Yes we do have a consensus mechanism run by the banks and that is the problem. Crypto is in part an ideological attack against the current regimes that control finance. I would argue that the banking industry has more direct control over finance and is what crypto disrupts, and that industry has substantial power within most of the world’s governments. But undermining the current financial regime also doesn’t mean explicitly attacking the current government structures. On the contrary, we may see successful governance fully embrace the cryptozation of finance.
You can build governance into crypto protocols directly or/and have community governance. That said, it is often hard to externally govern crypto. Most crypto projects seek to self govern in processes that I believe are far more transparent than say the Federal Reserve. For example the vote on the ENS DAO constitution
Self governing would lead to the same or worse problems than we have now. Right now the government (it’s not a good government, don’t get me wrong) can decide to print more money. In the hypothetical future, the community of a crypto asset can govern it, in the community those who have most of the mining power, most coins or whatever have most power. How does this not lead further away from a democratic election of a government like a democracy has today?
Because a token or crypto project is only worth anything if people value it. And that is ultimately the voting mechanism. If Bob creates a currency that only a few very wealth people have access to and Alice creates a currency which is airdropped to everyone on earth, which one will have a higher market cap? I would wager Alice. The details of how individuals projects are governed are not as important if the projects themselves have to compete for people’s mind share. States that govern physical land have no or little competition. No fundamental new system of governance can co-exist with the old. But Crypto allows us to have a completive market for governance itself, although what is governs only has value if the majority of people think it does.
Because a token or crypto project is only worth anything if people value it. And that is ultimately the voting mechanism.
Oh no what if they have a monopoly? Imagine if store ONLY had paypal. That would be terrible.
But Crypto allows us to have a completive market for governance itself, although what is governs only has value if the majority of people think it does.
I don’t think that markets lead to good outcomes in all situations. I think they are suitable for some problems and not suitable for others. I don’t think they are suitable to solve problems with currency at all.
Oh no what if they have a monopoly? Imagine if store ONLY had paypal. That would be terrible.
Yes, it would be terrible. But fortunately, it is fairly hard to meaningful censor many blockchains. Bitcoin and Nakamoto consensus was created to route around the finical systems monopoly. I think there is fundamentally no chance of a crypto becoming an absolute monopoly since it would have to compete with other cryptos.
don’t think they are suitable to solve problems with currency at all.
Without using the word market, I would say that I think anyone and their friends should have the freedom to create and experiment with their own finical systems if them want. And no one should force them to use a finical system they don’t want.
Without using the word market, I would say that I think anyone and their friends should have the freedom to create and experiment with their own finical systems if them want. And no one should force them to use a finical system they don’t want.
Never did I say that I am against that. But these systems should be taxable if necessary etc.
Yes, it would be terrible. But fortunately, it is fairly hard to meaningful censor many blockchains. Bitcoin and Nakamoto consensus was created to route around the finical systems monopoly. I think there is fundamentally no chance of a crypto becoming an absolute monopoly since it would have to compete with other cryptos.
I don’t really understand what you are trying to say. What do you mean by absolute monopoly?
But we already have consensus mechanisms over currency and they work through the government?
Yes we do have a consensus mechanism run by the banks and that is the problem. Crypto is in part an ideological attack against the current regimes that control finance. I would argue that the banking industry has more direct control over finance and is what crypto disrupts, and that industry has substantial power within most of the world’s governments. But undermining the current financial regime also doesn’t mean explicitly attacking the current government structures. On the contrary, we may see successful governance fully embrace the cryptozation of finance.
But cryptocurrency often explicitly says that it can’t be governed.
You can build governance into crypto protocols directly or/and have community governance. That said, it is often hard to externally govern crypto. Most crypto projects seek to self govern in processes that I believe are far more transparent than say the Federal Reserve. For example the vote on the ENS DAO constitution
Self governing would lead to the same or worse problems than we have now. Right now the government (it’s not a good government, don’t get me wrong) can decide to print more money. In the hypothetical future, the community of a crypto asset can govern it, in the community those who have most of the mining power, most coins or whatever have most power. How does this not lead further away from a democratic election of a government like a democracy has today?
Because a token or crypto project is only worth anything if people value it. And that is ultimately the voting mechanism. If Bob creates a currency that only a few very wealth people have access to and Alice creates a currency which is airdropped to everyone on earth, which one will have a higher market cap? I would wager Alice. The details of how individuals projects are governed are not as important if the projects themselves have to compete for people’s mind share. States that govern physical land have no or little competition. No fundamental new system of governance can co-exist with the old. But Crypto allows us to have a completive market for governance itself, although what is governs only has value if the majority of people think it does.
Oh no what if they have a monopoly? Imagine if store ONLY had paypal. That would be terrible.
I don’t think that markets lead to good outcomes in all situations. I think they are suitable for some problems and not suitable for others. I don’t think they are suitable to solve problems with currency at all.
Yes, it would be terrible. But fortunately, it is fairly hard to meaningful censor many blockchains. Bitcoin and Nakamoto consensus was created to route around the finical systems monopoly. I think there is fundamentally no chance of a crypto becoming an absolute monopoly since it would have to compete with other cryptos.
Without using the word market, I would say that I think anyone and their friends should have the freedom to create and experiment with their own finical systems if them want. And no one should force them to use a finical system they don’t want.
Never did I say that I am against that. But these systems should be taxable if necessary etc.
I don’t really understand what you are trying to say. What do you mean by absolute monopoly?