You’re talking about programming control, I’m taking about macroeconomic control. Switching to crypto removes many of the levers of macroeconomic control, or it shifts the control over to exchanges, mediators (courts), miners, validators, whales, and - probably not what crypto boosters want to hear - governments, who remain the power brokers and can easily assume these roles. Moreover, if crypto boosters think banks won’t use their enormous capital, power and overall economics expertise to shift into one of these roles, they’re delusional. I feel like crypto boosters think that banks just “don’t get it”, and this is ludicrous…banks have hundreds of years of institutional economic knowledge and experience. Economics doesn’t just get invalidated by crypto.
All of this ignores the fact that crypto is highly susceptible to volatility and scamming overall. Crypto has a larger more complex attack surface at the application layer, and this makes it substantially more risky particularly as malicious technology advances in that domain and can quickly outpace the technology required to secure against it.
Look I don’t have time to point by point give my takes, however I find it very funny when volatility and scamming are brought up as if that’s not rampant in literally every economic system.
I also don’t see how a transparent ledger with programming to ensure payments complete as expected is more risky then the opaque banking system also running nearly entirely online just behind closed doors in banks is any better.
Haven’t we already learned security through obscurity is not actually security?
I will say, the corporate/banking takeover of BTC happened over a decade ago now, so agree with you there, which is why it’s now “digital gold” instead of its original stated intent of digital cash.
You’re talking about programming control, I’m taking about macroeconomic control. Switching to crypto removes many of the levers of macroeconomic control, or it shifts the control over to exchanges, mediators (courts), miners, validators, whales, and - probably not what crypto boosters want to hear - governments, who remain the power brokers and can easily assume these roles. Moreover, if crypto boosters think banks won’t use their enormous capital, power and overall economics expertise to shift into one of these roles, they’re delusional. I feel like crypto boosters think that banks just “don’t get it”, and this is ludicrous…banks have hundreds of years of institutional economic knowledge and experience. Economics doesn’t just get invalidated by crypto.
All of this ignores the fact that crypto is highly susceptible to volatility and scamming overall. Crypto has a larger more complex attack surface at the application layer, and this makes it substantially more risky particularly as malicious technology advances in that domain and can quickly outpace the technology required to secure against it.
Look I don’t have time to point by point give my takes, however I find it very funny when volatility and scamming are brought up as if that’s not rampant in literally every economic system.
I also don’t see how a transparent ledger with programming to ensure payments complete as expected is more risky then the opaque banking system also running nearly entirely online just behind closed doors in banks is any better.
Haven’t we already learned security through obscurity is not actually security?
I will say, the corporate/banking takeover of BTC happened over a decade ago now, so agree with you there, which is why it’s now “digital gold” instead of its original stated intent of digital cash.