[AndrewKemendo]

What crypto purists don’t appreciate is that money, commerce and economic activity is all a social function they’re not “technical problems”

When I first read the Satoshi white paper the immediate response I had as somebody who has studied political economics is that “this will never work because governments will never allow for disintermediation of their currency because it’s one of, if not THE, primary sources of control over a population”

The promise of crypto fundamentally misunderstands how humans work, relate, exchange, and negotiate energy and power.

Contracts are just an extension of politics, digital contracts are no different

[victorbjorklund]

At least in theory though on chain contracts could have value in that they could lower the cost of the transaction. Of course in practice it did not happen and it’s just speculation on the price.

[scyclow]

I agree as it relates to bitcoin: It's positioning itself as a store of value... and it kind of works as long as the collective delusion that it _is_ a store of value holds up. But that sort of self-fulfilling prophecy is kind of flimsy. Governments get to decide what money is based on charging taxes and demand how it gets paid.

Legal contracts are similar. They 100% are reliant on social and institutional forces for enforcement and meaning. But I think smart contracts are different because they are self-enforcing. It would be very difficult to use a smart contracts as a replacement for legal contracts in most circumstances. But when the contract relates to state and digital assets on the network then it's a great tool. And if you end up with a network that hosts a lot of these important contracts, then the native crypto asset (which is used as gas to power said contracts) has value as a commodity. And if that commodity also shares all the properties of good money (fungibility, durability, portability, etc.) then all of a sudden you have money.

[dbdr]

> this will never work because governments will never allow for disintermediation of their currency because it’s one of, if not THE, primary sources of control over a population

Isn't this similar to saying "democracy will never work because kings will never allow it"?

I'm not saying it's exactly the same, just the fact that some existing power structures do not like the change does not guarantee they will manage to stop it. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

[AndrewKemendo]

It is once you realize that those are both systems enforced by the society

not deterministic outcomes

The ruled choose their rulers as much as rulers choose who they rule

[burnerRhodov2]

> this will never work because governments will never allow for disintermediation of their currency because it’s one of, if not THE, primary sources of control over a population

So, has trump coin and world liberty financial proven your friend wrong? What about El salvador or the cayman islands?

It seems that it was you who misunderstood human nature. Greed always wins.

[rcxdude]

Keep in mind the definition of 'work': Bitcoin was originally intended to be a day-to-day medium of exchange, not a 'long term store of value'. It's much more of a threat to governments as the former but that really hasn't actually panned out (including in the places you mention), and it's just a random speculative asset which financial systems will toy with like any other.

[lawlessone]

>What about El salvador or the cayman islands?

What do these prove? some people dodge taxes?

[burnerRhodov2]

A country, accepting it as legal currency... the exact scenario that the OP said "Could never happen"

[lawlessone]

The Caymans are just a Tax haven and El Salvador is a concentration camp. Not sure they're great examples.

[Terr_]

> So, has trump coin and world liberty financial proven your friend wrong?

No:

1. That's not being implemented as a permanent replacement for typical currency, that's cryptocurrency as a specialized temporary vehicle for accepting bribes and fleecing the gullible.

2. Even if #1 were not true, it's rather hard for a democratic government to react when key positions in that government have (temporarily, I trust) been taken over by a cult that profits from the scheme.

> It seems that it was you who misunderstood human nature. Greed always wins.

That's an inaccurately nihilistic view of what "human nature" encompasses. If greed always won, nobody would have pets, charities would not exist, parents would enslave their children, life-insurance would just be an invitation to filicide, etc.

[burnerRhodov2]

okay, well i've been hearing this "Gov would never let crypto live"... but i keep waiting? All i see are more and more govs and entities like blackrock being co-opted.

What would actually convince you this line of reasoning is wrong?

[Terr_]

> i've been hearing this "Gov would never let crypto live"... but i keep waiting?

I think the first step is to narrow what role/purpose of "crypto" we're trying to consider, that a government would or wouldn't permit to "live".

For example, imagine there's a 100% government-run system with only "official" transaction signing nodes and everyone's public key is on-file along with their real identity. That would be "cryptocurrency" in a technological sense, but clearly not the political change some people are interested in.

Next there's the economic distinctions like the unit of account [0] versus medium of exchange [1] versus store of value [2], which are all different roles. For example, gift-cards might be a medium of exchange in some sketchy places, but the unit of account is the dollar-amount on them. Which roles would cryptocurrency be actually taking?

> All i see are more and more govs and entities like blackrock being co-opted.

The way I see it, the optimistic utopian dreams of cryptocurrency are going nowhere. Meanwhile, big banks banks--or by upstarts trying to replace them in the same basic game--are trying to use "crypto" to grow while dodging normal laws and regulations.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_of_account

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_of_exchange

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Store_of_value

[treyd]

TrumpCoin and WLF are obvious grifts by parties associated with Trump and not actually part of government policy, and the president is not a rational actor trying to maintain a capable government.

El Salvador's experiment was generally a failure for various reasons, and they agreed to start rolling back the policies as part of an agreement with the IMF for another loan.

These projects happened because, yes, greed wins and destroys everything in its wake.

[burnerRhodov2]

What about blackrock etf's? Tether being a huge buyer and holder of US treasuries for like 8 years straight? How the US and other countries are paving the way for stablecoin legislation. Tether is one of the most profitable companies of all time working with major banks on decreasing settlement times by days into seconds....

El Salvador did not roll back their policies... they have been a continual buyer, they just rolled back their "Required by law to be accepted", they added a bunch of special cases where you don't have to accept it, but alot of tourist destinations like el zonte still accept it (or atleast they did when i was there in late 2024).