I have read today their website, forum and thing with awful name holo.host (wtf???). Yes they going to use dht instead of blockchain, but the fact that they set themself against blockchain put them to the same niche (same as iota with dag instead of blockchain) etc.
What i dont like :
Crowdfunding with shitcoin (they got money, but no product for 2 years)
They tried to sell their own hardware nodes
Cannot see any novelty or innovation they going to bring
Yes I agree with most of your points. It would’ve been better to first just focus on the technology and make it more accessible especially for developers to create an ecosystem. Currently it seems the other way around, make it more accessible for end users (holo port, “Low code zone”), and while this is good in the long run (we don’t want to gatekeep, and include non-developers as well), you’ll first need to actually create applications and the technology around it. There is currently just a very small ecosystem of developers.
Also a point that I don’t really like, they could’ve created a lot of libraries to be able to cobble together a “DApp” without any binding to an ecosystem. Because I doubt that one Blockchain/ecosystem/whatever-it-is-called etc. will succeed in the long run.
I think the novelty they bring is the as they call it “Immune” system, which seems like a good approach to create trustless p2p systems. And just the fact that they combine a bunch of interesting technologies (git/merkle-tree, DHT) together to create a coherent system.
Anyway it will be interesting to watch where this will go.
I think we certainly should go true p2p in the long run. E.g. create a p2p chat applications where the enduser devices e.g. Smartphone act as server.
I have read today their website, forum and thing with awful name holo.host (wtf???). Yes they going to use dht instead of blockchain, but the fact that they set themself against blockchain put them to the same niche (same as iota with dag instead of blockchain) etc. What i dont like :
Yes I agree with most of your points. It would’ve been better to first just focus on the technology and make it more accessible especially for developers to create an ecosystem. Currently it seems the other way around, make it more accessible for end users (holo port, “Low code zone”), and while this is good in the long run (we don’t want to gatekeep, and include non-developers as well), you’ll first need to actually create applications and the technology around it. There is currently just a very small ecosystem of developers. Also a point that I don’t really like, they could’ve created a lot of libraries to be able to cobble together a “DApp” without any binding to an ecosystem. Because I doubt that one Blockchain/ecosystem/whatever-it-is-called etc. will succeed in the long run.
I think the novelty they bring is the as they call it “Immune” system, which seems like a good approach to create trustless p2p systems. And just the fact that they combine a bunch of interesting technologies (git/merkle-tree, DHT) together to create a coherent system.
Anyway it will be interesting to watch where this will go.
I think we certainly should go true p2p in the long run. E.g. create a p2p chat applications where the enduser devices e.g. Smartphone act as server.