|
|
|
|
|
|
by throwaway413
1457 days ago
|
|
|
If a geopolitical climate is too volatile for fiat to provide value, what good is it that crypto can isolate its stability (it can’t) if the humans who would use it have bigger problems than how to pay with money they already have in some form? Supply chains, physical force/warfare, climate, etc. If fiat is breaking down, there are surely bigger problems at play. How does solving the ability to transfer money solve the overall stability of the situation? Per your example, ok Apple Pay got cut off. Is the transit system going to support crypto? Will they be able to run their business and make that transition with regulators? It’s a drastic measure that cuts one off from the structures that they physically exist in, and unless those structures are overall crypto-supportive, they would just be putting themselves further between a rock and hard place (which as we’ve seen by the lack of serious business adoption, companies and orgs are not really willing to take that risk in any meaningful way) Edit: I agree with your use of the term “regime” and am not arguing against the sentiment of your point. Just that I don’t think crypto actually has the backbone to solve it, there’s not enough physical-world tie in yet for it to have the leverage it needs to truly overcome the global financial regimes that are neck-deep in fiat and physical assets that actually impact everyday peoples’ lives. |
|
|
That's the big question. But assuming for a moment that crypto can act as a substitute for traditional centralized payment systems, then it has significant advantages in some contexts over those systems.