Crypto and Other New Faiths
arnoldkling.substack.com
arnoldkling.substack.com
Sigh. You know what’s also possible? Put 5% of your savings into Bitcoin and then continue to live your normal life.
But other than that, putting 5% rather than betting your entire life on it still suggests some sort of expectation that this might actually be good for something -- unless you're the rare person who actually spends significant amounts of money mostly at random.
If by chance you are, then the conversation isn't really about you. You're just allocating a percentage to a dice throw without any other reasoning, hoping it might actually bring profit by pure chance.
Do you feel the same about stocks?
There has to be people out there whose entire reasoning for buying a stock is "I have no clue what this company does or why this is valuable, but a whole bunch of people are talking about it, so maybe they're onto something, so I'll throw some disposable income at it just in case".
His ancestors smart trick was to fence across a peninsula.
Crypto is attractive because it has a lot of hype that make people think that it may be a viable way to get a first mover advantage and stake a claim on easy wealth. This thinking is IMO, stemming from the inequality that is present in modern society. Remember all those bankers that went to jail forever for the 2008 crash. Me neither.
It is easy to say, comparison is the thief of joy. But it's hard to ignore every single media source gaslighting you about the simple ability of others to live great lives whilst your lift may not be so flash hot.
Crypto is like a lottery ticket for a lot of people.
Do I understand correctly that you (saying either/or) feel it's a binary choice?
Because I definitely disagree, there's a multitude of reasons why people buy crypto, and there's also a lot of variety in the measure in which they buy.
So if we agree on that (I know, big IF), can we get past the "religion" argument and label these people correctly as "gamblers"?
Ok, then say it! And explain how those institutions will be better served by crypto than what they currently use.
What problem does crypto really solve?
On the serious side, Bitcoin is all about "let's all agree this is money". This means it's a useful tool only after you play the social game. Technology does not matter if people don't get to a consensus on it, but when they do (and they seem to continuously re-enforce this consensus over years), it works better and better.
This isn't a guarantee that it will be used well, but at least a base mention of the new thing they are looking at and the ways in which it could work need to be discussed.
How so?
To think otherwise would be to assume that the entities that handle money have our best interests in mind and aren't essentially "skimming off the top," but of course, that's what they're doing.
Now, again, I'm aware that the big factor is "adoption and practicality" and switching to something like that means overcoming a great deal of inertia. But the theoretical possibilities mean something.
To paraphrase - tokenbros frame their invention as kitchen knives, sure some people are killing others with kitchen knives, but that's the rounding error compared to the legitimate usage. On the other hand, in my personal opinion, tokens are closer to nukes or bioweapons, than to kitchen knives. Sure, libertarians may argue that if every single person a on planet would be armed with an athrax throwing gun we would be very independent and free. But in reality of course power would quickly coalesce in the hand of neofeudal lords, and humanity will quickly degrade instead of improving. Weapon analogy is about financial impact. Sure, if every person could send any amount of money anywhere without any questions, then at first we will thing it's great. I personally could benefit from it too. But in reality billionaries operating outside of the law (remember - tokes provide equal access) will screw us a lot more, than the benefits gained from a few undeclared and untaxed private transactions.
The margins are a good question: Would crypto, on balance, centralize or decentralize money more? Again, it's a technology who's very purpose is to decentralize, and it's not unreasonable to bet in that direction.
I'd think it would likely be parallel to, e.g. "video content" and "the internet." Very true that it wasn't linear, and that right now the big centralizers are coming back strong with streaming services, and that there's still Youtube that's mostly not decentralized -- but across the board -- that's a WAY different and MUCH MORE decentralized world than the one before, where literally a television station was your only option.
There is also a small but vocal pro-crypto contingent here. Both sides are represented. What more could you want?
> the most successful people in the world
LOL thanks for the laugh, this is peak HN right here