Worst Tech of 2021: Biogen, Zillow, Ransomware & More

[BWV]

My vote is cryptocurrencies, but here is MIT Technology Review's annual list:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/12/29/1043061/the-worst-technology-of-2021/

Biogen's Alzheimer's drug​

Zillow’s house-buying algorithm​

Ransomware​

Space tourism​

Beauty filters​

 

[BillTre]

I would vote for:
Junk Text Messages

 

[russ_watters]

My vote is cryptocurrencies, but here is MIT Technology Review's annual list:

Tech in 2021, not 2021 tech? Some of those are older than 2021.

My vote is Biogen with honorable mention for Zillow.

I'm not a fan of crypto, but I'll save my vote for the year it collapses/gets shut down for good. I'm not sure how easy that is going to be to pinpoint though, given that there are still $100,000 Beanie Babies for sale.

 

[gmax137]

given that there are still $100,000 Beanie Babies for sale.

My wife & I enjoy saturday morning yard sales*. Our usual pattern is to do a slow drive by just to see if there is anything interesting. If not, one of us will say "beanie babies," indicating a driveway full of crap we have no interest in.

*moving sales, garage sales, yard sales, rummage sales, tag sales...

 

[scompi]

My vote is cryptocurrencies, but here is MIT Technology Review's annual list:

I'm not a fan of crypto, but I'll save my vote for the year it collapses/gets shut down for good. I'm not sure how easy that is going to be to pinpoint though, given that there are still $100,000 Beanie Babies for sale.

I agree that the majority of crypto is sketchy and serve no purpose other than to enrich their creators and "early adopters". Most of them will collapse (i.e. become worthless) or get shut down (look up SEC vs. Ripple lawsuit).

I was originally skeptical, but after researching the technology (ignoring the buzz words and the crypto "culture"), there seems to be a strong case to be made for Bitcoin to become the back-end of many payment systems (think Visa and MasterCard). I recommend doing research on the technology before dismissing it so quickly.

 

[russ_watters]

I was originally skeptical, but after researching the technology (ignoring the buzz words and the crypto "culture"), there seems to be a strong case to be made for Bitcoin to become the back-end of many payment systems (think Visa and MasterCard). I recommend doing research on the technology before dismissing it so quickly.

If you have any sources for that, I'd be interested to read, but I'm not interested in more of my own research* as I've read up on it a bunch and I don't think I've heard that position before. I suspect it would be hard for me to find info on it. Frankly, it surprises me because it's my understanding that Bitcoin is a particularly bad crypocurrency efficiencywise.

Well, I did one google and found this as the 10th hit:
https://www.mastercard.com/news/per...stercard-is-bringing-crypto-onto-our-network/

It's interesting in that it's the only hit that mentions crypo mixed with traditional credit cards and it's from a credit card company. But all it says is it's about choice, it doesn't say there are particular benefits to crypto, and it even says it isn't interested in having the debate. I would think that if there were a tangible benefit for them or their customers it would state what it was.

 

[scompi]

If you have any sources for that, I'd be interested to read, but I'm not interested in more of my own research* as I've read up on it a bunch and I don't think I've heard that position before. I suspect it would be hard for me to find info on it. Frankly, it surprises me because it's my understanding that Bitcoin is a particularly bad crypocurrency efficiencywise.

Well, I did one google and found this as the 10th hit:
https://www.mastercard.com/news/per...stercard-is-bringing-crypto-onto-our-network/

It's interesting in that it's the only hit that mentions crypo mixed with traditional credit cards and it's from a credit card company. But all it says is it's about choice, it doesn't say there are particular benefits to crypto, and it even says it isn't interested in having the debate. I would think that if there were a tangible benefit for them or their customers it would state what it was.

Sorry – I don't have any text sources for that, as I usually listen to podcasts or watch videos. Here is a video presentation given at the IMF Fintech Seminar last month. Jack Mallers, the CEO of Strike, a bitcoin payments app, describes how bitcoin can be used to transfer any currency, within seconds, across the world and for a very low cost. (Warning: his demeanor can be offputting to some.)

My understanding is that, indeed, bitcoin is inefficient compared to other cryptocurrencies. However, this is a tradeoff. Where others have sacrificed security, privacy and decentralization for efficiency, bitcoin has retained those features and delegated the issue of efficiency and throughput to a layer 2 technology (lightning network). Similar to how HTTP it built on TCP/IP.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't have any text sources for that, as I usually listen to podcasts or watch videos. Here is a video presentation given at the IMF Fintech Seminar last month.

Not my preferred medium (time consuming), but I'll give it a look, thanks.

 

[phinds]

Does fake tech count? If so, I vote for that bogus blood test technology "developed" by Eliszabeth Holmes

 

[kith]

I was originally skeptical, but after researching the technology (ignoring the buzz words and the crypto "culture"), there seems to be a strong case to be made for Bitcoin to become the back-end of many payment systems (think Visa and MasterCard).

Could you spell out more explicitly what the proposal is about? From your description, it could be any of the following:
a) The proposal mainly solves a problem with real impact in the world of today (like money being lost, stolen, etc.).
b) The proposal mainly solves a problem which doesn't occur today but could occur with present technology. I.e. it is mainly aiming to make present technology more robust.
c) The proposal mainly enables people to do new things which can't be done with present technology.

 

[Fred Wright]

My votes for the worst tech are hypersonic gliders and TikTok.

 

[scompi]

Could you spell out more explicitly what the proposal is about? From your description, it could be any of the following:
a) The proposal mainly solves a problem with real impact in the world of today (like money being lost, stolen, etc.).
b) The proposal mainly solves a problem which doesn't occur today but could occur with present technology. I.e. it is mainly aiming to make present technology more robust.
c) The proposal mainly enables people to do new things which can't be done with present technology.

I just want to state that I'm not a crypto expert. I don't have all the answers. I only find it interesting and believe the technology has the potential to help people.

The general idea is that it is used in the back-end of payment systems. That is, the end-user would never have to hold bitcoin. Actually, he would not even have to know bitcoin is being used.

For example, if you want to send $100 to your friend in Japan, the payment processor would: convert dollars to bitcoin, transfer it over, convert it to yen. Now your friend has the yen equivalent of $100. This all happened in seconds, costed pennies, and you had no idea you transacted using bitcoin. Consider this example without using crypto at all...

I'd argue that it addresses all of those points. Sources: cross border payments, superior payment system

 

[collinsmark]

For example, if you want to send $100 to your friend in Japan, the payment processor would: convert dollars to bitcoin, transfer it over, convert it to yen. Now your friend has the yen equivalent of $100. This all happened in seconds, costed pennies, [...]

Well, minutes, not seconds. And if you want to have piece of mind that your transaction was recorded on the blockchain, about a half hour. This is because bitcoin sets up its difficulty to strive for 10 minutes between blocks (other cryptocurrencies might be faster, but bitcoin is set up to be 10 minutes per block).

As far as the price goes, yes, it's pretty cheap for now. Presently, bitcoin miners make their money on gaining bitcoin from successful mining. But in the future (when most or all of the bitcoin is in circulation) bitcoin miners will be rewarded by transaction fees. At least that's the idea. It does likely mean that there will be larger transaction fees in the future.

 

[scompi]

Well, minutes, not seconds. And if you want to have piece of mind that your transaction was recorded on the blockchain, about a half hour. This is because bitcoin sets up its difficulty to strive for 10 minutes between blocks (other cryptocurrencies might be faster, but bitcoin is set up to be 10 minutes per block).

As far as the price goes, yes, it's pretty cheap for now. Presently, bitcoin miners make their money on gaining bitcoin from successful mining. But in the future (when most or all of the bitcoin is in circulation) bitcoin miners will be rewarded by transaction fees. At least that's the idea. It does likely mean that there will be larger transaction fees in the future.

I'm assuming the payment system would be built on the layer 2 Lightning Network, so it would take seconds and cost far less than transacting directly on the blockchain.

Actually, miners currently earn money through block rewards and transaction fees. After the last fraction of a bitcoin is mined, they will be paid exclusively by transaction fees. That's a long time from now: 99% of all bitcoin will be mined in 10-14 years, with the last bitcoin mined around the year 2140 (see image below). For this to remain profitable, the price of a bitcoin would need to rise as rewards get cut in half every four years, and eventually go to zero.