[Kalium]

> I would argue that monoculture and food homogenization engineered to maximize calories out per $ in have come at the cost of diversity.

I think the problem with this isn't that you come across as hand-waving. The problem with this line of argument is that there's no developed case for why anyone should care or value this particular presupposed diversity being lost.

One could argue that a profuse diversity was lost when screws, nuts, and bolts converged on a set of broadly standardized sizes. Yet few seem to lament this. Why is this different in important ways from bananas? Which is bitcoin more like?

[OrlandoHakim]

It is arguable whether or not Bitcoin counts as part of Web3. I would argue it is the original Web3 technology (blockchain) and so it is an essential component of web3. Also, I understand Bitcoin the best so can make a stronger case for it than NFTs or other Web3 concepts.

I would argue that one of the core reasons why Bitcoin was invented was to separate money from state and create a new form of quasi-money quasi-digital gold that could prevent powerful central actors from arbitrarily manipulating it’s supply based on their whims and desires. Bitcoin was born out of the ashes of the great financial crisis.

The Bitcoin genesis block famously contains a quote from the Times of London which reads as follows: “Chancellor on the brink of second bailout for banks.”

You may not personally see that as a problem, but I do as do many others. Bitcoin does introduce it’s own problems but I would argue that it does an excellent job of fixing the problem of allowing for a money free from government control, with censorship resistant peer-to-peer payments (remember the Canadian truckers?), no counter-party risk, and predictable inflation policy for the next 100 years.

Yes it is slow and inefficient and it uses a lot of energy and it is also volatile, but it also allows for things that were never possible before it existed.