Header banner
Revain logoHome Page
Nate Mielnik photo
1 Level
5 Review
26 Karma

Review on TRON by Nate Mielnik

Revainrating 1 out of 5

By every indication I can find, this seems like a strategy of naming an idea…

By every indication I can find, this seems like a strategy of naming an idea that people care about (especially in light of the net neutrality issues), putting up a website that looks legit, and providing a bunch of technical jargon that would make less technical folks feel like they're talking about something technical and legit, and would confuse the technically savvy into being unsure what they even read or whether something was screwed up during translation...I really dislike this project and wish I could get back the time I spent researching it.



Pros
  • The idea of a decentralized internet with content creators regaining ownership of their content and being rewarded for that is a really cool idea...that is pretty much the only pro I have
Cons
  • I was frustrated by how much time I spent trying to understand the white paper and research this project. In my opinion, the white paper was pieced together in a confusing way, and at times it felt as if it was almost intentionally confusing in the hope of having users just "assume it's complicated because it's a hard problem to solve" and then just trust that they're doing a good job. The white paper discusses a system of sending messages that doesn't create any kind of cohesive vision for how everything would work or how it ultimately relates to a decentralized content sharing system. By reading the white paper, and then looking at some of their github documentation, I found instances of which they said their project would be doing completely conflicting things! In their github documentation, within the same document, they call out Proof of Work, Proof of Stake, and Byzantine Fault Tolerance, but don't even say which of those they are using or why they're relevant to the problem they're trying to solve. Their diagrams are confusing, don't seem related to the material they are associated with, and don't answer the key underlying questions about the project. They also have an 8-10 year roadmap which seems like way too far to be predicting in the future considering they haven't actually built anything of value and so much can change even within 1 or 2 years. Their late milestones of becoming a gaming platform also seem completely unrelated and not mentioned anywhere meaningful in their documentation. They also posted some kind of business license as a key piece of evidence on their homepage which immediately raised concerns with me...why is that something to share there? I haven't seen any other company do something to prove that they're a legit business like that, to me it feels very suspicious. There are more issues I have with this project, but I feel I've already spent too much time on something that seem intended to mislead and confuse to allow for money to get pumped into the project but without any intent to actually explain to people how they're going to help us.

Similar reviews