> Cryptocurrencies is about divorcing money and state. Seems pretty clear to me.

No, they don't. There is no technological or cryptographic answer to the state's monopoly on legitimate force, its duty to execute the law, or any of its other functions that create and maintain the business environment.

It occurs to me that much of what crypto-lovers want is actually radically undemocratic. Vestigial states that can't do the bidding of the electorate because they're unable to hold companies to account and so on. People of this inclination are the death throes of the globalist dream: it is a fine thing indeed that the nation state looks to be reasserting itself in the face of one of California's more embarrassing wet dreams.

Because proponents have never demonstrated a viable path to linking those. It always comes back to depending on the state (e.g. courts, police) or reinventing banks, with huge hand-waves about how the details could possibly work for a non-trivial scale.

> Cryptocurrencies is about divorcing money and state.

Is it though? I used to think that, but over the past couple years I've seen plenty of politics around governance of the future of cryptocurrency. Seems like everyone tried divorcing the two and ended up just creating a new state.

"Cryptocurrencies is about divorcing money and state."

How so?

Despite the misleading term cryptocurrency is a type of commodity, not money. A heavily speculated one. It's really quite terrible at being a money substitute. With the exception of some very fringe use cases.

Just thinking that a success in that might be more likely if the plan did not include giving seigniorage from the state (i.e. people) to a bunch of cryptonerds. Also, a monetary policy not from medieval times might help.

Not really. It's a difference between necessary and sufficient. Decentralization might be necessary component, but what is lacking is proof or argument that it is also sufficient for this change to happen.