[pattusk]

> "The hope a lot of people had/have for crypto is that it replaces people, instititions and rules with explicit code"

My experience in crypto over the past two years has been exactly the opposite. The main issues facing the space today all have to do with governance: how do you get holders of gov tokens to vote rather than hold? how do you involve them in the evolution of your protocol? There are entire protocols being designed to allow "vote selling" to incentivize delegation for small owners.

Code is a tool to make sure laws are enforced. But the rules are increasingly being made and amended at the social/political layer.

It may not be democratic. it may not be fair. it may not be efficient. but it's a damn interesting experiment to watch evolve.

[dalbasal]

I don't think we disagree.

That's why I wrote had/have. Highly idealistic ideas for crypto have been a huge part of this whole thing. Predictably though, reality is bringing the ideas down to earth... and what you describe is what that means.

"Code is a tool to make sure laws are enforced", is far less idealistic than "code is law." More corruptible. More practicable. These can all be true at one.

I agree that its fascinating.