Make fun of fraud or emissions or whatever if you want... but come on, there's an obvious use-case for owning your own money.
Can you elaborate how crypto solves this issue in an optimal way?
1. You can store cash, if you choose to. Way way way easier than Crypto. This should be the end of this argument but let's continue.
2. Can average citizen safely and reliably store crypto on their own anywhere nearly as easily and safely as cash? Otherwise, you're just at mercy of unregulated "exchanges" as opposed to "banks" and your power is even lower and the horror news stories even more plentiful.
3. Ultimately, crypto is a complicated technological stack that (and we will have a difference of opinions) government, if it sufficiently chooses to, can shut down and control. Crypto introduces a mind boggling chain of technical dependencies and gotchas and risks and dangers, which are super fun for us on HN to play with and argue about, but are a pit of snakes and spikes for most regular people (and just because somebody somewhere who's not technologically adept has used crypto successfully, that does not mean they were not exposed to massive risk; you can play Russian roulette and "win", it does not make it a good idea)
2. It is easier, it is safer. Way easier (again, almost no places accept cash for transactions due to AML, I know a guy who used to pay for his cars with briefcases of cash, he stopped being able to do that more than a decade ago...I am in the UK).
3. I used to agree with this point but actually shutting down a P2P network is going to be very tricky in practice. If one govt in the world decides it doesn't want to do this, it won't happen. Crypto is still a terrible customer experience for regular people: fees are unclear, you can put in the wrong address and the money is gone, etc. A lot of this can happen with bank transfers too though (and does, Citi accidentally wired someone $500m in 2020, iirc, and has been unable to get it back).
I come from a traditional finance background (and studied economic history, I did my thesis on monetary policy in the 60s so I am quite familiar with the limits on purchasing gold to prop up Bretton Woods). I was initially sceptical of crypto but, imo, it is a superior technology. Not for all transactions, for example some central banks have introduced instant bank transfers, but for some. And, in some cases, it will be a superior store of value. This is already happening in the place mentioned in the OP: the reason people are taking their money out of banks is crypto, holding cash does nothing for you because inflation is nearly 200% annually, you take it out and by next month your cash is worthless, your life savings wouldn't buy a loaf of bread.
Inflation is big and getting bigger. In Lebanon, it's sky high.
No.
1. Cash is bulky and if you need to store a non-trivial amount it quickly gets expensive (eg. installing safes). Crypto can be stored on a piece of paper, or in your head.
2. cash is treated unfavorably in various legal systems, from civil forfeiture (aka carrying a suspiciously large amount of cash) to outright bans on cash transactions over a certain size
3. crypto can be stored redundantly (ie. 2 of 3 multisig), cash can not.
>2. Can average citizen safely and reliably store crypto on their own anywhere nearly as easily and safely as cash?
If we compare like for like (ie. stuffing it under your mattress doesn't count), then I find the effort to train someone to use a 2 of 3 multisig software to be comparable to installing some sort of floor bolted safe.
In Vietnam, the largest bill is about $20, which increases the space storage requirements. Let's also remember that people need a safe place to store that cash.
> Way way way easier than Crypto.
Not true at all. Stablecoins, like USDT, are trivial to get and store in quantity.
> Can average citizen safely and reliably store crypto on their own anywhere nearly as easily and safely as cash?
App on a cell phone? Yes. I've travelled all over Vietnam and even in the most remote of remote places, people living in shacks by the side of the road, with no running water or bathrooms, they have 'smart' phones and inexpensive good coverage 4G.
There's also an obvious reason people don't do that. Money under the mattress - whether it's dollar bills or a hardware wallet - is vulnerable, too, and has minimal recourse when it's lost to carelessness or hostile action.
Governments seize crypto all the time. Exchanges pause withdrawals. Entire shitcoins collapse entirely. People lose their keys.
> leaving much of the population unable to pay for basic needs
I think the argument for crypto would make sense if everywhere accepted it, but I don't think it would be that useful if you need to exchange to fiat currency at volatile exchange rates to feed your family...
What makes you think your centralized crypto exchange would be any better in handling your "money" than your bank is? Why can't they freeze your money to respond to a fraud claim or government order just like a regular bank?
Definitely! But on a blockchain you don't own your money, the consensus does. The Ethereum split proved this.
do i own the house i bought? well, yes as long i keep paying property taxes.
what is ownership really and how much more/less does one own crypto vs. money in bank. is it quantity dependent? is it time sensitive?
there are no certainties in life, besides death and taxes.
Anyone who thinks these events are permanently in the past is ignoring the lessons of history.
I personally place the long term value of all current crypto coins at 0$. Risk makes them a poor medium of exchange for the average person, and new investors eventually want to have positive returns on their investments.
Crypto is not any more "controlled by math" than french fries are "controlled by chemistry". I hate everything about crypto but this is by far the cringiest talking point; probably because I'm a mathematician.
Can you please elaborate? :)
My initial reaction is a massive groan at the seamlessly meaningless platitude, but that's unfair. Maybe you were in a rush, on the phone, and there's a cogent argument that I'd be eager to hear out.
Edit: To elaborate: both "Controlled by violence" and "Controlled by math" I view as summarized and abstracted way beyond point of sheer uselessness; and only used to propagate a particular point of view. That point of view may be accurate or not, I may agree with it or not, but it does not include useful data or conduct a honest discussion. There's a lot of math involved in fiat money from central banks. There's nothing in crypto that may prevent or shield from violence. Individuals certainly earn money/wealth/value in certain way and their storage medium of choice cannot be summarized in such simple ways. And "Controlled by math" is massively misleading - at best, at best, we can say it has some origins in math. But it certainly is not controlled by math - it is ultimately controlled by people and institutions.
You've obviously never fired an automatic weapon in a data center.
https://saifedean.com/podcast/bitcoin-in-lebanon-with-thomas...
Article explaining the p2p money changers in Lebanon that use crypto
https://restofworld.org/2021/the-cryptocurrency-dons-of-beir...
mainly because cryptos are not really backed by anything. and anything that is backed will be so heavily regulated as to be a government cbdc. and you're back to square one. already usdc and usdt can be frozen in your wallet.
In addition governments can simply outlaw your money and then it will be worthless for important things like buying houses, cars, food, water, electricity.