4 ms·
I think even crypto-skeptics can see the utility of crypto in situations where people do not have access to functioning banking system. But I think the most us
by thrwy_918 5y ago
I think even crypto-skeptics can see the utility of crypto in situations where people do not have access to functioning banking system.
But I think the most useful type of crypto in such a situation would be something like a decentralized version of a "stable" coin like tether or USDC, rather than a speculative asset like more classic crypto coins. People in dire straits want to transact trustlessly or move their wealth to a safe jurisdiction, they don't want to speculate on the value of a volatile asset.
The issue is, I can't really see how a decentralized stablecoin could exist.
- tablespoon 5y ago> I think even crypto-skeptics can see the utility of crypto in situations where people do not have access to functioning banking system. In this case, the Ukrainian government does have access to the banking system. It sounds like this guy is just managing once channel of cryptocurrency donations, which I'm sure isn't their largest channel of financial support. The headline here is pretty misleading, because it makes it seem like cryptocurrency is doing something special. And the problem with your general sentiment is that cryptocurrency requires access to quite advanced technical infrastructure (on a personal and civil level), which in many situations is contraindicated by "not having access to functioning banking system." The main use of cryptocurrency is in this crisis is probably for Russian oligarchs to avoid sanctions.
- bb88 5y ago> I think even crypto-skeptics can see the utility of crypto No. Electronic payments based in a stable country, yes, but that doesn't have to be crypto blockchain speculative shit that passes as a fiat alternative today. And the stablecoins so far aren't. If anything, they're the ripest area for corruption in the crypto network today.