I find it absolutely comical that the biggest chains that get praised frequently for being geared to disrupt traditional finance and take over global trade don't seem to have basic tools in place to do that.
No tools for scale, no financial hedge, no base layer incentive to trigger an inclusion of mass workmanship.
Well, I can say that Bitcoin maxis are finally waking up to the reality:
Be honest, Bitcoin is surely not big enough to be a threat to the U.S. dollar. Bitcoinmagazine.com
Am I happy now? It would make no sense to rejoice over a L for Bitcoin, what I do know is that these people look at things from all the wrong lenses.
When you use "Not Big Enough" as a reason an emerging technology won't be able to displace a previous structure then you clearly do not know what you're saying. No structure is born with a trillion dollars in marketcap, all the great displacements happen over the little things that fill a gap - the needs in the present world.
Bitcoin's market capitalization is as big as it is today because it filled a gap, for it to push further it has to simply fill more gaps.
Why we discuss use cases
Use cases isn't something most of us love to discuss, some call bullshit whenever the phrase is mentioned, reason?
Because so many cryptocurrency projects lack any more use cases besides the default design of blockchains that enable crypto assets and currencies to be borderless payment mediums.
This flaw makes the ecosystem over saturated with numerous crypto blockchains and assets all offering the same services - borderless payments and some really lack the liquidity and robustness of software to deliver or serve as great payments mediums.
For this reason, we've watched projects get designed and deployed with sole intentions to not offer any unique use cases, how TF did we get here? How many more billions do we have to pump into meaningless structures?
Thought we was all broke in a sense to this? I guess I got played.
Hive's use cases
Surely Ethereum ushered in great possibilities through layer 1 smart contracts, this was its use case and its catalyst for growth as it filled a gap bitcoin didn't.
That said, while smart contracts are cool, they simply introduce an intermediary even whilst trying to avoid just that. Isn't it weird tho?
I understand that not many of us don't get it, but smart contracts are "middlemens" within blockchain networks, and in most cases, are designed with upgradeability, an access key to the developers.
Nonetheless, smart contracts require blockchain accounts to make certain grants to a defined protocol to deliver one service or the other, but not a lot of times do we see a network that enables "truly" permissionless finance on the base layer.
The relationship between the rewards pools, the Hive power staking incentives - both from curation and direct inflation, HBD savings and first layer functionalities like recurring transfers is quite a unique setup for a great financial network.
Looking closely at what is being mentioned here, none of them requires any technical knowledge to leverage, which is one of the most important things about utility structures, they have to be flexible and require no extension of broad knowledge to leverage.
Hive offers layer 1 finance protocols that businesses can use to raise capital, hedge losses, build incentives, develop autonomous value flow, and so much more all without smart contracts on layer 1, ensuring high-security(in theory) and maintaining some pretty levels of self-custody of assets all the way up.
True permissionless finance is found on the Hive blockchain, with more businesses realizing the value of this network and adopting it thereof, we can hope for a backflow of enormous benefits.