The most fascinating phenomenon of crypto arguments is that they never change.
Fifteen years ago you could find these same unintentionally ironic statements, where the most cutting criticisms of cryptocurrency are equally true of dollars and euros.
The only thing missing from this thread (so far) is mysticism about the money supply and confident assertions that dollars are somehow "backed" by the military or tax payments.
Seems like "backed by law" is just a synonym for the Latin "fiat", "let it be done", as in "the current regime decrees that this particular figment of our collective imagination is their preferred medium of exchange, which can, will, and always has changed throughout history to different socially constructed figments of the collective imagination".
Not to say that it's dumb or silly to align yourself with the current regime, even though we all know that it will, sooner or later, be replaced by something else. Maybe that's next year, or maybe it won't happen in my children's lifetimes.
But for me, I already have 95% of my life and wealth tightly coupled to the stability and durability of the current regime, and it doesn't seem completely mad to diversify a bit into something that might possibly have a chance of surviving a regime change, or could retain some value in the event the current regime decides to appropriate or restrict or sanction how I can spend or transfer wealth currently locked in their system.
Perhaps twenty years ago it was unimaginable that the current regime could end, or transmute into an totalitarian hellscape, or even just continue with the appearance of liberal democracy but be undermined by authoritarians.
If it's become easier to imagine scenarios like these in recent years, is it insane to want a 5% allocation to independent, uncorrelated, uncensorable assets to correspond to a 5% probability of previously unthinkable scenarios?
is it insane to want a 5% allocation to independent, uncorrelated, uncensorable assets ...
Yes --- when your "independent" assets have little to no history of success or stability beyond speculation, manipulation and promotion for questionable motives and arguably carries a much greater risk than the one you're looking to hedge against.
Crypto is one of the world's most volatile "assets". The only way it achieved any stability is through largely imaginary ties to fiat using "stable coins".
In other words, avoiding risk by adopting even more doesn't make much sense. "Smart money" doesn't buy into a startup with no real world product or assets in order to avoid risk.
Ask yourself this question --- why hasn't every profit driven bank and corporation offered their own crypto already? They have way more ability to promote it than bitcoin. The only reason they haven't is because they don't see any real advantage in the long run.
I'm not Venezuelan, are you? The fact that an unstable "legal tender" exists somewhere doesn't make all others the same and it doesn't make crypto a better or more stable alternative. The fact that some people are promoting it for person gain doesn't either.
> electrons
> entry in a database
The most fascinating phenomenon of crypto arguments is that they never change.
Fifteen years ago you could find these same unintentionally ironic statements, where the most cutting criticisms of cryptocurrency are equally true of dollars and euros.
The only thing missing from this thread (so far) is mysticism about the money supply and confident assertions that dollars are somehow "backed" by the military or tax payments.