[pron]

That argument doesn't work with currency, because money requires trust by definition (as opposed to immediate barter), and, as a backup -- enforcement.

In the end, it's just a question of whether you trust a centralised authority that's ultimate accountable, however imperfectly, or decentralised authorities that are accountable only to themselves and have no enforcement power.

If you give me bitcoin and I don't give you goods in exchange, or vice-versa, aren't you going to run to that central authority?

[soco]

The same can be said about NFTs: you must verify their authenticity off-chain, you must trust that off-chain authority, or sue people off-chain if they infringe on your off-chain property rights...

[etherael]

I'll give you a bad review in a venue where your reputation is more valuable than the trade or I wouldn't trade with you to begin with. Or I would insist on an escrowed bond.

There's many other ways than inserting a monopoly on violence dispensing political authority into the loop and still ensuring that transactions are suitably reliable.

Big sticks just aren't a very efficient solution.

[pron]

That only strengthens the article's author's point. Cyber currency just serves as a vessel for a fringe political group's beliefs, which, however strong, are not popular.

[etherael]

Is the author's point that the political views in question are not popular? I thought he was attempting to make the point that the economic system personified in the execution of those political beliefs is not efficient.

Which if the last decade plus of cryptocurrency has taught us anything, we ought to be able to thoroughly discard by this point in time.

I am aware that the political orthodoxy of the time is popular and the view that it should be discarded is unpopular, aside from observing that this would be true of basically any time and place, I have no further comment on that. My point is that the alternative simply flat out works better. I have zero care or interest in what is popular.