7.2 Internal Reference Note: This issue of the internal reference is about 3,000 words in total, and the main contents include: Macro Intelligence, Powell sings dovish, French parliamentary elections reveal the direction of the world, can core developers modify the amount of BTC? - Analysis, AI revolution leads to the failure of blockchain revolution? - Interpretation, Polkadot is exposed to financial problems, from which we can see the hidden problems of centralized blockchain projects, and other topics.

1/ On Tuesday, as mentioned in yesterday's internal reference, the crypto market was not actively entering the market, and the upward momentum was weak, so it fell again. BTC fell back to around 62k. USDT 7.28, a negative premium to USD/CNH 7.3.

Bitcoin Index https://leanpub.com/history-of-bitcoin

/3. Two questions. The first question, Z asked: Can the core developers modify the number of Bitcoins after obtaining the consent of the miners? Why did he ask this question? Someone in the Alibaba Developer Community said that in theory, the core can modify the issuance rules at will with the consent of the miners. The title of the post is "[Viewpoint] BTC is not completely decentralized, even the entire content of the total is theoretically possible if everyone agrees. However, this is tantamount to saying that if everyone agrees, the world can achieve it. The key points to understand BTC's veto power (veto power) are that even if, for example, 80% of the computing power (note that it is not the number of hashrates, but the size of computing power) agree to change the core consensus, technically, this group of people is overwhelming. However, there is still 20% of the computing power that disagrees, so we will get BTCA and BTCB. BTCB has 20% computing power support and no recharge, maintaining Satoshi Nakamoto's original design. The rest is left to the market. Crypto people can choose whether to sell BTCB and hoard BTCA; or sell BTCA and hoard BTCB. In the guessing game, miners are not the deciders, and core developers are not the deciders. This is what this sentence says: "The people, and only the people are the driving force of history." If the people choose BTCB, BTCA will return to zero, even if it has been there since the beginning. 80% of the hashrate support will also be abandoned by the people, and the price will fall until the cost of 80% of the hashrate cannot be supported by economics. Then these hashrates will begin to "defect" to support BTCB. However, for the repeated game system, it is like a nuclear bomb. In fact, the deduction one does not have enough deterrence, so the actual dust will not be destroyed. Some people know that it is impossible to do it but force it to do it (some people did it in 2017-2018, and the BCH hashrate once exceeded BTC. So what? Time has proved it.

4/. Another question about AI and blockchain is the future. Someone posted online that the success of the AI ​​revolution in the future will cause the blockchain revolution to fail. What’s more amusing is that the netizen said that after the GPU computing power becomes special because of AI, it may affect the CPU computing power, thus making BTC unsafe. Finally, the discussion said that in the face of the paradigm shift caused by AI, blockchain is like playing house. The following is Yumo’s analysis and opinion. What he said is not just one thing. He said: 1. The AI ​​revolution happened; 2. After the AI ​​revolution happened, the blockchain revolution failed. And what does he say about CPU computing power? It’s obvious that he is a guy who knows only a little. In fact, the grand narrative, the street uncles and aunts can all come on stage, talk in generalities, and boast, but they don’t believe that the essence of the artificial intelligence revolution is a productivity revolution. Of course, what is the significance of the artificial intelligence revolution? I won’t expand on it here. The consequence of the productivity revolution is the replacement of human labor. The advantage is that you, as a consumer, have more abundant products: but the disadvantage is that people as producers will be in trouble. @Z: The market has already started something terrible @Z: People without money will be properly marginalized by society. In fact, it doesn’t matter whether it is AI or not. The direction of development of this world, the direction of development of fat, and the direction of development of mankind are originally the continuous improvement of productivity. It is not AI, but other X technology, Y technology, and Z technology. There was nothing terrible at first. It was the initial "incompetence can lead" that was terrifying. The unemployment of producers made him unable to play the role of consumers. This is the limitation of the capitalist enterprise wage system on the progress of production efficiency, and the economic crisis is not caused by this. On the contrary, I will regard "unemployment" and lost wages as a great liberation of man! Just like when farmers lost their land and began to become workers and fat fuel, it was actually a liberation of productivity. Liberation is freedom. We all know that only when productivity is sufficiently advanced can the change of production relations be promoted. Behind the idea, it may be a kind of pain for individuals, especially those who are accustomed to the old system: productivity progress> unemployment, disintegration of wage employment system => change of production relations. That is to say, when machines replace people and people are unemployed in large numbers, new production relations will come onto the stage of history. Therefore, my conclusion firmly believes that the productivity revolution will greatly accelerate the arrival of the blockchain revolution, rather than at a distance.

/5. The once star project Polkadot was exposed to have "burned" 87 million US dollars in half a year, but with only more than 1 million US dollars in revenue, the community widely questioned its financial concerns and health. Yumo took a quick look and found that the main expenses were promotion (37 million US dollars) and technology development (23 million US dollars). In fact, this is the fundamental problem of centralized blockchain projects. Comparing Satoshi Nakamoto and BTC is disgusting: BTC has no foundation or project party, managing a large amount of money to advertise or give money to developed countries. That is still the traditional web2 production relationship! Individuals or companies participating in BTC can voluntarily spend money to promote it, or voluntarily make technical contributions to it. There are many contributors, and none of them is the center. It is better than hanging up or leaving, and it has no impact on BTC. On the other hand, those project parties and blockchain projects with centralized finances, even star projects like ETH and Polkadot, are still very centralized. Once this center dies, it will be deleted, and the entire project may be very dangerous. Ecryptom is a centralized operation disguised as a decentralized operation. Retail investors should be aware of this.