> I don't see any value in reinventing money. Due to the subjectivity of this statement, there is little-to-no area for debate. It is of my belief that the li

> I don't see any value in reinventing money. Due to the subjectivity of this statement, there is little-to-no area for debate. It is of my belief that the limits of programmable money should be probed, tested, & examined: Currently, the traditional banking infrastructure does not allow for such automation, and the attempts to do so are unfortunately dependent on banks that have the ability to censor transactions if coerced to do so, whether via national security concerns, politics, mob rule, etc. This is especially concerning to me as there's a non-zero chance that my government will block my financial transactions simply because of my beliefs & lifestyle (G in anti-LGBTQ+ country). This consequently leads to the next sentence: > All of the place you listed need better governance more than anything else. That statement is predicated upon the following axioms: 1) There is a person / a group of people close enough to the governance tools that can both (a) enact the necessary changes & (b) defend said tools from manipulation/corruption 2) That the "change-enactors" can competently use said tools without adverse effects 3) (potential subset of 1(b)) That said enactors will not use said tools on scapegoats/critics/political targets 4) (potential subset of 1(b)) The enactors can be trusted to use said tools 5) There's a system in place to combat misuse of said tools, & that can be deployed in a timely manner 6) (potential subset of 1(b)) The enactors will not use said tools on said misuse combat system 7) The punishment for governance tool misuse is sufficient enough to act as a detractor for such actions 8) That said misuse combat system will not in itself be misused (The "Who Watches the Watchmen?" problem) Assuming that all of the axioms can be fulfilled, I have no qualms or objections to your statement: Such a system in place will no doubt be more efficient & effective. It should be noted however that the hidden cost (centralization of control/power) will be a vector for abuse, & will attract those that want said power/control. In addition, due to the pigeonhole principle and the significant & non-zero probability of negative actors, in most scenarios the outlined axioms will not be completely fulfilled, with the tools of governance being used as outlined in (3).