3 ms·
This is an interesting paradigm. If , fundamentally, currencies are backed by a preponderance of coercive force, or the ability to wage war, as you posit, then
by K0balt 2y ago
This is an interesting paradigm.
If , fundamentally, currencies are backed by a preponderance of coercive force, or the ability to wage war, as you posit, then it seems like alternative instruments such as bitcoin may be more meritorious than many people give them credit for.
This is assuming, of course, that the threat or reality of war is an unequivocal bad thing.
I wonder if the inconveniences of volatility for a spendable currency could be mitigated by some kind of frictionless middle layer that -wasn’t- a state backed fiat.
- CPLX 2y agoThe USD dollar is backed by the universal belief that it will continue to be valuable, plus the entire productive capacity of the US economy and the war making ability of the US government. Bitcoin is backed by a less universally held belief that it will be valuable in the future, and that’s it. One of these things is just a much smaller subset of the other.