Thanks for helping me understand better the crypto-currency world. I'd like to ask some fundamental questions, extending some you've raised, and look at the baseline of assumptions on which crypto-currencies rest:
1. The system is malevolent. I fully agree with that, as you've said. Why do we accept it and then try to figure out ways that we can individually get around it rather than changing it for everyone?
2. Money should be able to take the products of other people's labor with no relationship.
3. Governments create money, which should be created by private individuals. This is exactly opposite the reality. Governments do NOT create money, only private individuals who are called bankers.
4. Decentralizing money creation among many unaccountable private individuals is good for producers of actual goods, food and energy.
5. Money is legalized theft. As long as we're in on the theft, that makes it fair for us.
One could argue these are very harsh observations. I would point out that I think many if not most of the participants are genuinely naive about how complicated matters can be. I've certainly learned a lot from Mathew about how markets can be manipulated by whales in ways that are very hard to understand as someone who hasn't done trading for a living...
I would go as far as to say that those are the stated assumptions by *revealed preferences* but not by their own deliberate choices. Of course, the more one "should know better" the harder I am on them. But I am genuinely concerned that the wool has been put over many people's eyes, which is why I took the time to lay this out as comprehensively as I could.
But, it would be wrong to say that these base assumptions are not all-pervasive in the cryptocurrency ecosystem. Like politics, there are incredibly varied approaches and priority sets that are often at odds with each other and sometimes even themselves. Of all those assumptions, #5 is the one I'm most concerned about, because it crosses the line from possible ignorance to deliberate action.
But I get it, investing all your time into particular skills and having bills to pay can put people in very sub-optimal positions. I would be lying if I pretended I haven't had moments where I ask "What's wrong with me? Why can't I just go along to get along" but if I was like that I wouldn't be here...
One of the things I'm still chewing on is that there were a few attempts to create mutual credit systems on top of cryptocurrencies. They were inefficient and over-engineered, but there was real potential. But again, there are many "collective action problems" in the way of making meaningful progress. Which is why I think it's so hard for people, including myself to admit that nothing really moves forward until we address... governance issues.
But I'm still very much in favor of incremental progress. I'd rather spend my time figuring out what would work well than having no ideas when opportunity strikes. One of my goals this year is to build a few meaningful technical projects that aren't really game-changers on their own, but demonstrating the power of building for radically different paradigms absolutely can be. I'm hoping to be able to make that happen!
Edit: Forgot to elaborate on the fact that people have been mis-educated on these matters inside and outside the mainstream which complicates earnest people from seeing things as they are, rather than they are sold to be. Which is the main reason why I think many people are genuinely fooled rather than malicious.
Oh I'm sorry, Gabe, I didn't preface that well. I didn't mean that the cryptocurrency system is malevolent, I meant the system overall--governance, money, etc. Crypto doesn't really challenge that malevolence, as I thought you said before. It looks more at ways to keep an individual safe from it. Good as a short-term fix, perhaps, but not a solution.
If the system wasn't malevolent, would privacy matter? Privacy from whom? If you get rid of taxes for P2P exchanges, would you then need privacy? Especially if disclosure meant it was legally tax-exempt?
I do find that people in the crypto world think the problem of inflation is governments printing money, and that money creation should be in private hands. None of them are looking at (local) gov'ts issuing money as the solution. So I keep putting in my three cents (due to inflation, as Tonika says) for a commonwealth caret. It's mutual credit that's funded by housing.
I really have to publish something to flesh it all out, but I actually think blockchain is a dead end for distributed computing. I mentioned elsewhere that "Spritely Goblins" is an interesting technique that will likely yield more success in that area.
My 'tinfoil take' was that aside from being free development for CBDC UX, web3 largely operated as experimentation to see if they could 'eliminate the middleman' of big tech. In my opinion, this is why were are seeing big tech giants try to walk the tightrope of earning back trust, but also displaying their fealty to the regime.
Thank you for your informed thoughts on Zano, and the problems with the crypto space. As one of the few objective and honest participants (and critics) that I know of in this realm, do you have particular concerns about Cardano and Hbar? They are two coins that seem to have legitimate roles, and are therefore attractive to me.
I remember the name Hbar, but nothing about it. I'd have to take another look at it.
Personally, I've always found Cardano (by design) to be to "chummy" with institutions in all the wrong ways. Whitney Webb has some harsh words to say about it (https://x.com/_whitneywebb/status/1775583380777607224) In many ways that's what gives it ground to actually succeed as a 'legitimate enterprise'. (To say nothing of the tokenomics of either assets)
Currently, I'm a lot more interested in the future of distributed computing with novel new techniques like "Spritely Goblins" and other cutting edge research projects.
Thanks for helping me understand better the crypto-currency world. I'd like to ask some fundamental questions, extending some you've raised, and look at the baseline of assumptions on which crypto-currencies rest:
1. The system is malevolent. I fully agree with that, as you've said. Why do we accept it and then try to figure out ways that we can individually get around it rather than changing it for everyone?
2. Money should be able to take the products of other people's labor with no relationship.
3. Governments create money, which should be created by private individuals. This is exactly opposite the reality. Governments do NOT create money, only private individuals who are called bankers.
4. Decentralizing money creation among many unaccountable private individuals is good for producers of actual goods, food and energy.
5. Money is legalized theft. As long as we're in on the theft, that makes it fair for us.
Your thoughts?
One could argue these are very harsh observations. I would point out that I think many if not most of the participants are genuinely naive about how complicated matters can be. I've certainly learned a lot from Mathew about how markets can be manipulated by whales in ways that are very hard to understand as someone who hasn't done trading for a living...
I would go as far as to say that those are the stated assumptions by *revealed preferences* but not by their own deliberate choices. Of course, the more one "should know better" the harder I am on them. But I am genuinely concerned that the wool has been put over many people's eyes, which is why I took the time to lay this out as comprehensively as I could.
But, it would be wrong to say that these base assumptions are not all-pervasive in the cryptocurrency ecosystem. Like politics, there are incredibly varied approaches and priority sets that are often at odds with each other and sometimes even themselves. Of all those assumptions, #5 is the one I'm most concerned about, because it crosses the line from possible ignorance to deliberate action.
But I get it, investing all your time into particular skills and having bills to pay can put people in very sub-optimal positions. I would be lying if I pretended I haven't had moments where I ask "What's wrong with me? Why can't I just go along to get along" but if I was like that I wouldn't be here...
One of the things I'm still chewing on is that there were a few attempts to create mutual credit systems on top of cryptocurrencies. They were inefficient and over-engineered, but there was real potential. But again, there are many "collective action problems" in the way of making meaningful progress. Which is why I think it's so hard for people, including myself to admit that nothing really moves forward until we address... governance issues.
But I'm still very much in favor of incremental progress. I'd rather spend my time figuring out what would work well than having no ideas when opportunity strikes. One of my goals this year is to build a few meaningful technical projects that aren't really game-changers on their own, but demonstrating the power of building for radically different paradigms absolutely can be. I'm hoping to be able to make that happen!
Edit: Forgot to elaborate on the fact that people have been mis-educated on these matters inside and outside the mainstream which complicates earnest people from seeing things as they are, rather than they are sold to be. Which is the main reason why I think many people are genuinely fooled rather than malicious.
Oh I'm sorry, Gabe, I didn't preface that well. I didn't mean that the cryptocurrency system is malevolent, I meant the system overall--governance, money, etc. Crypto doesn't really challenge that malevolence, as I thought you said before. It looks more at ways to keep an individual safe from it. Good as a short-term fix, perhaps, but not a solution.
If the system wasn't malevolent, would privacy matter? Privacy from whom? If you get rid of taxes for P2P exchanges, would you then need privacy? Especially if disclosure meant it was legally tax-exempt?
I do find that people in the crypto world think the problem of inflation is governments printing money, and that money creation should be in private hands. None of them are looking at (local) gov'ts issuing money as the solution. So I keep putting in my three cents (due to inflation, as Tonika says) for a commonwealth caret. It's mutual credit that's funded by housing.
Great work here Gabriel. You raise some very pertinent points.
Have you looked at ICP (Internet Computer Protocol) at all?
Looks like a promising concept at first glance and very much inline with your online sovereignty concept.
https://internetcomputer.org/node-providers
I really have to publish something to flesh it all out, but I actually think blockchain is a dead end for distributed computing. I mentioned elsewhere that "Spritely Goblins" is an interesting technique that will likely yield more success in that area.
My 'tinfoil take' was that aside from being free development for CBDC UX, web3 largely operated as experimentation to see if they could 'eliminate the middleman' of big tech. In my opinion, this is why were are seeing big tech giants try to walk the tightrope of earning back trust, but also displaying their fealty to the regime.
If you want a whitepill, you should wrap your head about Reticulum. I think once it matures it's going to be the way to go! (https://media.ccc.de/v/38c3-reticulum-unstoppable-networks-for-the-people)
Other media on my docs page https://gabe.rocks/docs/#/page/reticulum
"For the vast majority of people their real weak-points are employment and ability to pay for necessities."
This statement needs to slap people in the face a lot more before it becomes reality and stomps on their throats.
Thank you for your informed thoughts on Zano, and the problems with the crypto space. As one of the few objective and honest participants (and critics) that I know of in this realm, do you have particular concerns about Cardano and Hbar? They are two coins that seem to have legitimate roles, and are therefore attractive to me.
I appreciate your kind words!
I remember the name Hbar, but nothing about it. I'd have to take another look at it.
Personally, I've always found Cardano (by design) to be to "chummy" with institutions in all the wrong ways. Whitney Webb has some harsh words to say about it (https://x.com/_whitneywebb/status/1775583380777607224) In many ways that's what gives it ground to actually succeed as a 'legitimate enterprise'. (To say nothing of the tokenomics of either assets)
Currently, I'm a lot more interested in the future of distributed computing with novel new techniques like "Spritely Goblins" and other cutting edge research projects.