[giaour]

I believe we're seeing the end of "retail crypto." Just like agricultural futures, crypto will continue to exist but will mostly be known outside of institutional trading as a good way to lose your shirt.

As far as underlying value goes: one thing we've learned from the constant scamming is that a protocol designed for trustless interactions will inevitably devolve into purely adversial interactions. Consider it a social application of Gresham's law. Central banks, multinational corporations, and others who can marshal the resources to perform extensive audits will probably use smart contracts on a proof-of-stake chain for large, adversarial transactions that occur outside of any one nation's jurisdiction. Everything else will continue to be based on trust, just like it always has been.

[aaaaaaaaaaab]

>Central banks, multinational corporations, and others who can afford to marshal the resources to perform extensive audits will probably use smart contracts on a proof-of-stake chain for large, adversarial transactions

Arbitration at the highest echelons of power is done with weapons. I don’t give a shit about what your blockchain says when I can force you to the negotiating table Commodore Perry style.

[giaour]

> Arbitration at the highest echelons of power is done with weapons

True, there is an implicit threat of violence when parties interact at that level. But there is also a hope on both sides that if all the rules are followed, violence will not be necessary even if one party gets the better of the other. E.g., the central banks of unfriendly nations transact with one another according to international norms and rules, even though either side could escalate to "kinetic" reprisals. The force of norms and rules is strongest between parties with balanced power (otherwise the stronger side can just pull a Commodore Perry like you say).