3 ms·
> From the other side of the argument, would you see a future in the next decades where cash is still relevant and significant amount of money can change owners
by no_time 4y ago
> From the other side of the argument, would you see a future in the next decades where cash is still relevant and significant amount of money can change ownership completely anonymously?
No. Also, I see CBDCs as a further step along this trajectory. Even more control. Even more granularity.
>The real fight isn’t on clinging to legacy systems, but to get safeguards baked in the new systems and have governments that care a minimum about their citizens.
I agree. Though I'm afraid human psychology is not compatible with the idea of "safeguards". As long as there is a 0.0000001% chance that this will help catch some pedophile or drug cartel, I bet there won't be widespread push for safeguards. Much like how there isn't any with internet surveillance or facial recognition in public spaces.
Naturally you might be asking, so what do I propose to solve this. To which I answer: Nothing. I don't really see a way out of the hole we are digging right now.
- makeitdouble 4y agoI somewhat optimistically see two different vectors that could move independently: - untraceability: it’s probably out of the window. I don’t know how much we still had, but with full digital money everywhere it’s dead and buried. - practical privacy: could probably be saved. It’s hope more than anything, but just as we currently don’t have a social score system while technically all the pieces are in place, I think digital money would stay in the same status quo as long as we keep the same social values. Basically, we already have safeguards against widespread abuse of our digital systems, otherwise we’d already be in the same social state as China, I don’t see any technical barrier to that. The question would be on wether we can preserve that going forward.