XRP's escrow is an example. They lock their coins to establish trust in the system as they have the majority of the holdings. But the funny thing is, they can "vote" to change the protocol to release/burn the escrow if the general consensus wanted to. That destroyed the purpose of escrow also can have the possibility of rugpull.
Similar situation for Tulip Trust, if developer can change the protocol… the escrow will lose its purpose. Whether Tulip Trust is legit or not, it doesn't matter, the same logic applies.
I see that original Bitcoin solved this, it will actually work. But the concern for me is, ones need to know where to store and lock it. Imagine locking it in the wrong wallet like Moneybutton then your coins is fxxked for no reason.
After all, it's your money. Locking can be good as one might panic and sell before seeing the fruits. It can also be bad if you lock it and the coin die in the future.
I think in the grand scheme of things, the large holder (like Calvin) locking it will establish more trust than the small guys.
What the chain says
- Block
- 806 612
- Time
- 2023-08-25T08:34:10Z
- Signer
- 1tdqxfSbZQfMVX9tB1hJWfLYWrARMzmfA
- App
- twetch
- Type
- post
- Content type
- text/plain
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
1tdqxfSbZQfMVX9tB1hJWfLYWrARMzmfA Verified