This post explains why DAWN is here and what we hope to accomplish.
…
I invest in a range of spaces, with a primary focus on securities, but interests in bonds, start ups and so on. One thing I have not invested in until lately is the field of cryptocurrency or - more properly - blockchain technology. There were various reasons for this, ranging from uncertain fundamentals through to unsustainable energy costs.
My stance changed recently and I decided to both invest in and support Cardano. This is a "third generation" blockchain technology designed for smart contracts, native tokens and other practical applications of immutable public records. The technology, the road-map, the momentum, energy efficiency, transaction pricing and decentralization add up to fundamentals that I think have great potential.
I have spent years building and supporting communities, so I wanted to do more than buy and hold ADA, the token used in Cardano. As with open source, the path from potential to realization in blockchain technology requires both advocates and architects. The hype and wild claims of the early days are giving way to more mundane but practical issues of effective use. It's important to be part of that.
I decided to contribute by fostering a small community for long-term investment in Cardano. Thus DAWN was born. I see this a mixture of value and growth investing, not speculation, and I have begun to publish extensive online strategy material on reddit. The community also has a private mailing list to foster conversation. It is focused particularly those who may share my profile of being aware of blockchains since 2009 but hesitant to add any to their portfolio.
This is a bridge designed to go two ways, also operating as a space to provide traditional investment experience to those who began in blockchains and are seeking to diversify. In the first two weeks we have attracted a number of participants who fit into target demographic, and I am in discussion with more. That is heartening.
I would love if you could provide feedback on how to improve this project, and perhaps take a moment to contribute your knowledge and experience to the community. Most importantly, I hope this can be another small part in supporting the transition of blockchains into an investment-grade rather than speculation-grade asset.
"... comments from companies like Hyundai in the last week are an indication of Apple progressing from a sole focus on in-house IP development/design to working with the traditional automotive OEMs/suppliers in understanding the feasibility and setting up development/manufacturing partnerships for an opportunity that is at the very least five years from realization. Key highlights relative to our expectations are: 1) Apple will aim to be a full-fledged manufacturer of BEVs with AV capability; 2) Apple will extensively rely on contract manufacturers to preserve returns despite lower hardware margins; 3) The launch will be delayed till AV technology reaches maturity, likely towards end of the decade; 4) All-in margins for Apple in the auto industry should be higher given high-margin Services monetization – amplified in a fully autonomous vehicle..."
What was the first game that had no flaws or limitations that most modern gamers wouldn't put up with in a new game?
Common such flaws I can think of off the top of my head would be things like:
--significant pop-up, or clumsy covers for pop-up, such as mist --using something other than a stick or mouse for camera control or looking around
I would say 2D games reached this level of maturity with Super Mario Bros. (with the exception of lacking a save feature), but with 3D games the answer seems less obvious.
EDIT: Primitive graphics don't count.
Sussing out where a given technology is on the path to deployment (or even post-deployment) is one of the challenges in following a field with extensive ongoing research and development. That's the idea behind Technology Readiness Level measurments (Wikipedia):
> Technology readiness levels (TRLs) are measures used to assess the maturity of evolving technologies (devices, materials, components, software, work processes, etc.) during their development and in some cases during early operations. Generally speaking, when a new technology is first invented or conceptualized, it is not suitable for immediate application. Instead, new technologies are usually subjected to experimentation, refinement, and increasingly realistic testing. Once the technology is sufficiently proven, it can be incorporated into a system/subsystem.
Unsurprisingly, several standard scales emerge from the military and space sectors, but also notably from the oil and gas industries.
ESA 9-point TRL scale
Fairly typical is a nine-point scale (DoD, NASA, and ESA). I'm presenting the European Space Agency scale for its succinctness and generality:
- Basic principles observed and reported
- Technology concept and/or application formulated
- Analytical & experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof-of-concept
- Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment
- Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment
- System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment (ground or space)
- System prototype demonstration in a space environment
- Actual system completed and "Flight qualified" through test and demonstration (ground or space)
- Actual system "Flight proven" through successful mission operations
Oil and Gas industry TRL scale
The interesting distinction here isn't the breakpoints but the addition of "proven technology" with a long-term operational record. Note that the official scale starts with an index of 0, reddit's numbering initializes at 1.
-
Unproven idea/proposal. Paper concept. No analysis or testing has been performed
-
Concept demonstrated. Basic functionality demonstrated by analysis, reference to features shared with existing technology or through testing on individual subcomponents/subsystems. Shall show that the technology is likely to meet specified objectives with additional testing
-
**Conc
