Totally agree. Especially about #2, 3. (I assume #1 as well, but have no evidence beyond what I would expect to have happened given how I know they were develop

Totally agree. Especially about #2, 3. (I assume #1 as well, but have no evidence beyond what I would expect to have happened given how I know they were developed) These are features that run intentionally counter to modern economics. It is deflationary because strong currencies displace weak ones: Any individual person will want to hold value in a currency that's deflationary; they get greater value from it the longer they hold it. Is that good for the 'economy'? It's a matter of study. But it's the only thing out there that's deflationary (even gold is currently 2%/yr inflation by newly-mined metal). The fact that Etherium chose not to have this is a nod to the economic theories against deflationary currencies. It will help them with economists and politicians, but it works against them in adoption by individuals. And it works for everyone the exact same way regardless of circumstances. It makes no social judgements. It has no bias. It runs by the rules. Good people can use it for good things. Bad people can use it for bad things. Rich people. Poor people. Oppressed people. Free people. The fact that Etherium broke their own rules makes them flexible in adversity, but it also makes them untruthworthy. Sure a network could always vote to change the rules, but having a culture of doing so means eventually someone with real power (guns and politicians) will make you change it their way. While both those might help 'mainstream' adoption, mainstream already has money and electronic transfer systems. It'll be easier for them to fix the 3-day hold period with some new laws about 'you must trust X' than to literally move people off the dollar. Bitcoin is a direct and overt competitor with the world order of money. Etherium is in a tough middle ground; not quite getting the best of either.