4 ms·

Huh? Money, currency -- these aren't market goods, they're exclusive mandates established by sovereign states. You don't get to decide which money you want to u

Huh? Money, currency -- these aren't market goods, they're exclusive mandates established by sovereign states. You don't get to decide which money you want to use, it's a function of the government of wherever you happen to be. Bitcoin isn't a currency. NFTs aren't money.

__MatrixMan__ 5y ago
If you anticipate that whatever government mandates your money will still be around when you retire, then you're not living during (what I'm claiming is) the endgame of NFT's.
- preseinger 5y ago
  I'm so confused by what you're saying. > money has value because we choose to value it Yes, in a broad sense. > and fungible tokens often don't give you enough information to adequately make that choice If by "fungible tokens" you mean things like fiat dollars or crypto bitcoins, then this is a nonsensical statement. The "we choose" of the prior clause isn't an individual choice, it's a collective choice expressed via government. > which means that nonfungible tokens have a bigger part to play than their current form would indicate This doesn't follow at all. -- > the endgame of NFT's What is the endgame of NFTs? It seems like you're speculating about a post-scarcity society? But in that scenario there would be no reason for any money, fungible or non-fungible, to exist at all. Money is an abstraction, a time-tested mechanism for economic exchange and growth. And the purpose of economics is to _manage scarcity_. If you remove scarcity then economics, money, bitcoins, NFTs, they all have no reason to exist and disappear. -- > If you anticipate that whatever government mandates your money will still be around when you retire Yes. Obviously this is true. China and the yuan, Russia and the ruble, Europe and the euro, America and the dollar, they will all be around, in one form or another, when I retire. And when you retire. And when my children retire. And their children. Sovereign states are the evolutionary output of humanity's effort, over all history, to achieve peace, growth, and stability. They're not problems waiting to be disrupted. They're solutions that we as a species have arrived at, after enormous toil and suffering.
  - __MatrixMan__ 5y ago
    I'm speculating about a state that's pre-post-scarcity (at least for most things humans want, there will always be scarcity somewhere) by maybe about 50 years. It's not like you're going to be able to just wave a magic wand and poof the scarcity away. We'll have the capacity to provide what people need, and that day will come and go long before somebody actually authors the commit that makes it happen. That author is going to need a sense of security that everything is going to be ok if they just start giving everything away for free. I'm open to hearing alternatives, but the best I can come up with is a system where we allocate whatever resources remain scarce based on merit. Not merit like whoever manages to wrest more money from whoever else wins, but merit like wow that's a really great contribution to society--I personally value what you've done, so I'm going to behave in a way that benefits you. A generation that grows up thinking along those lines just as often as they think in terms of market clearing price is more likely to produce the magical commit that redirects the robots from competition to cooperation, and fungibility just doesn't fit that use case very well. -- In the more immediate term, I wish that I shared your optimism about the stability of sovereign states. I'm not saying that we should disrupt the government, I'm saying that the government is doing a fine job of disrupting itself and I wish we had some kind of backup system in place.
    - preseinger 5y ago
      Eliminating scarcity requires unlimited and easily accessible resources i.e. energy. We are hundreds to thousands of years away from this point. You are otherwise describing a barter meritocracy, which is dystopian :(
      - __MatrixMan__ 5y ago
        It strikes me as rather utopian compared with: > The "we choose" of the prior clause isn't an individual choice, it's a collective choice expressed via government. But I guess it's ok that we disagree about which modes of exchange are desirable, the world is probably big enough for both :)
        5y ago

__MatrixMan__ 5y ago

If you anticipate that whatever government mandates your money will still be around when you retire, then you're not living during (what I'm claiming is) the endgame of NFT's.

preseinger 5y ago
I'm so confused by what you're saying. > money has value because we choose to value it Yes, in a broad sense. > and fungible tokens often don't give you enough information to adequately make that choice If by "fungible tokens" you mean things like fiat dollars or crypto bitcoins, then this is a nonsensical statement. The "we choose" of the prior clause isn't an individual choice, it's a collective choice expressed via government. > which means that nonfungible tokens have a bigger part to play than their current form would indicate This doesn't follow at all. -- > the endgame of NFT's What is the endgame of NFTs? It seems like you're speculating about a post-scarcity society? But in that scenario there would be no reason for any money, fungible or non-fungible, to exist at all. Money is an abstraction, a time-tested mechanism for economic exchange and growth. And the purpose of economics is to _manage scarcity_. If you remove scarcity then economics, money, bitcoins, NFTs, they all have no reason to exist and disappear. -- > If you anticipate that whatever government mandates your money will still be around when you retire Yes. Obviously this is true. China and the yuan, Russia and the ruble, Europe and the euro, America and the dollar, they will all be around, in one form or another, when I retire. And when you retire. And when my children retire. And their children. Sovereign states are the evolutionary output of humanity's effort, over all history, to achieve peace, growth, and stability. They're not problems waiting to be disrupted. They're solutions that we as a species have arrived at, after enormous toil and suffering.
- __MatrixMan__ 5y ago
  I'm speculating about a state that's pre-post-scarcity (at least for most things humans want, there will always be scarcity somewhere) by maybe about 50 years. It's not like you're going to be able to just wave a magic wand and poof the scarcity away. We'll have the capacity to provide what people need, and that day will come and go long before somebody actually authors the commit that makes it happen. That author is going to need a sense of security that everything is going to be ok if they just start giving everything away for free. I'm open to hearing alternatives, but the best I can come up with is a system where we allocate whatever resources remain scarce based on merit. Not merit like whoever manages to wrest more money from whoever else wins, but merit like wow that's a really great contribution to society--I personally value what you've done, so I'm going to behave in a way that benefits you. A generation that grows up thinking along those lines just as often as they think in terms of market clearing price is more likely to produce the magical commit that redirects the robots from competition to cooperation, and fungibility just doesn't fit that use case very well. -- In the more immediate term, I wish that I shared your optimism about the stability of sovereign states. I'm not saying that we should disrupt the government, I'm saying that the government is doing a fine job of disrupting itself and I wish we had some kind of backup system in place.
  - preseinger 5y ago
    Eliminating scarcity requires unlimited and easily accessible resources i.e. energy. We are hundreds to thousands of years away from this point. You are otherwise describing a barter meritocracy, which is dystopian :(
    - __MatrixMan__ 5y ago
      It strikes me as rather utopian compared with: > The "we choose" of the prior clause isn't an individual choice, it's a collective choice expressed via government. But I guess it's ok that we disagree about which modes of exchange are desirable, the world is probably big enough for both :)
      - 5y ago