“A bizarre mish-mash of hippie anarchism and economic liberalism beefed up with lots of technological determinism.” Software Engineer. Past: engineering lead on Agoric's smart contract framework.
@kate_sills | katelynsills@gmail.com | Github
Glen Weyl, Puja Ohlhaver, and Vitalik Buterin argue that we should create non-transferable, initially public, “soulbound” tokens to represent commitments, credentials, and affiliations. This is a bad idea. Instead, we should make off-chain statements digitally signed with Ethereum private keys.
Criticizing smart contracts for not being completely “trustless” instruments completely misses the point.
Kate Sills joins the Building Tomorrow podcast to discuss the so-called Oracle Problem and other critiques of smart contracts
“Smart contracts aren’t legal contracts,” they say. They’re right. But that’s missing the point.
New technologies might help integrate communities living under local, customary property law into the global economy.
Property rights aren't the physical objects themselves, but a social agreement with our neighbors that can be digitized.
Because of the Internet, our lives are significantly different. But early Internet advocates thought digital cash would make it truly transformational.
Blockchain technology and other advances help expand our ability to make enforceable agreements without the state.
Distinguishing between fake and real accounts is an incredibly hard problem, and the solution proposed by The Democracy Earth Foundation, as stated, will not work.
