I think your position is essentially at odds with parent. > Sure it does: moving gold and commodities between countries in non-mutually-friendly regimes, very

I think your position is essentially at odds with parent. > Sure it does: moving gold and commodities between countries in non-mutually-friendly regimes, very much resembles crypto. Parent is talking about a legal framework and yet your counter-example is a transaction between two jurisdictions/parties/legal entities that are in less-than-legal agreement with each other. Apples to oranges. Also, I'm quite certain you and parent interpret "the world" differently. You seem to interpret it in the sense of a pre-formalized economic framework society. Whereas parent (with whom I side with), use the term "the world" to refer to that sector of society with a codified economic framework. > Many crypto platforms also have the mechanisms within them to build fiat finance systems atop them. (The keyword to search here is "security tokens".) That might very well be the case but parent's argument is that our legal economic system is not purely algorithmic. Crypto might have features that are analogous to our current fiat systems but those features do not describe the whole fiat system; it misses some features (or "bugs", depending on how you look at it). To paraphrase parent's statement, having someone able to override transactions is a feature of our existing systems, for better and for worse. Conversely, a system without this arbitrator has pros and cons too. You pick your poison.