| I think this guy is very aggressive in this interview, I'm not sure what's the context but he definitely seems pretty fed up with the whole crypto stuff. To be fair, I think a lot of the promises that the crypto-scene has been making for the past 6 or 7 years (specifically when smart contracts started to be a thing) have not materialised. Sure, people have gotten rich, but they haven't gotten rich in any other way than because they bought in early and everyone wants in as well. And all this money that has poured in has been, in turn, been used in massive advertisement campaigns to prop up the sector even more. There is value in being able to "own" your money, I do think. But... the real value of that is when your money can be then used in the real world; traded for a government-issued currency. So that muddles things a bit because government-issued money has regulations in place that are in fact quite valuable for society. Governments are already working on digital currency that will offer most of the benefits that MOST people really want out of a "crypto": low fees, fast transfers, being able to have a wallet in your phone. Other than that, the value that people see in crypto is literally "well i pay 50 dollars now and tomorrow i have 500". That is not sustainable. To me the biggest argument against crypto is the fact that, if it succeeds in what people want, some of us right now might be rich in 50 years whereas everyone being born in 50 years will already have "missed out". In an economic system? That's horrible. That's already what has happened to many of us with stocks and houses and other assets. Yeah, I don't know. I still see some other benefits to smart contracts... the idea of distributed ledgers and being able to operate on them does sound good in theory but I'm not sure we really do need such degree of immutability. Any technology that truly decentralizes power is not something that you will ever see on a superbowl commercial. |