I think it's easy to get sidetracked by semantic nitpicking.
What constitutes "a founder?" And IF/WHEN there is "a founder," what are they the founder of?
We could easily argue that Dan Larimer is the "Founder," based on being the spark that dreamed up the Graphene blockchain infrastructure. That means taking a "point of origin" approach.
But we could also say that whatever person/entity/group brought an idea into functional applied existence is the founder.
OR whatever group of people/organizations created the current iteration/variation of something... like Hive.
Does having "ownership" make someone a founder? We generally don't credit venture capitalists with being "founders;" the people they are funding are "founders." Or are they?
That all becomes a semantic and logical quagmire in no time at all, right?
Can anything even be TRULY decentralized? Is Hive? Consider the people who own Hive tokens, but have not voted for witness?
Seems to me that no matter how much we want any one concept in this world to have a specific meaning *(i.e. founder, decentralized, etc.), as soon as we take a long hard look under the hood, it turns into a sort of "hybrid" of different ideas.
Cool article, though!
=^..^=
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta