←back to thread

Sci-Net

(sci-hub.se)
260 points greyface- | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.776s | source
Show context
beeflet ◴[] No.44006100[source]
This is gonna be a disaster. They would have been better off using an existing cryptocurrency instead of rolling their own. The problem with these "meme tokens" is that they are typically designed with terrible tokenomics that benefit the creator. And even worse, this has no anonymity, so the users are gonna get busted for using it.

> The only downside is that obtaining Sci-Hub tokens on the Solana network can be a non-trivial puzzle for a user who are new to crypto. But that only makes the process more interesting.

"Interesting"

https://c.tenor.com/K_aiz0CjfNgAAAAd/dr-evil.gif

replies(2): >>44006508 #>>44006544 #
Retr0id ◴[] No.44006508[source]
> designed with terrible tokenomics that benefit the creator

Isn't benefiting the creator an explicit purpose/benefit of this system? (i.e. to fund the continued operation of sci-hub)

replies(2): >>44006559 #>>44006649 #
1. beeflet ◴[] No.44006649[source]
Yes, but that should be done in a way more transparent way (donations, fees, etc.) than manipulating the tokenomics of the coin out from under you.
replies(1): >>44006720 #
2. Retr0id ◴[] No.44006720[source]
I thought the taxation vs inflation point you made in an earlier edit of this comment was a good one, did something make you change your mind to remove it?
replies(1): >>44006919 #
3. beeflet ◴[] No.44006919[source]
No, I just thought it was too long and distracted from my initial point. I can't edit it back, but for anyone else interested it was like this:

"In the same way it's better to fund public services by taxing things directly than by inflating the currency because it's easier to manipulate the metrics for inflation than to manipulate direct taxation, and the taxpayer ultimately needs to make sense of what they're paying for in a democracy."