In a recent interview with Lex Fridman, Charles Hoskinson, the founder of Cardano and co-founder of Ethereum offered his views on Bitcoin. The 33-year-old was less than complimentary, calling it \u201cslow\u201d and in desperate need of an upgrade. Hoskinson also took issue with the recent Bitcoin conference in Miami, comparing the whole thing to a ridiculous religious movement.<\/p>\n
\u201cI can’t for the life of me understand, what the hell is the point of Bitcoin?\u201d asked Hoskinson.<\/p>\n
But while Bitcoin has proven itself an adaptable blockchain with a decade of history, many within the crypto industry have significant questions about the \u201cpoint\u201d of Hoskinson\u2019s own project, Cardano.<\/p>\n
A week before this interview aired, Vitalik Buterin sat down with Fridman for a lively discussion. The Russian-Canadian programmer was asked about Cardano, and whether or not he thought Hoskinson\u2019s project had a future. Buterin criticized Cardano\u2019s reliance on the peer review system. Instead of focusing on academic proofs, Buterin favors a more heuristic approach. This was a sly dig, a super-geek mic drop.<\/p>\n
Related:\u00a0Bitcoin is \u2018own worst enemy\u2019 and will lose to Ethereum: Charles Hoskinson<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n For those unfamiliar with Cardano, the idea of peer review<\/em> is very much a leitmotif of the budding proof-of-stake blockchain platform. This, we\u2019re told, has investors excited. And so it should, in an ideal world. Peer-review is the principal metric by which scholarly legitimacy is measured. For progress, the evaluative process is invaluable. <\/p>\n With Cardano, it has been suggested that the term ‘peer review’ is little more than a clever marketing ploy, an ingenious way of giving the proof-of-stake blockchain platform an air of superiority. Yet Hoskinson is a staunch advocate of peer review and fiercely defensive of any criticisms that come its way. He appears to be fully invested in academic proofs. But is this a smart investment?<\/p>\n When one actually examines the state of today\u2019s peer-review system, the answer appears to be no. After all, the peer review system, we’re told, is positively \u201ctoxic.\u201d<\/p>\n Last year, David Rosentahl, a highly respected British-American scientist, wrote an article titled Breaking: Peer Review is Broken<\/em>. As Rosentahl argues, peer review has been in a ruinous state for well \u201cover a decade,\u201d with cases of fraud occurring on a regular basis.<\/p>\n As Science<\/em> magazine warned back in 2018, \u201cthe number of articles retracted by journals” has \u201cincreased 10-fold during the previous 10 years,\u201d with fraud accounting \u201cfor some 60% of those retractions.\u201d Three years on, things don\u2019t appear to be getting any better. If anything, they are getting worse.<\/p>\n Across the board, from math to social sciences, the peer review system continues to be plagued by biases and tribalism.<\/p>\n John Baumgardner, Ph.D., asks the following, \u201cAre there circumstances in which the scientific method ought to work, but for which the method does not<\/em> provide \u2018an accurate representation of the world\u2019 \u2014 that is, a correct description of the way things really are?\u201d Unfortunately, Baurngardner concludes, \u201cthe answer is yes.\u201d To paraphrase Freemason Dyson, science is more mystery than truth.<\/p>\n What the hell is the point of Cardano?<\/strong><\/p>\n If Bitcoin is nothing but an overzealous religious movement, what is Cardano? Fridman put this question to Hoskinson, who then proceeded to speak for 9 straight minutes\u00a0outlining the ways in which Cardano gives “digital identities” to people in developing countries.<\/p>\n Others, however, see Hoskinon\u2019s brainchild as something far less noble. According to Galaxy Digital CEO Mike Novogratz, Cardano is a \u201ccult,\u201d and a\u00a0\u201cweird\u201d one at that. By default, this would make Hoskinson a cult leader.<\/p>\n Whatever the pros and cons of the technology that underpins the Cardano blockchain, and whatever Hoskinson\u2019s loyal followers may see that\u2019s worth investing in, the concern is that the cult of science is very real \u2014 and that an overreliance on the peer review process could prove to be highly problematic.<\/p>\n