How to Last the Crypto Winter? Seek Simplicity, Manage Complexity

Jake Yocom-Piatt is the Project Lead for Decred, a hyper-secure, adaptable and self-funding digital currency.

The following is an exclusive contribution to CoinDesk’s 2018 Year in Review.

2018 year in review

In 2018, we have seen the cryptocurrency market cap go from all-time highs in January to falling over 80 percent by December, despite little changing in the context of the technological fundamentals.

If little has changed with the fundamentals, then there must be other factors driving the manic buying and panic selling cycles present in these markets? A persistent pattern I have observed in the context of investors and projects in the space is one of information asymmetry.

This information asymmetry manifests itself in various contexts, e.g. either being a very informed or a very uninformed investor, the ability to determine if a project has overpromised on its technological deliverables or not. Another way of viewing this asymmetry is that it arises from hidden complexity, whether we’re talking about perceiving the value in an asset or implementing a new piece of software.

While I can describe bitcoin in a single phrase as “gamification of time-stamping,” describing and delivering a working system that implements that concept is a serious technical challenge.

With Decred, we experienced this hidden complexity firsthand while building Politeia, a time-ordered filesystem, for use as our proposal system. Making cryptocurrency markets less volatile and projects more substantive is a matter of doing what we can to eliminate the information asymmetry that arises from technological complexity, both with investors and software alike.

Complexity for Investors

I have observed a very bimodal distribution when it comes to the extent to which cryptocurrency investors are informed. There is a minority that is incredibly well informed and a majority who are quite uninformed.

This knowledge gap often benefits the well-informed at the direct expense of the uninformed, so the former are incentivized to maintain this arrangement. Similar to many other markets, the less-informed chase the carrot of easy profits dangled in front of them by the better-informed. When this herd-like behavior is combined with relatively thinly traded markets, it creates serious volatility, which has much in common with over-the-counter (“OTC”) stocks.

The perception of value drives investor decision-making, so the collective psychological state of investors determines the value of an asset. Unlike many other assets, cryptocurrency fundamentals do not change substantially as a function of time. This constancy of fundamentals is a major driver for using cryptocurrencies as a store-of-value (“SoV”) over longer timescales.

It is this SoV property that separates cryptocurrencies from OTC stocks, and it drives a longer timescale periodicity that is not present in most OTC stocks. Many uninformed investors are keen to buy low and sell high, capturing a profit in fiat terms, whereas well-informed investors understand the SoV property is a longer term play, which incentivizes them to buy low and avoid liquidating their positions.

Informed investors using cryptocurrencies as a SoV fuel these longer term boom-bust cycles, so episodic spikes in valuation occur without the value crashing to zero after each manic buying phase.

Complexity for Projects

After managing several software projects over the past decade, I can say that, even as someone who participates on a technical level, it is easy to overpromise on deliverables.

The main driver of this disconnect between promises and quality working code is the hidden complexity of the cryptocurrency development process. Over the past few years, I have seen many projects make massive promises and raise staggering amounts of capital in ICOs and similar processes, only to not deliver, deliver incredibly late or deliver barely-working software.

Similar to the situation for investors, projects have a bimodal distribution of technical ability: a minority that keeps their promises roughly in line with what they can realistically deliver and a majority that grossly overpromises on a regular basis. Overpromising on software deliverables is often the result of a combination of underestimating the complexity of cryptocurrency software and conscious overstatement on part of project leads.

Because the domain of cryptocurrency software is still rather new and complex, there are correspondingly few people who are well-suited to understand what can and cannot be achieved in a particular amount of time, on a technical basis. So, a project may make some really impressive claims about what it will achieve, but when there are so few people who are capable of realistically assessing how feasible the claims are, it incentivizes malicious actors to bait-and-switch investors.

Numerous projects that have been funded on a bait-and-switch basis have seen their valuations collapse throughout 2017 and 2018 once investors become aware they are unlikely to deliver on their claims.

Complexity in Practice

As the Project Lead for Decred, I am familiar with the process of dealing with complexity from a technical and management standpoint, and our off-chain time-ordered filesystem, Politeia, serves as a good example for how hidden complexity can delay even seasoned development teams in the space.

Our goal was to have Politeia in production as our proposal system in roughly 12 months from the start of the project in April 2017, and we didn’t go into production until six months after the projected date in October 2018. Despite building on top of a working versioned filesystem, git and attempting to avoid complexity, it still took several additional months to get the metadata formats just right and have the frontend perform suitably.

Politeia is based on a pretty simple idea “create an off-chain store of data where you can demonstrate who said what when using cryptography and an existing blockchain.”

Once you split this apart into its components, it doesn’t seem very difficult:

  • Make episodic self-contained timestamps using the Decred blockchain
  • User identities correspond to keypairs in a PKI system
  • User messages are all signed by the corresponding identity private key
  • Up and down votes are a special form of user message
  • Tracking user ticket votes based on snapshots of the Decred ticket pool

This list is pretty short and each component is relatively simple, but handling the edge and corner cases that arise between these components quickly becomes non-trivial. Despite the final working implementation being complex, it can be described as a handful of simple components that even less-informed market participants can understand.

Simplicity for Investors

There are myriad ways to become a well-informed cryptocurrency investor, but after making my own missteps, I have a few simple policies that can help cut through some of the complexity:

  • Stay skeptical – When someone makes extraordinary claims, they need to supply extraordinary evidence. If any claim made by a project sounds too good to be true, see what someone external to that project has to say about it, and attempt to understand more about how they will deliver on their claim.
  • Do your own research – There is no substitute for doing some self-directed research about a project before investing in it. Even in my case, as someone who has been working in the space for almost six years, it still takes me several hours to do a good job footprinting another project and understanding their value proposition in some detail. Are there other projects that serve a similar niche? What makes this project better than others in the same niche?
  • Dollar-cost averaging – Not everyone has the ability to dictate the schedule on which they acquire cryptocurrency, but I recommend considering a dollar-cost averaging approach, where you make regular purchases over a longer time period. It is challenging to buy at a local minimum price, so rather than load up at single price, you purchase regularly over a wide range of prices. This way, you are not beholden to the psychology of having bought everything at a single price, and you can lower your average acquisition cost by buying as prices drop.
  • Psychological periodicity – As discussed above, there is a periodicity present in cryptocurrency markets that is not present in other similar markets. Before investing, consider that you may have to wait several years for the market to cycle to a point where you have made a good investment. 2018 has had a lot of similarity to 2014 in that all-time highs occurred near the start of the year and markets have sold off in stages throughout the year. For much of 2015, BTC/USD was in the 200s and this was an excellent time to acquire Bitcoin. I suspect 2019 will be similar to 2015, where valuations stay depressed and the market consolidates throughout the year.

Simplicity for Projects

Overcoming the complexity barrier between promises and implementation for cryptocurrency projects is challenging. Here are some policies that have served me well:

  • Avoid overpromising – It is easy to be coerced or otherwise convinced that you need to make huge promises to generate interest in your project, financial or otherwise. If you care about not looking like a doofus later on, make a point to reflect on whether or not your promises can be delivered on before making them publicly. In my case, this has meant not publishing projected completion dates for work because I am often wrong about when it ends up being done, e.g. Politeia. Managing expectations matters.
  • Avoid complexity – Once you have some established promises or have otherwise chosen a path forward to address a technical problem, do what you can to avoid complexity and still achieve your goal. Cryptocurrency software is often, as a function of the domain, quite complex, so it especially important to keep things as simple as possible. Less complexity means you are more likely to deliver your software sooner.

Conclusion

By working together to increase our collective comprehension, participants in the cryptocurrency ecosystem can take many steps to help reduce market volatility, create more substantive technology, and efficiently educate newcomers.

If 2019 is anything like 2015, the cryptocurrency market is in a consolidation phase, and the next several months will continue to shake out underperforming projects. Very little has changed with the fundamentals of the space, despite the pullback in valuations, so I expect a continued and bright future for cryptocurrencies in 2019 and beyond.

Have an opinionated take on 2018? CoinDesk is seeking submissions for our 2018 in Review. Email news [at] coindesk.com to learn how to get involved.

Cracks in the ice via Shutterstock

How to Last the Crypto Winter? Seek Simplicity, Manage Complexity

Crypto is for Activists: Why We Need More Cypherpunks, Not Cypherposers

Zach Harvey is the CEO of Lamassu, an early and active provider of cryptocurrency vending machines. 

The following is an exclusive contribution to CoinDesk’s 2018 Year in Review

2018 year in review

Emotions were high during bitcoin’s block size debate (each side believing bitcoin would be damaged by the other’s triumph), and they’re high again in this year’s bear market. People are once again listening to the fortune tellers, who shape their crypto outlook on market sentiment, and while there are many that signal allegiance to the cause, some are just here for the quick rewards, both social and monetary.

It disappoints me to see the toxicity in this small cryptocurrency community, but it doesn’t surprise me.

Specifically on Crypto Twitter, it’s the environment itself that rewards the group-think we’re seeing. Previously independent thinkers are rewarded for conforming and are punished for their dissent. While it’s easier to resist threats in groups, it’s harder to create and progress without being open-minded. We see similar patterns in politics and even in debates about nutrition.

All said, I must say that it is my experience that the Twitter toxicity does not transfer to offline interactions. I have met many bitcoiners from both sides of the block, and I can’t recall one time I felt any toxicity in person. In fact, the opposite is the truth, it’s always a treat. I would mention names, but I don’t want to blow their tough-guy covers.

To quote Ian Mackaye of Fugazi, the tough guys are all “ice cream-eating motherfuckers.” I mean that in the fondest of ways.

Instead of checking the daily graphs, it would better serve most crypto-enthusiasts to revel in cypherpunk writings such as Tim May’s Crypto Anarchist Manifesto and Wei Dai’s b-money paper. Both are great reminders of why we’re here in the first place. (If you’re going to look at a graph, make it the BTC:USD logarithmic graph. It has the best chance of predicting the future.)

Bitcoin is activism, not a get rich quick scheme or a startup platform. The point of bitcoin is to regulate bad laws and to democratize bad policies by way of circumventing harmful enforcement.

Any system, software or hardware, blockchain-based or otherwise, that contributes to these goals is worth paying attention to.

Equally, any software or hardware projects that fail in this manner are only of interest to me once they amend their fragility. In this regard, decentralized exchanges and ICOs are worthless in their current form, but DEX or ICO v2.0 or v3.0 may end up being decentralized and powerful tools for preventing oppression in all of its forms.

Go Gig (and Boring)

In 2012, my brother Josh and I printed up bitcoin postcards to give out at regional Students for Liberty events all over the East Coast. At the time, it was mostly the Libertarians embracing the infant technology and this was our activism.

For the International Students for Liberty Conference in early 2013, we decided to do something a bit wilder, we wanted to show these youngsters how bitcoin works. We built a little orange box that accepted cash notes and sent out bitcoin transactions. Not only was it a huge hit at the conference, it reached social media and we started getting interest from media and potential buyers.

This was our chance to take our passion for bitcoin to the next level. We founded Lamassu and started manufacturing bitcoin ATMs, a machine we like to now call “cryptomats.”

Fast forward almost six years and we’re still going strong, still advocating bitcoin and there’s a booming industry making machines that help people buy and sell bitcoin. From the get-go, our business has always been more about activism than pure short-term profit. The business decisions we make are a mix of what we need to do to succeed and how to stay in line with our techno-libertarian ideals of privacy and decentralization.

Our main goal has always been to introduce as many people to cryptocurrencies as possible. And so our software is free, open source and unlicensed. We don’t charge cryptomat operators any fees for machine usage, and they host their own servers. End-users who use the machines never have their coins stored for them by operators, but are required to actually use bitcoin to get it.

As a whole, the cryptomat industry is quite unlike others in the cryptocurrency ecosystem. There’s been very little drama of late.

We’ve seen healthy, steady growth. And the field is made of quality companies, such as our main competitors Genesis and General Bytes, that have endured radical bear and bull markets. All these are very important for the ecosystem, yet perhaps a bit mundane in terms of the news cycle. No ICOs, no mass hacks and the companies involved have at best millions worth of revenue, not billions.

But at the same time, I feel it’s the kind of boring the cryptoverse needs. Hundreds of thousands of ordinary people around the world are using cryptomats every month to get small amounts of bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies directly to their wallets. No banks, no third party custody, no waiting.

It’s still the easiest way for a first time user to get crypto, and the more cryptomats there are in the world, the more useful and reliable they become. Inch by inch, row by row.

BUIDLers on the Roof

The hardest part for bitcoin was getting to $0.10.

The exponential growth since has become the norm and would take something extraordinary to derail. As such, we have to think about what happens when a growing population of the world starts owning bitcoin. Will the next financial crisis be the one that pushes bitcoin to the mainstream? What if this actually does happen, but there’s still no good user interface to protect people from losing, misusing and failing to protect their funds? Will they end up trusting people to help them?

For me, this is still the biggest question in crypto. I don’t doubt the success of bitcoin and other key cryptocurrencies, but I’m concerned things will get messy when the central banks run out of tricks.

At Lamassu, we have been keeping our heads down, working to improve our corner of the still unsolved UI problem of crypto. We’ve been aggressively hiring coders and customer support staff and expanding our manufacturing facilities.

We have fierce competition, but it’s one of mutual respect. I know our competitors are doing it for the same reasons we are, a deep rooted ideology with bitcoin at its core, to free money and markets from powerful middlemen.

The whole point of bitcoin is for people to help themselves, but it’s our jobs as proponents to make that easy. The sooner people can actually use, store, and secure their own coins, the safer they’ll be when the bank runs hit. Lest we build skyscrapers of blockchains, with no elevators in which to ascend them.

Have a strong take on 2018? Email news [at] coindesk.com to submit an opinion to our 2018: Year in Review.

Image via CoinDesk archives 

Crypto is for Activists: Why We Need More Cypherpunks, Not Cypherposers

StishApp

FREE
VIEW