I feel like the author spent more time photoshopping Kevin Flynn graphics than determining if Tron is actually an appropriate or useful metaphor for this concept.
It feels like an example of Betteridge's law of headlines, despite not being a question.
Idk, the tron metaphor was a bit too cute for me, and there's a bit too much of a conspiratorial bent. Like sure, banks, government, and tech companies are incentivized towards increasing demand for digital payments, but each are motivated for different reasons, I highly doubt it's nearly as coordinated as described and born out of distaste towards average people, it's probably more on the logistics and around money velocity. It's also ahistorical to look at it as a uniquely contemporary development. Paper money itself derives from bank notes and goldsmith notes, the convenience of use drives demand for abstraction.
Digital money is not merely another natural and neutral abstraction.
I can't think of any valid reasons to pretend not to know that.
Well, that was hard to read. As far as I can see, Tron teaches us nothing about cashless society and the article doesn't even seem to be about cashless society. But I wasn't willing to wade through the extended metaphor to find out.
A more accurate title would be: private banks shenaningans explained through Tron.
Tron has really nothing to do with this topic
The Tron analogy is quite a stretch. It's only the dematerializing and rematerializing that fits, and since the character is never duplicated, even that isn't the best.
While the Tron metaphor is stretched about as far as it can go, I am both a massive fan of Tron (1982 not Legacy) and fairly illiterate when it comes to modern financial systems, so I appreciated this post.