Good points about wireless. You're definitely right in principle, the problem is "solved" . I guess we'll just have to wait and see if the micropayments approach ends up being more efficient in practice.
The reason I think it will is that in a world with _n_ wireless providers that are set up to provide handsets, sim cards, marketing, account management, and billing, and _m_ network operators that only handle things like towers and cables, you need n*m roaming relationships and many many employees to keep them all straight.
I used to work for one of the first sort, and would occasionally get calls from customers in Minnesota who lived so close to the border that they accidentally connected to Canadian towers from time to time. We'd go through their bill and provide a credit to offset the charge since it wasn't fair to force them to pay for international roaming unless they truly traveled to that country--even if their service did.
It's that sort of retrospective debt juggling (and the overhead of maintaining custom infrastructure for it) that goes away if you just use an open source protocol to pay at the time of services rendered.
One thing I can't quite put my finger on is coming up with a quantitative answer to how high the cost of doing business in USD is.
Even if you're not a fan of these examples, we can probably agree that somewhere out there is a company that has inserted itself between supply and demand (maybe it did something helpful once), and by doing so slowed things down, and now it only justifies it's existence by mitigating the problems caused by it's inclusion in the system in the first place.
Sure, this usually involves fees of some sort, but it seems to me that the real cost isn't in dollars lost to transaction fees but instead in an overall increase in... Financial friction? Dollars and cents are a fiction, but there are real problems out there that need to be solved and we've accumulated so many reasons to resign ourselves to solving half of them and at half pace. Not sure how to put a number on that.
> I just hope the practices that come with switching to a token don't have even worse downsides.
I like the sentiment, but I'm gonna nitpick this statement for a moment.
We're already using a token, it's the USD. It has a fragmented ecosystem of competing API's (debit, credit, ach, wire, cash) most of which require you to pay for access to and none of which rely on modern cryptographic techniques to protect privacy and prevent fraud.
There certainly will be downsides to switching to any of the cryptocurrency tokens available today, but the thing that they all have that the dollar doesn't is an open API. The friction of switching from USD to BTC is high, but the friction of switching to from BTC to ADA or IOTA (or whatever token provides the right set of features for whatever the application is) is much lower.
It's like going from cable TV, where you have to deal with what they give you, to web-based content, where netflix and amazon and hulu and disney compete to be the one that makes you happiest.
I'm not arguing for one token over another, I'm arguing for competition among them. Who knows? Maybe if the USD has to compete for it's position it'll shape up.
And you're definitely right about the terrifying responsibility that a world without middleman-arbiters is going to face. We've got a lot of learning to do re: how to responsibly handle those sorts of problems, but it really looks like the alternative to accepting that challenge is stagnation and parasitism.