2 ms·
This is demonstrably untrue. Perhaps subjectively you think cryptocurrency is a net loss, but even the harshest critics cannot objectively agree with "nothing
by sneak 3y ago
This is demonstrably untrue. Perhaps subjectively you think cryptocurrency is a net loss, but even the harshest critics cannot objectively agree with "nothing good".
Millions of dollars of donations have been raised and donated to charities (across borders!) using cryptocurrencies, for one thing. There are many other good things that have come about as a result of it, but falsifying your "nothing" argument only takes one pin to pop.
- uoaei 3y agoIt wasn't "crypto" per se that enabled those donations, since those donations could have been just as easily sent and received without crypto, ergo it can't be said that that outcome is attributable to crypto.
- sneak 3y agoI would not have been able to donate to Wikileaks by any other method than the one I used; Visa and MC had already voluntarily sanctioned/frozen them before anyone was charged with any crime. I am also aware of people inside Russia who recently donated to the Ukranian war effort. This again seems to be otherwise an impossibility. Your claim seems to me to be incorrect. It's okay to not like crypto or to think that it's overall a net bad thing; it's not okay to spread factual inaccuracies. It has 100% enabled things that were not possible before. That's a fact, not an opinion.
- reaperducer 3y agoI would not have been able to donate to Wikileaks by any other method than the one I used What was stopping you from putting cash in an envelope? In a lot of ways, that's even safer than crypto. Untraceable and with no fees for tech bro middlemen.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]