is likely to fail, especially if the model is aimed at a community form like DAO to begin with.
Is the token "native" or "grafted"?
Lately I've tended to use the terms "native" and "grafted" to describe different tokens. If a token is native, the blockchain protocol or application on that token cannot exist apart from the token; conversely, a grafted token is just a smoke screen. Grafted tokens are not only less innovative, but also have a lower chance of success because they are not backed by long-term sustainable value.
For example, Rarepepe is a good example of a native token.
In many dimensions, the token for this project holds.
1. for Rarepepe, frog emojis are only valuable on the blockchain and can be anchored with tokens of different values.
2. The supply of tokens for Rarepepe is limited. Limited creates scarcity.
3. Rarepepe's frog emojis cannot be copied or faked, but can be circulated and interacted with on a peer-to-peer basis.
4. Trust in Rarepepe is established through Rarepepe scientists, which act like trusted distributed nodes.
We must challenge ourselves to create the 2.0 token. token 2.0 will be implemented out in two ways.
1. Apply more innovative designs of the underlying blockchain; 2. Eliminate token 1.0 projects with no features and no innovation, and clean up the blockchain environment.
We must bring back the blockchain and token, not just "tokens".
If tokens are propellers, then blockchain applications should have the propulsion of a helicopter or a rocket, not like a sailboat or a canoe.
>>1、India and Japan want to join forces to make robot soldiers foreign media clamor intended for China2、readily understoodpython27 together withpython36 Dual Environment Installation Tutorialwin10 platforms3、The great Alan Turing4、Digital currency payments small power leads to big change5、GM Promotes Mark Royce Director of Product Development to President of the Company