[ephbit]

Do I get this right?

You have a rather pessimistic view of the world that leads you to believe that while such tax systems might be possible they allegedly haven't ever been observed in the real world. So you go on to infer that what hasn't been observed is not possible.

I think it's a stretch to draw a parallel here to the unyielding character of physical laws.

I assume the world has seen reasonable tax systems in the past but since politics/science/tech/societies/culture is constantly evolving this "state" was not stable. That it wasn't, doesn't prove it's not possible. Future societies with more knowledge on the whole subject (of creating beneficial equilibria in society) might find ways to keep desirable states over long periods of time.

[hnews_account_1]

I’m not pessimistic. In fact, I definitely think something will disrupt the status quo and it is very corrupt. That’s not the point. I just don’t think your solutions are workable. If you’d told me about btc 10 years ago, I would’ve thought it was a radical attempt at a solution. Now I don’t think it’ll work with the benefit of hindsight. I just think anything in the future that disrupts tradFi will have equally crazy origins.

[ephbit]

> I just don’t think your solutions are workable.

Care to explain why?

I like to think I can be convinced by arguments.

> If you’d told me about btc 10 years ago, I would’ve thought it was a radical attempt at a solution.

But Bitcoin has kept working mostly the same way it started, right? Miners mine. People interested trade/speculate.

The thing about Bitcoin that changed over these years is what people think it is. Digital cash, nope. Micropayments, nope. Currency, nope. Store of value, could be. (I'm assuming volatility will decline in the long term if market capitalization approaches that of gold and as it gets adopted by millions more who don't speculate short term but just hold a few years to park some money and eventually exchange back to regular currency)