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
14 reactions
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
raulonastool.eth 🎩 🏰
@raulonastool
Great response and book recommendation! Adding to my wish list.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
