[IanCal]

> ... but the whole point of cryptocurrency, or at least of smart contracts and "DeFi", is to reject that and try to build a parallel system.

No, it isn't. It might be some peoples desire around it, but by no means all (or even most).

[Xelynega]

That's neat, but the bitcoin whitepaper opens with:

> Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.

Why do you think you can dismiss the obvious claim that cryptocurrencies are a form of decentralized finance with a "no, it isn't"?

[IanCal]

> Why do you think you can dismiss the obvious claim that cryptocurrencies are a form of decentralized finance with a "no, it isn't"?

They are or can be a form of decentralised finance. That doesn't mean a system that is totally parallel to the legal system. And, again, different people intend different things with it. It's definitely not all "code is law" people.

[Xelynega]

What "intended uses" are there for it other than being an unregulated options market with constant scams and a "code is law" tool?

I would imagine any other legitimate use would be served better by traditional database/finance systems.

[Hizonner]

It doesn't add any other value whatsoever, so I'm having trouble with that assertion.