6 ms·

We should use reverse psychology, we should offer crypto-bros to run the entire globalfinancial system via the exchanges and faulty dapps they have built to rug

We should use reverse psychology, we should offer crypto-bros to run the entire globalfinancial system via the exchanges and faulty dapps they have built to rug people. With the condition that if one is hacked or malfunctions the responsible crypto-bro would face life in jail. Let's see how many accept

toolz 4y ago
We might not even need cryptocurrency if we were capable of keeping the financial sector honest. Remind me again how many people went to prison after the market crash of 2008?
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  From the outside, a lot of cryptocurrency seems like an attempt to extend this kind of immunity from consequences to smaller scammers. Where's the improvement here exactly?
  - toolz 4y ago
    A financial system built on top of transparent and trustless components is opt-in. That means that if all my currency is based on trustless structure I can be responsible for my currency and when it's transparent I can be more aware of how the fungible units of my currency are being used in the wider ecosystem. As it stands, private banks (the fed) have not only the ability to manipulate my currency, they are actively encouraged to do so. Sure you can build scams and call it cryptocurrency in similar ways you can scam people in fiat. I'm certainly not claiming crypto solves all problems, only that it provides a solid foundation for society to build a better financial structure on top. That improved foundation does not mean society will build stronger on top of it, it just means that it gives us the ability to do so if we choose to do so. I don't believe it's possible to have equality in our money without rules that apply to everyone. Crypto can apply rules to everyone, equally. Compared to our financial institutions today that are very much tier privilege controlled by the government, which appears to have strong malicious influence from the largest stake-holders in our current financial institutions. I don't believe it's mere coincidence that wealth distribution is becoming dangerously unequal, I believe that is a direct consequence of our financial system.
VoodooJuJu 4y ago
This is how banks and the economy should be run. Lose our money, lose your head. Skin in the game solves most problems.
- oneplane 4y ago
  It doesn't really solve anything: either nobody wants to be part of it anymore with no working system as a result, or it will be manipulated like any other system and low-level employees will be the scapegoat.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    It would significantly reduce the size and reach of these entities. There would be no global financial system, and that would be a Good Thing (tm).
    - oneplane 4y ago
      I doubt that prediction is accurate. No global systems is a bad thing, and no financial systems is a bad thing too.
      - rglullis 4y ago
        By global, I mean Universal, all-encompassing. Advocating for one such system is like advocating for a global government. There are better alternatives. Local, discrete, networked systems that can co-evolve with its participants. They reduce of chance of total collapse of the system and can be isolated when needed, stopping the risk of contagion and avoiding "too big to fail" entities.
rglullis 4y ago
Totally. Skin in the Game should be a fundamental filter to determine social policies. How about we also make that those supporting the current global financial system face consequences for their horrible actions? Like this: if you own stock of any global company, you'd be responsible for all and any financial crime they have committed. If you use credit from any bank operating in more than one country, you are also responsible for any crimes the banks commit. Let's put in jail all the HSBC customers, after all they also contributed to all the money laundering they did all these years.

toolz 4y ago

We might not even need cryptocurrency if we were capable of keeping the financial sector honest. Remind me again how many people went to prison after the market crash of 2008?

AlexandrB 4y ago
From the outside, a lot of cryptocurrency seems like an attempt to extend this kind of immunity from consequences to smaller scammers. Where's the improvement here exactly?
- toolz 4y ago
  A financial system built on top of transparent and trustless components is opt-in. That means that if all my currency is based on trustless structure I can be responsible for my currency and when it's transparent I can be more aware of how the fungible units of my currency are being used in the wider ecosystem. As it stands, private banks (the fed) have not only the ability to manipulate my currency, they are actively encouraged to do so. Sure you can build scams and call it cryptocurrency in similar ways you can scam people in fiat. I'm certainly not claiming crypto solves all problems, only that it provides a solid foundation for society to build a better financial structure on top. That improved foundation does not mean society will build stronger on top of it, it just means that it gives us the ability to do so if we choose to do so. I don't believe it's possible to have equality in our money without rules that apply to everyone. Crypto can apply rules to everyone, equally. Compared to our financial institutions today that are very much tier privilege controlled by the government, which appears to have strong malicious influence from the largest stake-holders in our current financial institutions. I don't believe it's mere coincidence that wealth distribution is becoming dangerously unequal, I believe that is a direct consequence of our financial system.

VoodooJuJu 4y ago

This is how banks and the economy should be run. Lose our money, lose your head. Skin in the game solves most problems.

oneplane 4y ago
It doesn't really solve anything: either nobody wants to be part of it anymore with no working system as a result, or it will be manipulated like any other system and low-level employees will be the scapegoat.
- rglullis 4y ago
  It would significantly reduce the size and reach of these entities. There would be no global financial system, and that would be a Good Thing (tm).
  - oneplane 4y ago
    I doubt that prediction is accurate. No global systems is a bad thing, and no financial systems is a bad thing too.
    - rglullis 4y ago
      By global, I mean Universal, all-encompassing. Advocating for one such system is like advocating for a global government. There are better alternatives. Local, discrete, networked systems that can co-evolve with its participants. They reduce of chance of total collapse of the system and can be isolated when needed, stopping the risk of contagion and avoiding "too big to fail" entities.

rglullis 4y ago

Totally. Skin in the Game should be a fundamental filter to determine social policies. How about we also make that those supporting the current global financial system face consequences for their horrible actions? Like this: if you own stock of any global company, you'd be responsible for all and any financial crime they have committed. If you use credit from any bank operating in more than one country, you are also responsible for any crimes the banks commit. Let's put in jail all the HSBC customers, after all they also contributed to all the money laundering they did all these years.