3 ms·

> I have serious trouble seeing how “collective agreements” has any intrinsic value. Then you probably don’t see value in any form of cryptocurrency. I do, bec

by axg11 4y ago

> I have serious trouble seeing how “collective agreements” has any intrinsic value. Then you probably don’t see value in any form of cryptocurrency. I do, because I think collective agreements are at the heart of how society functions. Fiat money is a collective agreement that works by the backing and enforcement of a central entity (government). It’s at least interesting to me to experiment with a collective agreement that does not have to be backed or enforced by a central entity (bitcoin).

lallysingh 4y ago
I'm not arguing against crypto here. I do want to argue the semantics of fiat: they're issued by the civilian arms of militaries, called governments. They control land and resources and will defend or invade to sustain themselves. How collective agreements compare against them is an interesting question of modern economics vs history.
arinlen 4y ago
> Then you probably don’t see value in any form of cryptocurrency. I do, because I think collective agreements are at the heart of how society functions. Fiat money is a collective agreement that works by the backing and enforcement of a central entity (government). It’s at least interesting to me to experiment with a collective agreement that does not have to be backed or enforced by a central entity (bitcoin). The main problem with crypto is that it does not work like that. Society demands way more than mere vague "collective agreements" in order to function. Society relies on debt transfers that preserve value between transactions. It expects value to be stored and also stable and reliable enough in order to enable deferred payments. Crypto provides none of that. Worse,crypto proponents explicitly praise crypto's inability to remain stable even in the short term, which manifests itself through an expectation of ever increasing price. You simply cannot portray something as being a kind of money and at the same time praise it for it's "get rich quick scheme" nature.

by axg11 4y ago

lallysingh 4y ago

I'm not arguing against crypto here. I do want to argue the semantics of fiat: they're issued by the civilian arms of militaries, called governments. They control land and resources and will defend or invade to sustain themselves. How collective agreements compare against them is an interesting question of modern economics vs history.

arinlen 4y ago

> Then you probably don’t see value in any form of cryptocurrency. I do, because I think collective agreements are at the heart of how society functions. Fiat money is a collective agreement that works by the backing and enforcement of a central entity (government). It’s at least interesting to me to experiment with a collective agreement that does not have to be backed or enforced by a central entity (bitcoin). The main problem with crypto is that it does not work like that. Society demands way more than mere vague "collective agreements" in order to function. Society relies on debt transfers that preserve value between transactions. It expects value to be stored and also stable and reliable enough in order to enable deferred payments. Crypto provides none of that. Worse,crypto proponents explicitly praise crypto's inability to remain stable even in the short term, which manifests itself through an expectation of ever increasing price. You simply cannot portray something as being a kind of money and at the same time praise it for it's "get rich quick scheme" nature.