> Whereas it takes a shitload of money to obtain money transmitter licenses in the USA to operate in every state, it’s trivial to accept huge amounts of money

> Whereas it takes a shitload of money to obtain money transmitter licenses in the USA to operate in every state, it’s trivial to accept huge amounts of money across state and international borders once you create a cryptocurrency wallet. There's an implication here I think gets missed when discussing the political implications of cryptocurrency (as opposed to just the technology part). People spend a lot of time arguing over whether cryptocurrencies can truly keep free of states, but that has the implicit argument that this would make for more a more just or free system, and I don't think this is a well-grounded assumption. Who benefits from crypto? To the portion I quoted, people who want to move large amounts of money. But if you already have large amounts of money, you're already in a position of a fair amount of privilege and power. If you're someone who does NOT have a large amount of money, crypto isn't going to usher in a world where wealth is more evenly distributed. It's just as likely to do the opposite. Now those who already have a lot can save on the hassle and expense of having to actually lobby and corrupt state institutions, keeping more of their wealth with no gain for the rest of us. There's plenty of legitimate criticism to be made of the failures of the state to truly defend and advocat for the interests of all its citizens, but I'm very skeptical that a a technology that empowers people with lots of wealth to move it around with less friction is really a net gain for humanity.