[hackingforfun]

I made a submission [1] about this today too, but it didn't generate any comments. I was hoping to have a discussion regarding how Bitcoin / crypto / web3 is often grouped into one category. Jack Dorsey is making a distinction here that they are not the same thing. This specific tweet [2] sticks out for me:

> You don’t own “web3.”

> The VCs and their LPs do. It will never escape their incentives. It’s ultimately a centralized entity with a different label.

> Know what you’re getting into…

I know there are concerns with Bitcoin's energy consumption, but I still think it's one of the most innovative things to come in the last decade, and I don't think it should be grouped with things like NFTs, etc.

I like some other altcoins, like Ethereum and some other smart contract platforms, so I'm not just a Bitcoin maximalist. However, personally I think NFTs are a lot of hype. I don't think Bitcoin is the same as that. There were no early VC investors in Bitcoin (with the exception of Tim Draper, but he wasn't invested from the start of the network).

Now the VCs are looking for the next big altcoin and investing in that. I.e. some altcoins that I even think have potential, like Solana, are also heavily VC backed. In that regard people should also know what they are getting into.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29642794

[2] https://twitter.com/jack/status/1473139010197508098

[cam0]

Just because there weren't early VCs into bitcoin doesn't mean that most BTC is distributed fairly amongst a large portion of people. Most BTC seems to be owned and controlled by a fairly small concentration of wealthy people at this point. It will do no good for average people, so it shouldn't be hyped as "a form of "freedom" or "revolution" or anything of that sort - it's just another asset for wealthy people to buy up.

[hndamien]

Isn't this always going to be the case with money, especially hard money. Partially due to the definition of "wealthy"? The money appears to be unfairly distributed amongst the wealthy people. Yes! Thats how money works! If you have a lot of it, guess what, you are now a wealthy person.

[cam0]

Absolutely, but the bitcoin maximalists (including Jack Dorsey) should stop evangelizing it as the solution to so many societal problems when it's indistinguishable from any other asset at this point.

[hndamien]

There is a fundamental. difference to why they evangelise this as correcting a root problem of fiat money. Fiat money causes price distortion and monetisation of non-monetary assets. It also acts as a constant handbrake of people heavily reliant on holding the medium of exchange - most notably poorer people, salary earners. Fixing this removes a very large systemic impediment to more universally fair system (not equal distribution) to achieve prosperity and social mobility. It isn't a panacea, but a significant improvement on the status quo.

[cam0]

I don't disagree with the problem statement. I just disagree with the proposed solution. How is an expensive asset supposed to help poor people?

[hndamien]

Does the term "expensive" really make sense for an infinitely divisible medium of exchange? Can money be more or less "affordable"? The more meaningful metrics are purchasing power and historical and expected purchasing power, and the confidence of that. By this metric, regardless of price, if it can realistically expect to have its purchasing power increase, then it is helpful to poor people for saving.