|
|
|
|
|
|
by jcbrand
1486 days ago
|
|
|
The issuance of Bitcoin is about as fair as one could hope for, for a non-state currency. Satoshi advertised the currency and the start of mining beforehand, to give other people a chance to participate. There was no pre-mine. In the early days there were faucets that handed out bitcoins for free. Due to the boom and bust cycle of Bitcoin, many of the early holders cashed out instead of holding all the way to untold wealth. This is actually a nice side-effect of the early stages of Bitcoin adoption. Very early holders of Bitcoin had to take the risk that the currency was somehow flawed and would go to zero, in some sense, the gains they made are a function of the risk they took. The solution to wealth inequality is not to force everything to be equal, it's to allow both upward and downward mobility. The wealthy must be allowed to fail and not be bailed out. Interestingly, bailouts are a common feature of the fiat monetary system. |
|
|
A deflationary asset, like land for example, is not a good currency. As a powerbase, it's called feudalism. And that's not a good politics.
Power in crypto is radically centralised to the owners, not the users (unlike democracies).
One has to imagine people like you know this, or feel it, in the lust for the value increases to your own stake: that is, a lust that you are the one in control. Either way, you're playing the role of a daemon here, whether you realise it or not.
And the devil you are putting on the thrown are a handful of billionaires with power and control executed by a machine.
Thankfully bitcoin has no army, and all of this will fade into the obvious malicious stupidity it already is.