One factor that I’ve noticed in conversations over the previous 12 months when chatting with initiatives about analytics is considerations round person privateness and what the notion with their customers may be. This can be a utterly legitimate concern.
Crypto is based on rules that go towards surveillance capitalism and promote transparency so the ideas of any kind of monitoring trigger shivers up everybody’s spines. We satisfaction ourselves as an trade of not realizing who our customers are in any respect and that everybody has a good and equal probability of collaborating in a crypto community so long as they’ve a personal/public key pair that permits them to be onboarded with.
Nevertheless, we’ve reached some extent the place we’ve sort of plateaued as an trade. As a result of there’s no actual sense of identification and each person is handled the identical, malicious and unethical behaviour is rampant. This earlier bull market cycle confirmed this to us by all of the fraudulent behaviour.
As a result of we now have no visibility into who customers are (by way of their on-chain identification), we battle to discern fact in an goal manner. If all customers are handled equal however the price of creating a brand new pockets is zero, then our person metrics collectively are very skewed.
Certainly the reply is to begin amassing extra information in order that we will make extra knowledgeable choices? Finally, sure. Nevertheless there’s two main roadblocks that appear pertinent:
Customers don’t need to really feel like their privateness is being violated and their wallets are doxxed to their real-world identities (I absolutely relate to this)
Initiatives not wanting to trace their person base in fears of violating person privateness (additionally very comprehensible)
Within the meantime we now have a unique group of actors which are prepared to revenue from this struggle by benefiting from non-data pushed choices aka sybil attackers.
There’s nothing excellent that solves this dilemma though I consider that there are trade-offs that I feel strike a good stability between the 2 sides. Initiatives must be inspired to gather extra information though solely the quantity they should make extra knowledgeable choices and go away personally identifiable data (IP addresses, nation information, names, emails and so forth) out of the image. Nevertheless, if we’re unable to make these trade-offs I’m afraid we’ll very a lot be caught within the present state of the trade which is rampant ponzi scheme incentives with sybil attackers.
Sadly as a result of this such an under-discussed subject, we’re seeing not-so-great practices of this occurring. Particularly corporations amassing clusters of addresses and then linking very personally identifiable data corresponding to IP addresses.
The longer term is about linking details about a person to a pockets deal with and every person ought to be capable to craft a brand new pockets to restart or forge a unique sort of identification. We don’t want cookies and IP addresses within the new wave of the web we’re constructing. It’s additionally a much more pleasant manner of constructing because it offers the liberty to customers to symbolize themselves how they’d like quite than at all times being tied again to their real-world identification. I hope that because the trade matures we kind extra strong requirements round person privateness, analytics and finally — on-chain identification.