shazow
@shazow.eth
I notice a lot of uncharitable takes focus on whether something is technically needed, charitable takes focus on what's wanted. Do we *need* stablecoins? Not technically. We can use volatile assets, it just sucks. We want stablecoins, obviously. Do we *need* blockchains? Well actually yes, to get the things we want.
1 reply
0 recast
7 reactions
Thumbs Up
@thumbsup.eth
One might argue that we do need stable assets because many people won’t make non-essential trades where they gain an asset that loses value quickly or lose an asset that gains value quickly. Stability aids tremendously in the ability to transact, on a psychological level.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
shazow
@shazow.eth
Maybe the line between charitable and not is need and want? Like, we don't need credit cards, we can just mail cash around 🤪
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Thumbs Up
@thumbsup.eth
You could argue that it’s not that “we” need these things, but that society as it is currently structured requires fast, final (or secured, as in the case of credit), payments. To pull your argument to the extreme, we don’t need money, but we’d have to submit ourselves to the restructuring of commerce as we know it, without.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
shazow
@shazow.eth
Yea, that sounds right, though I still haven't seen a sufficiently convincing restructuring of commerce that doesn't reduce to some forms of money. Anything in a vacuum might be a "want", but wants may "need" things in order to be possible. So ultimately we can just launder needing by wanting things? 🙃 I think I've lost the thread of my original point, not sure if there's anything here.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Thumbs Up
@thumbsup.eth
Yeah we’re certainly entering the metaphysical at this point. Let’s pick back up at a future date
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
