3 ms·

Honestly I think the biggest problem with crypto is how it has mainly been used either to scam people or to further centralise wealth towards the richest. I hav

Honestly I think the biggest problem with crypto is how it has mainly been used either to scam people or to further centralise wealth towards the richest. I have seen very little morally good outcomes of crypto yet, but a vast number of morally bad ones.

rvz 4y ago
So given we all know that there are indeed scams on Ethereum, does that mean that all of crypto will go away entirely as a result of this 100%? I know precisely that I see the same old arguments against crypto time after time, but somehow despite all of these scams, carnage, etc. it still refuses to die somehow. Maybe companies like Google, Microsoft, Apple, Stripe, Monegram, and even the regulators want it to succeed? If not, they would have banned all the exchanges, coins, and removed all wallets off of the apps stores a long time ago. So I'm afraid that it is here to stay, with some survivors existing for a long time under certain compliance requirements and other crypto projects withering away.
leppr 4y ago
The wealth centralization effect is not an inherent aspect of crypto, it was nothing more than a result of the liquidity injections from central banks. The same argument could be made of all scarce assets that rocketed in price in the past years. Watches, the stock market, and real estate don't inherently "centralize wealth". Their price appreciation was only a symptom of the reduced cost of debt, which naturally favors the wealthiest, which reflects in the price of what wealthy people buy when they have too much money (scarce assets). The base concept of cryptocurrency is enabling free market economies by bypassing government regulation, and at least in the case of Bitcoin and Ethereum, regulating inflation by setting it in code, instead of being opaquely decided by a few wealthy people (some of them convicted of insider-trading[1]). Those two things tend to favor bottom-up wealth creation, rather than the trickle-down model fiat currencies encourage. That's a wealth decentralization force, not centralization like you claim. [1]: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/a-timeline-of-the-federal-reserves-trading-scandal-104415556.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/a-timeline-of-the-federal-res...
- immibis 4y ago
  Crypto has the same wealth centralization problem as all currencies (so far) - it's not immune, at all. It's not because of central bank activity. Wealth just centralizes. Free market economics lead to this emergent outcome. In principle, inflationary currencies have a force pushing away from wealth centralization, while deflationary currencies have a force pushing towards it, which is why everyone who thinks they'll have the centralized wealth likes deflationary currencies.
  - leppr 4y ago
    > In principle, inflationary currencies have a force pushing away from wealth centralization That depends entirely where the new money gets injected. If it gets injected at the top, like with our current fiat currencies, then there's nothing wealth-decentralizing about it, all the contrary. [1] Mineable cryptocurrencies inject the new money to whoever mines them, which could be anyone (less true with the current state of Proof of Work, but still true in the case of Proof of Space), thus the wealth-centralizing mechanism of fiat inflation is removed or at least mitigated. [1]: https://www.swfinstitute.org/news/89070/what-is-the-cantillon-effect-and-why-its-even-more-important-now https://www.swfinstitute.org/news/89070/what-is-the-cantillo...
    - Balladeer 4y ago
      > Mineable cryptocurrencies inject the new money to whoever mines them, which could be anyone While true in theory, is it true in practice? Those with the most resources to mine will mine the most and thus receive the most, allowing them to mine more, and the cycle of centralization continues. That's true regardless of PoW or PoS, isn't it?
      - immibis 4y ago
        It is true. It's more true on PoS than PoW, since the mechanism in PoW is indirect. We can also consider how it works with traditional currencies, such as dollars, which has a hybrid PoS/??? system: you can receive resources by having the most resources (federal reserve deposits) and you can also receive them by performing services which the democracy deems useful (government spending), and to balance the numbers, resources are passively taken from people who spend their money but not from those who hoard it... maybe not the best design :)

rvz 4y ago

So given we all know that there are indeed scams on Ethereum, does that mean that all of crypto will go away entirely as a result of this 100%? I know precisely that I see the same old arguments against crypto time after time, but somehow despite all of these scams, carnage, etc. it still refuses to die somehow. Maybe companies like Google, Microsoft, Apple, Stripe, Monegram, and even the regulators want it to succeed? If not, they would have banned all the exchanges, coins, and removed all wallets off of the apps stores a long time ago. So I'm afraid that it is here to stay, with some survivors existing for a long time under certain compliance requirements and other crypto projects withering away.

leppr 4y ago

The wealth centralization effect is not an inherent aspect of crypto, it was nothing more than a result of the liquidity injections from central banks. The same argument could be made of all scarce assets that rocketed in price in the past years. Watches, the stock market, and real estate don't inherently "centralize wealth". Their price appreciation was only a symptom of the reduced cost of debt, which naturally favors the wealthiest, which reflects in the price of what wealthy people buy when they have too much money (scarce assets). The base concept of cryptocurrency is enabling free market economies by bypassing government regulation, and at least in the case of Bitcoin and Ethereum, regulating inflation by setting it in code, instead of being opaquely decided by a few wealthy people (some of them convicted of insider-trading[1]). Those two things tend to favor bottom-up wealth creation, rather than the trickle-down model fiat currencies encourage. That's a wealth decentralization force, not centralization like you claim. [1]: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/a-timeline-of-the-federal-reserves-trading-scandal-104415556.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/a-timeline-of-the-federal-res...

immibis 4y ago
Crypto has the same wealth centralization problem as all currencies (so far) - it's not immune, at all. It's not because of central bank activity. Wealth just centralizes. Free market economics lead to this emergent outcome. In principle, inflationary currencies have a force pushing away from wealth centralization, while deflationary currencies have a force pushing towards it, which is why everyone who thinks they'll have the centralized wealth likes deflationary currencies.
- leppr 4y ago
  > In principle, inflationary currencies have a force pushing away from wealth centralization That depends entirely where the new money gets injected. If it gets injected at the top, like with our current fiat currencies, then there's nothing wealth-decentralizing about it, all the contrary. [1] Mineable cryptocurrencies inject the new money to whoever mines them, which could be anyone (less true with the current state of Proof of Work, but still true in the case of Proof of Space), thus the wealth-centralizing mechanism of fiat inflation is removed or at least mitigated. [1]: https://www.swfinstitute.org/news/89070/what-is-the-cantillon-effect-and-why-its-even-more-important-now https://www.swfinstitute.org/news/89070/what-is-the-cantillo...
  - Balladeer 4y ago
    > Mineable cryptocurrencies inject the new money to whoever mines them, which could be anyone While true in theory, is it true in practice? Those with the most resources to mine will mine the most and thus receive the most, allowing them to mine more, and the cycle of centralization continues. That's true regardless of PoW or PoS, isn't it?
    - immibis 4y ago
      It is true. It's more true on PoS than PoW, since the mechanism in PoW is indirect. We can also consider how it works with traditional currencies, such as dollars, which has a hybrid PoS/??? system: you can receive resources by having the most resources (federal reserve deposits) and you can also receive them by performing services which the democracy deems useful (government spending), and to balance the numbers, resources are passively taken from people who spend their money but not from those who hoard it... maybe not the best design :)