But that's a feature, not a bug, at least according to the crypto people. But, so far, all they have managed to do is rediscover lessons about the need for regulation, oversight and accountability that the financial industry has learnt decades or even centuries ago.
> But that's a feature, not a bug, at least according to the crypto people. But, so far, all they have managed to do is rediscover lessons about the need for regulation, oversight and accountability that the financial industry has learnt decades or even centuries ago.
I feel this is only true for people who have not truly embraced the decentralized aspect of cryptocurrency. For example, many people leave all of their money in one wallet. Centralization. Many people use only one exchange for converting fiat to crypto. Centralization. The harder you look, the more you will find that the only people upset about the state of cryptocurrencies are those that did not diversify and instead reverted to a concept squarely against the cryptocurrency ethos.
Thus is human nature. Who wants to manage 30,000 wallets each containing only a few dollars? The supporting tooling is not there (or is not easy enough to use) and thus we see this recurrent user pattern.
Confined to only three dimensions? Pfft.
Get on my level kid...
I hope people who do this have either a great memory or a great filing system.
The spreadsheets, math tables, the manual toil...you aren't looking at it realistically. Things don't just pop into existence perfectly but iterate into a local and idealistically global minimum from the reality of what people want and need, not what devs and larger organizations think they want and need.
If 99.9% of people are using a technology "wrong", then I would suggest it's bad technology. If we aren't making a technology with actual users in mind, then we're just doing some sort of high-concept performance art.
It can be done but there is a meeting in the middle from many sides.
I believe it centers around the simple laws of thermodynamics, the path of least resistance will be taken.
Tools are coming out to make development easier, tools are coming out to make consumption easier.
Think about computing and how much has changed, been misunderstood, and misstated, and flipped on its head in the past thirty years. The ease and accessibility is still being pushed.
This will too.
Have you met any of those people? Do they actually exist or are you imagining them?
//edit - looks like they were by the UK and NL governments.
That sort of system will collapse, but not necessarily the banks.
There is no law of nature that says we have to use free to fuck anybody capitalism run rampant over all. It is a choice.
I think it is time we made a different choice!
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/the-case-for-hi...
> even in the long run, it’s really, really hard to cut nominal wages. Yet when you have very low inflation, getting relative wages right would require that a significant number of workers take wage cuts. So having a somewhat higher inflation rate would lead to lower unemployment, not just temporarily, but on a sustained basis.
Shorter: we create an economic policy to cheat workers out of the take home value of their earnings to make management easier and post favorable employment metrics for political leaders.
That "growth at all costs" policy, which, by the way is not inherently a free market policy, exists to short shrift the labor class by means of a compounding treadmill that most will fall off.
High inflation does not imply that real wages shrink on average.
Certainly not! Inflation is great for the privileged, because it forces the hoi polloi into investment schemes to protect their assets from inflation, which disproportionately help finance the business adventures of the privileged (e.g. stocks, bonds).
Thus the average real wage will get higher as a few select individuals get huge astronomical wages.