3 ms·

Okay, but a tool that enables individuals to bypass unjust laws, also enables them to bypass just laws. Therefore it's not clear how the potential for decreasi

by lottin 4y ago

Okay, but a tool that enables individuals to bypass unjust laws, also enables them to bypass just laws. Therefore it's not clear how the potential for decreasing injustice by allowing individuals to circumvent unjust laws is not counterbalanced by an equal (or greater) potential for increasing injustice by enabling them to circumvent just laws. The other objection is that, even if you believe that it's a good thing that individuals are able to circumvent laws with impunity, crypto-currencies are not great at that except perhaps when it comes to financial crimes. Because, for example, purchasing illegal goods remains equally difficult regardless of what you use to pay for them. In some circumstances it could be marginally easier if you use a crypto-currency, but claiming that crypto-currencies solve "the problem" of purchasing illegal goods is far fetched to say the least. Finally, another problem that crypto-currencies also claim to solve, which is that of hyperinflation (or some times just inflation), has nothing to do with oppression or injustice in my opinion. At any rate, I think it's hard to say with a straight face that crypto-currencies are a good store of vale or a hedge against inflation. The evidence overwhelmingly shows they're high-volatility assets and therefore not much of a store of value, let alone a hedge against anything.

mypastself 4y ago
If, as you said, an asset has some degree of: > potential for decreasing injustice by allowing individuals to circumvent unjust laws then I don’t think this claim can hold simultaneously: > Someone who lives under an oppressive government is not going to be less oppressed just because they gain the ability to send digital tokens around without government interference. Setting aside utilitarian arguments for the moment, on an individual level, such and asset can clearly still be of some help to a person in an oppressive society. > In some circumstances it could be marginally easier if you use a crypto-currency, but claiming that crypto-currencies solve "the problem" of purchasing illegal goods is far fetched to say the least. Back to the utilitarian/counterbalancing argument, if it’s true that crypto only marginally facilitates crime, then perhaps we shouldn’t be too quick to dismiss it as an overall negative in our cost/benefit analysis. > The evidence overwhelmingly shows they're high-volatility assets and therefore not much of a store of value, let alone a hedge against anything. This is why I’ve used terms like “for a period of time” and “comparatively”. A stablecoin like DAI has mostly maintained its peg to the USD for the past five years, during which time the Turkish Lira’s value declined by 300% or thereabouts. Note that I’m neither advertising that particular stablecoin, nor any other token or cryptocurrency. Yes, the vast majority of them are highly volatile, which makes them unsuitable as a longer-term store of value for the time being. One argument states that with high enough adoption, the ratio of crypto held in wallets compared to the amounts being transacted will be so great that the volatility will diminish. Of course, that is not the case with most cryptocurrencies at the moment, as adoption is still fairly low, as is transaction throughput. It’s questionable if the issues are ever going to be resolved. But I don’t think we should use that as an argument against the very concept of using decentralized “digital tokens” as money.

by lottin 4y ago

mypastself 4y ago

If, as you said, an asset has some degree of: > potential for decreasing injustice by allowing individuals to circumvent unjust laws then I don’t think this claim can hold simultaneously: > Someone who lives under an oppressive government is not going to be less oppressed just because they gain the ability to send digital tokens around without government interference. Setting aside utilitarian arguments for the moment, on an individual level, such and asset can clearly still be of some help to a person in an oppressive society. > In some circumstances it could be marginally easier if you use a crypto-currency, but claiming that crypto-currencies solve "the problem" of purchasing illegal goods is far fetched to say the least. Back to the utilitarian/counterbalancing argument, if it’s true that crypto only marginally facilitates crime, then perhaps we shouldn’t be too quick to dismiss it as an overall negative in our cost/benefit analysis. > The evidence overwhelmingly shows they're high-volatility assets and therefore not much of a store of value, let alone a hedge against anything. This is why I’ve used terms like “for a period of time” and “comparatively”. A stablecoin like DAI has mostly maintained its peg to the USD for the past five years, during which time the Turkish Lira’s value declined by 300% or thereabouts. Note that I’m neither advertising that particular stablecoin, nor any other token or cryptocurrency. Yes, the vast majority of them are highly volatile, which makes them unsuitable as a longer-term store of value for the time being. One argument states that with high enough adoption, the ratio of crypto held in wallets compared to the amounts being transacted will be so great that the volatility will diminish. Of course, that is not the case with most cryptocurrencies at the moment, as adoption is still fairly low, as is transaction throughput. It’s questionable if the issues are ever going to be resolved. But I don’t think we should use that as an argument against the very concept of using decentralized “digital tokens” as money.