Shanghai gives nod to NFT trading platforms – TechCrunch
techcrunch.com
The government of Shanghai supports "leading companies to explore building NFT exchanges." Although not national, what is trialed in Shanghai can be an example.

“Blockchain should be “deeply merged” with AI, big data and other new technologies to “empower” fintech applications, for instance” - the document says

Holy shit, blockchain merged with AI AND BIG DATA. Somebody get Softbank and Sequoia on the phone, Shanghai is going to be the first city with a quadrillion dollar market cap. How the fuck do I buy calls on Shanghai with margin

  • electrodynamica
    101·
    2 years ago

    I have a somewhat different perspective. It seems you are starting with the axiom that intellectual property is a real and valid thing, and that it’s somehow desirable to exist. My axiom is the opposite, and I have at least anecdotal evidence to back that up.

    I don’t really care much about MSM or propaganda because I don’t ever subject myself to it.

    Another thing is blockchains are inherently centralized. Contrary to silly con valley, capitalists, and their propaganda outlets, it is neither decentralized nor p2p. The part that is non-central is trust (¹ not really though) because it is “trustless”. This goes against the very basic wiring of the social brain, which is very intertwined with trust, even subconsciously, even when people don’t actually realize it. My theory is the reason why silly con valley and capitalists like “trustless” so much, is because they are all sociopaths, and they know that they themselves can’t be trusted, nor could their competitors/peers. So to them “trustless” is very appealing.

    As for what China wants with it, I know only about medical records. They are in a partnership with Oracle to build a medical records Blockchain since around 2015 or therabouts. Oracle has always been greedy for medical records, my suspicion is because Larry Ellison wants credit for curing some disease, he also wants to make money violating people’s privacy to benefit USA medical insurance companies. For China, to believe their chief scientists and executives involved in the project, is they want to socialize medical research: to easily identify study participant candidates, as well as potential patients in need of intervention.

    I personally believe that an open market of records custodians is a better solution to the use case you mentioned, from the patient’s perspective, as well as for the potential medical research use cases, to ensure positive consent and maintain privacy. Central blockchains fail at these things horribly. The reason why medical records are such an issue is providers like to make themselves custodians, which suffers from the same problems as blockchains for the most part.

    For artists, DLC, and such, no gatekeepers are actually necessary. Look at artists like Louis CK and his direct to consumer special. He also self-produced a movie which is out in theaters and will be available for DTC as well AFAIK. I very much disagree with the release-for-free-with-hopes-of-increased-live-performance model, however. I favor a busking style voluntary pay-what-its-worth model. People who don’t pay will never pay, and pirate quality will necessarily be poorer, therefore less desirable. It also invites the wealthy to pay a lot more. Patrons of the arts used to be a thing. The blockchain model you mentioned still requires DRM and IP, which as I mentioned, I strongly disagree with.

    ¹You are still trusting the algorithm, the programmers, and the auditors of the code

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmygrad.ml
      9·
      2 years ago

      Thanks for sharing. Very good points. I have spent enough time writing on here today but I just want to share a quick couple points.

      1. I totally agree with you on IP - it is a weapon which is used by the bourgeoisie to create barriers to entry, destroy and consolidate economies that play by their rules (biotech companies are the devil), and an intangible rentier system. The more I worked with it the more I felt it was literally just rent extraction, but that is the system we live in and unless there is a revolution in the west we are stuck with IP for a while longer.

      2. The barrier to entry for louis ck releasing his direct to consumer special is not insignificant. You say no gatekeepers are necessary but not all artists can afford the team required to monetize their videos/movies.

      3. Did not know about the oracle connection, very interesting

      4. Also, very interesting point on the provider/custodian dynamic. Huge overlap in conflict of interest I hadn’t considered. The main reason I commented the above was to push back a bit on the hate train that seems to superficially dismiss something that may have some applications if done correctly. Thank you for engaging in a discussion on the matter

      • electrodynamica
        5·
        2 years ago
        1. I think FOSS / automation could help with this a lot. Also, UBI. A videographer / editor might not require payment up front if they had UBI to rely on. After all they are artists too. They could take an equity stake instead, and ultimately maybe even get paid more for their efforts in the end.
        2. Yeah, they needed him to cut through red tape to get FDA and EU regulator approval (which they have)
        3. I actually worked on this specific issue for a few years. I even wrote software and tried to start up a custodian business at one point. Ironically I couldn’t market it because I ran out of funds, so then I tried to do it as a nonprofit, figuring the marketing would cost less and ultimately open source would be better. I went to a conference and tried to market my nonprofit but they only cared about the Chinese Blockchain and some “federated” open source project that actually sounded cool but turned out to be more of the same. I knew hospitals would see me as a competitor but I figured the MDs would want nothing to do with the records headache and would be attracted to the privacy benefits, the ease with handling caretakers and guardians, etc. Only 1 person out of 3000+ attendees was interested. He was a caretaker for an elderly relative, and although his relative had passed, he said he would’ve definitely used my product. I spent my entire marketing budget on that one conference and had to give up.😔
        • SpaceCowboy@lemmygrad.ml
          6·
          2 years ago

          Very good points again. I think the equity stake thing is a great way to get projects off the ground that otherwise wouldn’t be able to by aligning interests.

          1. Damn. This is the kind of shit that pisses me off when people talk about how “capitalism promotes innovation” it literally does the opposite. It is a system that stifles any kind of meritocracy and reduces so much to “who do you know”. In my experience capitalist enterprises actually want conflicts of interest as much as possible, a lot of money to be made in zones of ambiguity.
          • electrodynamica
            5·
            2 years ago

            It’s important that the equity thing is only available to people who already have their basic needs met.

            1. I completely agree with your assessment. To expand on that “federated open source” application I mentioned, it only federated in the sense that it supported legacy protocols created when HIPAA first passed, similar to EDI with banking, where you have to be a member of an organization and pay dues to gain access to even the protocol specification, but more than that, it’s set up with all sorts of hoops you have to jump through just to be a member, which goes along with what you said “who you know”. It was also marketed to hospitals and doctors, as just a replacement for other systems that work exactly the same, with no regard to patients or their caregivers and guardians. Furthermore, I looked into the venture capitalist who funded this project. The capitalist websites all ranked him as the number one investor for medical startups locally. The 2nd place was a very distant second. He was a presenter at the conference and I explained my concept in the public Q&A and he said it sounded very promising. So after I looked him up and sent him materials and even wrote an essay on how my ideas could be incorporated into that project. On his website he has planks like a politician explaining the things he “cares about”. I made sure to address every single point in my essay. I even applied to an “incubator” he runs and made sure to check all the boxes for their rules. I got no response at all. Complete radio silence. Not even a “thanks, but we’re not interested”. I spent around 150-200 hours preparing all that stuff. I gave it chance. I met them where they’re at. They aren’t interested. Unless your idea furthers their current scams, forget it. This is why I actually think your statement that for now we’re stuck with IP is a bit naive. Yes revolution is necessary. It’s necessary for all the bits. These people are fucking evil ghouls that can’t be reasoned with. Revolution is the only option.
            • SpaceCowboy@lemmygrad.ml
              3·
              2 years ago

              That sucks man. My off the cuff guess is that they don’t want your tech which will actually make complying with federal regulations easily. I have a buddy who works with utilities and it’s the same thing, compliance is viewed as something to intentionally underfund so you have plausible deniability for a fuck up. And I agree that they are evil ghouls, the utility company knows that non-compliance may result in forest fires but they know that when there is a forest fire they can get their politicians to go to bat for them and the government will bail them out.