Even then, there are plenty who are on the internet without really understanding what it is they're using. They just know how to pattern match (netflix.com will take me to movies + tv but no idea how or where it comes from)
I think on a surface level, they'd say sure, digital money, why wouldn't that be the future but they assume it comes from an "authoritative" source such as the UN or a government.
I wonder whether people associate money with government simply because that's what most money labeling says.
If I were living in a world where money had just been invented, I suppose I'd care mainly that whoever was issuing it was trustworthy enough not to issue extra on the side.* Otherwise I wouldn't really care where it came from.
I'm not sure if I'm agreeing with you, disagreeing, or just continuing the discussion.
*Eventually I'd come to understand that inflation is not necessarily a bad thing, but my first instinct would be that I'd value money only if it were scarce.
So you're saying these average people that say "sure, digital money, why wouldn't that be the future" also "understand why a decentralized asset is the ultimate safe haven"? Huh?
How are you interpreting the term "understand"?
Does the average person even understand what a "decentralized asset" is?
Wait till Africa stops using their local currency mobile payments and switches to crypto. Internet use won’t matter as bitcoin and I’m sure many crypto to follow won’t hinge on an internet connection.
Maybe. My point wasn't so much that people need internet to use cryptos as that our definition of "ordinary people" is pretty skewed compared to the actual world population.
I think on a surface level, they'd say sure, digital money, why wouldn't that be the future but they assume it comes from an "authoritative" source such as the UN or a government.