[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-11/citadel-s...
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-11/citadel-s...
Meanwhile, the banking infrastructure you all seem to love so much continues to not be programmable, continues to have multi-day settlement delays even between your own accounts (that it takes multiple days to pay off my credit card is insane), and continues to be actively exploitative of people with lots of regressive fees with built-in traps that regularly screw over the most vulnerable of people. But somehow that is all ignorable when people want to complain about crypto.
Can't crypto just solve a problem for someone and we can be happy for that? Does it really have to be better at everything at once? This person said they were getting cheaper transfers: they were paying 1% instead of 3%. Isn't that good? Why is it somehow broken if it is done with a stable coin? If these banks you love so much are so smart, why is this person so happy using crypto? Put elsewise: why are they wrong for using crypto?
This is like someone saying "I love sandwiches: they let me hold my food while I am on the go" and someone with a sour face responding "I guess if you like unhealthy heavy food! I love my salads". And I say "they do make vegetable sandwiches: they are healthy and holdable!" and being pushed back with "this is the problem I have with this new sandwich movement: they are attempting to recreate everything from salads". I mean, come on :/. If your salads are so good, why can't I hold them? Oh right, because sometimes I need a sandwich.
No, you're misrepresenting long_time_gone's point. EUR, for example, is very stable without being tied to USD, and EUR/USD will almost never fluctuate by 10% within a single day. Fiat currencies tend to be very stable even when not tied to USD.
Non-tied cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile to pretty much all fiat currencies (and to most other non-tied cryptocurrencies), while most fiat currencies are comparatively stable to most other fiat currencies, without being tied to them.
The original poster complained about:
A) Crypto being too volatile B) Crypto recreating existing finance
Which seems to be a contradiction.
I think the original complaint was it's volatile, to which the solution was "well use this one tied to the dollar"... well what about the ones that aren't volatile and aren't tied to the dollar?
(They don't exist, which was the whole point)
The point was that each individual criticism of crypto (speed, instability, energy efficiency) brings a new solution which seemingly recreates an existing financial function or institution. This is the logical thing to do as it increases trust in crypto and speeds adoption. However, in the end, we have a crypto economy stabilized and supported by the exact institutions it was supposed to displace.
Imagine walking into Netflix and saying "you can't replace Blockbuster because you'll have to re-create all their existing infrastructure"
Centralization of wealth is a big problem.