HN hates crypto because the people making the most money are charismatic and risk-takers, which is the antithetical to the corporate engineer personality
HN also tends to hate conventional fiat currency based financial capitalism for the same reason.
Like the calculus, the crypto banks will unleash their ideas and vanish leaving only what is understood good and true.
Also, crypto currencies are not decentralized. The developers can issue however many coins they want, and give themselves as much of that as they want. I believe we will see this with Bitcoin at some point. At least when a democratic government controls a currency, the people have some sort of control in that process (by voting politicians out if they do corrupt things).
That is true for most people as playing a full game of economic chess with real stakes against a strong opponent that is the market during every purchase is really hard, but I think in general that's absolutely not a requirement. E.g. the entities who can do that will.
What makes you think so? I am not bolstering around unlike your "I understand the Chord protocol ... far better than you understand currencies" or your original "You wrote a lot of words to not say anything at all". Look in the mirror much?
> When currencies are unstable, A. This is why currencies need to be relatively stable.
Where A is essentially "some participants can not function". Which is exactly what I said. Except my point was for you to consider what entities can possibly function in the situation of unstable currencies (including in principle), and if such entities already exist, how viable is the economy of such entities.
On the highest level, volatility is just a rate of change, so if you change the time scale what was volatile suddenly does not look volatile anymore.
SBF was worth $100 billion for a while there - guess that makes him the sexiest most charismatic risk-taker out there.