Charles Hoskinson: 'I Didn't Realize [ Dash ] Evolved This Much'

Charles Hoskinson of Ethereum: ‘I Didn’t Realize [Dash] Evolved This Much’


What is “cryptocurrency 3.0?” According to developer and cryptocurrency enthusiast Charles Hoskinson, it’s the stage reached after both “decentralized currency” and “smart contract” applications are achieved — the point at which governance and self-funding are addressed. But is that really the best order in which to achieve 3.0 status? Should governance and blockchain funding really come last?

Also read: Do You Make These 4 Mistakes When Explaining Cryptocurrency to Newcomers?

See this video for more:

At a Coinscrum event, Hoskinson recently described that 3.0 crypto features the ability to identify stakeholders, thereby more closely eliminating those with conflicts-of-interest. Hoskinson dubs these individuals as the ideal voters, and that their vote should take place via the blockchain protocol itself, rather than via third party or “meta” means.

Hoskinson further says that things like “treasuries” would be nice, giving the example of a Blockstream employee applying to the network of Bitcoin stakeholders and asking for a blockchain payout for work performed.

He points to Bitcoin as 1.0 crypto, Ethereum as 2.0 crypto, and — surprisingly — though he’s uncannily described both the governance and treasury functions currently taking place in Dash, he doesn’t mention Dash at all — not even as a hopeful or an aspirant.

cryptocurrency 3.0 dash

Hoskinson presents at Coinscrum regarding “cryptocurrency 3.0″

Dash’s DAO has been paying all its employees — developers, marketers, auditors, designers, and others — directly from its own block reward since August 2015. Furthermore, Dash’s collateralized masternodes have been asked to make policy decisions on more than one occasion, regarding both development of the codebase itself as well as marketing-based questions, like how Dash’s YouTube channel should be managed.

Shortly after its publication, Charles Hoskinson commented on the video above:

“Nice show. I didn’t mention dash because I didn’t realize the project has evolved this much. I’ll read the whitepaper and have a look at the model , code. Thanks for the video.”

Those interested in reading along with Hoskinson can view the Dash Evolution whitepaper here.

What do you think of the order in which governance and funding are best developed? Share below!

Image via

Amanda B. Johnson

Amanda B. Johnson

Currency protocol analyst and host/writer of YouTube show DASH: Detailed.

  • polar

    Protocols that live long typically give flexibility for the application layer that rides on them to evolve. Bundling in more features within a protocol and saying “this one is better” or “this one is more evolved” is more about marketing than computer science. Speeding up and making easy voting and democracy is actually leaning towards centralized and oligarchy type governance – stakeholders = oligarchs. That is like saying the financial elites are the only ones who’s votes should count.
    The very principles that cryptocurrency projects have been working to undermine weaken as you try to lock in application layer into a more generic underlying protocol – eventually your narrow the beneficiaries and it becomes a useful product that tends to charge rent which returns to the main owners. Dash is not so widely distributed – so its relatively small community is merely up-voting itself. Its almost communist on some levels – all are created equal but some are more equal than others.
    It will be hard to steal market share as Bitcoin evolves far faster and works with 10000s of developers who build applications on top of the generic protocol and enhancements that are coming more and more swiftly vs something like Dash where enhancements leave fewer opportunities for people outside of it’s community to build upon.
    Short term Dash is very useful but these features are actually falling far behind many other more private, efficient projects who use really innovative cryptography rather than just a few application layer tricks to enact privacy.

  • James O’Brien

    let me take issue with a couple of your points:
    Dash is not widely distributed – what evidence do you have of that?

    “Bitcoin evolves….” – Actually it doesn’t. Bitcoin is controlled by Chinese mining oligarchs who are hooked on congestion fees. That’s why they won’t increase the block size. When Statoshi established bitcoin he assumed people running nodes would also be miners. He never envisaged ASICs and the power miners would gain over the network. Dash has fixed that, and given power (and returns) back to those people running nodes. Dash is what bitcoin was meant to be.