The blog article about why a crash does not threaten the cryptoeconomics has caused many disputes on Reddit. People told me that the cryptoeconomics collapse had already occurred and that the market of cryptocurrencies, alhough working in an absolutely different way than a usual currency, could fail too. It seems I was too rash to argue about such a thing as the cryptoeconomics without specifying beforehand what I meant by this word.

Actually, a universally acknowledged concept of the cryptoeconomics does not exist.

For example, Josh Stark considers the cryptoeconomics as a section of applied cryptography, which implies the use of its basic principles, supported with economic incentives to create new applications, systems and networks. He emphasizes that cryptography cannot be considered a section of economics precisely because it functions according to different laws and has much in common with mechanism design and because the existence of economic incentives provides the system safety and viability.

“Cryptoeconomy is not a subsection of economics, but an area of applied cryptography, which takes economic stimuli and the economic theory into account. Bitcoin, Ethereum, Zcash and all other public blockchains are the products of the cryptoeconomy”

A venture investor from the Silicon valley Parker Thompson urges to discard the term “cryptoeconomics” at all and name everything that happenss to cryptocurrencies simply “economy”.

One more well-known definition was offered by one of the Ethereum developers, Vlad Zamfir. He wrote that the cryptoeconomics is a formal discipline which studies the protocol that operates the manufacture, distribution and consumption of goods and services in the decentralised digital economy.

A number of researchers separate the concepts of Bitcoin cryptoeconomics and Ethereum cryptoeconomics. Both blockchains actually work under different laws and have many essential distinctions, but the division of these concepts, once again, creates a mess with the definition of the word “cryptoeconomics”.

The majority of researchers, despite giving different definitions, speak about the interdisciplinary character of the cryptoeconomics. Researches in this area are conducted by experts from different scientific spheres — economists, developers, mathematicians, programmers, ets.

To sum it up:

there is no uniform concept of the cryptoeconomics;

accordingly, there is no scientific discipline, much less a scientific community studying the cryptoeconomics;

researches and developments are conducted by experts from different spheres and scientific areas (the interdisciplinary character of the cryptoeconomics);

it is difficult to speak about cryptography and the cryptoeconomics at the expert level due to the absence of a scientific language (but it is possible to speak at the amateur level).

On the one hand, the absence of a general definition complicates the studies in this sphere because no one can speak about the cryptoeconomics as an expert, as everyone lends it a different meaning.

But is it really so necessary to try to treat the cryptoeconomics in terms of a scientific discipline right now, taking into account how quickly it changes?

Follow us:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/FairwinGambling

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/fairwin.gambling/

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/fairwin_team/

Chat with us:

Discord: https://discord.gg/Hbardp2

Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/user/fair-win

Telegram: https://t.me/fair_win