Thread by @hus_qy

Which DLT would be more secure?

One that is collaboratively validated by the economic actors of the world (coporations, companies, foundations, states, people) or one that is validated by an anonymous group of wealthy crypto holders?

The problem with current DLTs is that we use protection mechanisms like Proof of Work and Proof of Stake that are inherently hard to shard.

The more shards you have, the more you have to distribute your hashing power and your stake and the less secure the system becomes.

Real world identities (i.e. all the big economic actors) however could shard into as many shards as necessary without making the system less secure.

Todays DLTs waste trust in the same way as PoW wastes energy.

Is a secure money worth anything if you can't trust the economic actors that you would buy stuff from?

If you buy a car from Volkswagen and they just beat you up and throw you out of the shop after you payed then a secure money won't be useful either :P

I believe that if you want to make DLT work and be successful then we need to ultimately incorporate things like trust in entities into the technology.

Examples likes wirecard show that trusting a single company is problematic but trusting the economy as a whole should be at ...

... least as secure as todays DLTs. And as soon as you add sharding it will be orders of magnitude more secure.

DLT has failed to deliver because people have tried to build a system in vacuum that completely ignores things that already exist and that you can leverage on.