Ryan Grim
@ryangrim
The philosophical objection is also sorted of rooted in history. In the 18th and 19th century US banks created a different kind of cryptocurrency and we had countless versions circulating. Lots of opportunity for speculation and arbitrage and it avoided regulation by the Crown and then by the federal government and the result was some people got rich but most people got ruined in scams, bubble pops, etc. it was a disaster and I don’t see how this won’t also be one https://daily.jstor.org/banks-own-private-currencies-in-19th-century-america/
7 replies
1 recast
13 reactions
Garrett
@garrett
Don’t you think that everyone should have access to a permissionless financial rail and have the freedom to transact? That’s a big part of what crypto enables and I think philosophically this is a part that has resonated with me You mentioned you’ve sent money to people in Afghanistan with crypto. I imagine it would’ve been very difficult to do without crypto.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
jd 🌺
@jdl
we are mosdef running similar experiments over again. the bit with focusing on is what sort of use cases are being unlocked the difference today is it’s the Fed rather than the Crown
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
depatchedmode
@depatchedmode
Ah, I forgot about those! Thanks for the link. It’s not quite an apples to apples comparison, but your concerns about *unhealthy* levels of speculation and arbitrage are legit. And shared by absolutely every serious actor in the blockchain space. Some things to consider: + a substantial amount of on chain volume is literally the USD, with a more close comparison being the global Eurodollar markets + appropriate levels of speculation and arbitrage can help keep a market functioning + regulation should *compel* me to act justly, not prevent me from acting Nobody in this space expects daily business to be transacted in volatile units.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
matthewb
@matthewb
not everyone has access to the traditional banking system, everyone has access to crypto. simple as that.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Rodrigo Bardin
@rodrigobardin
but from a philosophical pov, banks (centralised entities) being the ones creating and controlling their currencies doesn't automatically make this a very different thing? also, '... it couldn’t circulate too far from the issuing bank' doesn't help with the comparison imo.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Zach
@zherring
Would recommend reading Devil Take the Hindmost if you haven't already. It's a history of financial speculation. This does not make crypto look any better. But it does underline that many innovations that get financialized (patents, railroads, shares) follow similar boom/bust patterns. Crypto double dips - it _is_ a new technology that has financial speculation baked into its operating system that then begets more innovation that is also _immediately_ financialized. Its crazes look markedly similar to chapters in that book: railroad speculation of the 1840s rhymed with the L1 own-the-rails logic. The patent bubble of the 1800s looks like ICOs. The Japanese country club mania of the 80s rhymes with the tortured logic of the NFT PFP club. Maybe it's cryptos original sin. Maybe insurmountable and maladaptive to it really gaining adoption. But also not really that unique to it. There's good reasons to use railroads, patents, and (maybe) country clubs. Crypto is no different.
1 reply
1 recast
2 reactions
Micah
@micahtowery
jeff snider thinks a lot of our economic malaise is related to shortage of dollars. it might not be ideal but allowing more people to create dollars might ease some problems related to the post GFC decline of the eurodollar market.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
