Bitcoin (and all block hain ‘crypto’ stuff) is endlessly fascinating to me. Perhaps part of what drives it is the same thing that keeps us staring at a kaleidoscope, or us politics. Tfa suggests...
Bitcoin (and all block hain ‘crypto’ stuff) is endlessly fascinating to me. Perhaps part of what drives it is the same thing that keeps us staring at a kaleidoscope, or us politics.
Tfa suggests one possible net socially beneficial use is transferring money out of bad places. Unfortunately, there still has to be an exchange, which will probably be highly unfairly costly in a bad place.
It does feel like there is real power in a distributed ledger. I just don’t know what it is, and haven’t heard anyone share what that might be (not counting illegal transactions. Huge and obvious value there).
Maybe not, but I would guess that being able to transfer money out could help someone escape a bad place, or give them more options to make it bearable.
Maybe not, but I would guess that being able to transfer money out could help someone escape a bad place, or give them more options to make it bearable.
When I first read the article I originally looked for a positive in how funneling money out of a bad regime could happen, but then I started to realize the most likely people capable of doing so...
When I first read the article I originally looked for a positive in how funneling money out of a bad regime could happen, but then I started to realize the most likely people capable of doing so would be affluent/corrupt individuals, and it would likely be done to escape a collapsing country.
Then I started to wonder about the US and if it could eventually fall into what the article considers “citizens moving money out of authoritarian regimes”. I remembered that the US is one of only 3 countries in the world to tax it’s citizens abroad, and that the biggest crossover with crypto-bros is either tech-bros or finance-bros (both with large enough wealth to be concerned with moving residence tax-free). Seems like the only part the US is missing is the authoritarian state, and it feels like that gap will get resolved in a couple years. I fear my “affluent/corrupt individuals in a collapsing country” assessment remains a little too spot on. (I welcome anyone to refute my doomerism with a realistic, positive method for others shifting money out of a country through crypto. Remittance seems like a pipe dream at this point.)
I was an early Bitcoin proponent (bought my first before it was $10USD), I naively believed in its power to change the world and disseminate power back to the people. I assumed it would continue to evolve and address its fundamental issues. I’ve been proven wrong time and time again. Earlier this year I even had a physical trainer trying to sell me on SafeMoon a few days before it crashed…I felt like Joe Kennedy Sr. getting stock tips from his shoeshine boy. At this point I think crypto has become a victim of its own greed and the only thing that will reduce its value to zero will be a societal collapse (which if you couldn’t tell from my post, I think we’re all going to see sooner than later).
Bitcoin (and all block hain ‘crypto’ stuff) is endlessly fascinating to me. Perhaps part of what drives it is the same thing that keeps us staring at a kaleidoscope, or us politics.
Tfa suggests one possible net socially beneficial use is transferring money out of bad places. Unfortunately, there still has to be an exchange, which will probably be highly unfairly costly in a bad place.
It does feel like there is real power in a distributed ledger. I just don’t know what it is, and haven’t heard anyone share what that might be (not counting illegal transactions. Huge and obvious value there).
Here’s hoping…
Is that even a good thing? Will these bad places become less bad by transferring money out of them?
Maybe not, but I would guess that being able to transfer money out could help someone escape a bad place, or give them more options to make it bearable.
When I first read the article I originally looked for a positive in how funneling money out of a bad regime could happen, but then I started to realize the most likely people capable of doing so would be affluent/corrupt individuals, and it would likely be done to escape a collapsing country.
Then I started to wonder about the US and if it could eventually fall into what the article considers “citizens moving money out of authoritarian regimes”. I remembered that the US is one of only 3 countries in the world to tax it’s citizens abroad, and that the biggest crossover with crypto-bros is either tech-bros or finance-bros (both with large enough wealth to be concerned with moving residence tax-free). Seems like the only part the US is missing is the authoritarian state, and it feels like that gap will get resolved in a couple years. I fear my “affluent/corrupt individuals in a collapsing country” assessment remains a little too spot on. (I welcome anyone to refute my doomerism with a realistic, positive method for others shifting money out of a country through crypto. Remittance seems like a pipe dream at this point.)
I was an early Bitcoin proponent (bought my first before it was $10USD), I naively believed in its power to change the world and disseminate power back to the people. I assumed it would continue to evolve and address its fundamental issues. I’ve been proven wrong time and time again. Earlier this year I even had a physical trainer trying to sell me on SafeMoon a few days before it crashed…I felt like Joe Kennedy Sr. getting stock tips from his shoeshine boy. At this point I think crypto has become a victim of its own greed and the only thing that will reduce its value to zero will be a societal collapse (which if you couldn’t tell from my post, I think we’re all going to see sooner than later).