| > Its design flaw is the ORV system requiring someone who just wants the elevator pitch and their life to be wildly more efficient via using digital currency that's faster, safer, cheaper than their debit card having to educate themselves on what-even-is an ORV, how does the voting work, how do you know what a good representative is, and so on. It doesn't though. It requires installing a wallet app. > And so its largest general population adoption, friction creating flaw is that people do not want to be their own bank Maybe you didn't see that story here yesterday about banks simply closing people's accounts for no reason. Maybe you missed Mastercard and Visa blocking Wikileaks and OnlyFans payments. Maybe you missed the bank bailouts, and the housing crisis, and the Epstein funding, and the Panama papers, etc. If you've ever seen a bank run, you know that there are times when people absolutely do want to be their own bank. > my bias would definitely be "if it was worth pursuing, one of the big ones' communities would pursue it as it means more value and a better product" That's not how a status quo works. When you talk about digital cash, you're stepping on some very sensitive and powerful toes, conspiracy or no. > I can also see very little incentive for any entity to lose their centralized power to accomodate a tech that directly usurps it over time. Well now you've hit the nail on the head. Fortunately, accommodation might not be a requirement to success. |