[meltyness]

I hate to walk into proselytizing but:

I mean if your intent is speculation, this is how the rest of the internet has been built.

TCP and OS security are so bad they ripped the internet a whole Cloudflare, but they all still exist and find their uses in real systems.

No comment on regulatory or legal frameworks in place since I have no idea what's gone on in the courts on that front. It's like entropy though and I have doubts that there's any long term value in trying to stop it.

Banks beget banks, because banks only invest in diversified quasi-banks, basically stockpiling non-cash assets, feast or famine. A reasonable structure for much of human history, if you like (often) dry, safe, grain/peas in the winter. Before global transport was fast and risk-free. In vogue right now: "all the PCs, all the business software, all the electrification efforts/grid modernization, all the goods manufacturers storefronts, all the films, all the personal sites, all the web pages." Maybe not such a relevant capability (large stockpiles) outside of, well, contingency.

Bitcoin, the machine, only invests in progress, cheaper more plentiful energy and faster processors or you lose. It has scarcity and inherits supporting stockpiling.

Ethereum? Presumably cooperation and transparent software, also good things! Perhaps in the next century proof of health, proof of satiety.

[skybrian]

That doesn’t seem like a good description of banks. Banks mostly invest in future income streams like loans and securities. Non-cash assets are valued by their expected cash value. An apartment building is an expected stream of rent money.

Predicting the future is often difficult.

[meltyness]

I'll give that it's reductionist, but that's kind of the point. Loans are investments, securities often are too as keys to liquidity and creditworthiness. Money is money, I'm not contesting that.

The question no one asked is if everything should be stockpiled.

I think there's no question that we should make things better or more plentiful.

[skybrian]

Businesses think about what to keep in stock quite a lot and often the answer is "as little as possible." Carrying inventory costs money, more when interest rates rise, and it's potentially wasted if it doesn't sell.

There's a tradeoff because prudent disaster preparation is expensive, but worth it if the disaster happens. The question is, who will pay for it? Often, the government.

[meltyness]

But that's another illusion mirroring the banking structure -- fractional reserve -- that some 90% of your assets should be generating rent, and 10% in reserves.

If banks pick winners, everything becomes a bank.