But I think I do have thoughts on it. Thoughts I don't know what do do with, but I still find important to note. I may not be a crypto owner, but I'm a Black trans dude in America, so anybody with money and power impacts my life in some way.
For crypto to work, there must be a class of "way less than". A populace that will perpetually live without a need met. The markets fluctuate and rigging the system is comprehensible and replicable. People like you and me have to put money in these markets to work. But only a few know how to work this market. But isn't this just as bad as the current stock market? The idea of having a decentralized monetary system that can be a kind of backup system to the current market seems like a good idea. But it seems like a good idea the same way insurance does. Insurance is needed, but it's up to the insurance company if they pay out or not. Look at flood insurance clauses, especially in a time of widely varying climate change, and you will see that few will benefit if flooding happens to destroy their shit.
The thing that most worries and intrigues me about crypto is that the entire complex operates as if social constructs do not impact their white paper plans. For example, in "Radical Markets" there is discussion of universal landownership and immigrant sponsors. Speak with any landowner of color American today about having to price their assets for a possible sale to the highest bidder and you may catch a similar slap that Will gave Chris Rock. Land ownership for them equates more than just numbers and figures. It's a safe space from a world that is still trying to figure out to not murder us at a single provocation.
Once again, not an expert here, but crypto to me doesn't seem to exist without some kind of primary currency. While yes, you could be flush with crypto, but until you find a buyer of that crypto, is it worth anything? It reminds me a lot of Storage Wars. Something could be worth a high dollar amount, but if you can't find a buyer as a seller, then is it worth anything? I guess that is what watching the market is for. But even exchanging one crypto for another, to what end do you do this?
And even though I don't see how crypto can exist as its own currency, there is belief that it will one day replace not only monetary transactions, but also contract transactions between parties. For example, if you entered into a mortgage agreement using a digital contract, that contract could not be altered and would be executed based on the code within the contract (ie: you pay your mortgage at a certain time or negative consequences will follow). But my thing is that the reason we have human beings have input on these decisions is because not everyone has a cookie-cutter scenario. There are a variety of reasons why the contract could be broken or altered. What about a natural disaster? A financial mishap? Are we then subjected to a non-fungible document?
The idea of crypto exiting out of the current financial market seems like a pie in the sky idea. How is something some reliant on the US dollar find a way to exit out of that market? We still have to fund government works, right? How this is accomplished in this world of annexation from the current financial market? I couldn't tell you. It seems like by crypto orgs are using smaller, underdeveloped countries as guinea pigs, often leaving an upturned economy in it's wake.
And even a high wariness of crypto, I still want to believe in it. What if our financial markets could be changed? What if redlining and gerrymandering could be eliminated by blockchains? What if the global financial market could be seen and available at all times to all people? But with the current trend, you and I won't see mass entrance into the crypto world until it's on its last legs.
Some things I'm reading now on the topic:
Radical Markets by Eric Posner and Glen Weyls
A Radical Plan to Fix Inequality is Making Waves with its Many Moral Dilemmas.
The Man Behind Etheruem is Worried about the Future of Crypto
Comments
Post a Comment