3 ms·

1. A ledger is less fraud-resistant than a budget, since the only thing stopping a ledger from lying is bureaucratic drudgery. 2. The United States dollar is n

1. A ledger is less fraud-resistant than a budget, since the only thing stopping a ledger from lying is bureaucratic drudgery. 2. The United States dollar is not a crypto-native currency and therefore requires constant (and fallible) accounting, a-la a checkbook. 3. If you can't use your preexisting control to prevent the government from defrauding you, then adding more red tape will not reduce spending. Musk can't stop cryptocurrencies from using their ledgers for fraud. It's an inherent limitation of the system that rational economists have been warning about for years. Relying on it to increase government transparency is an implementation failure that reflects on the profound stupidity or illegal ambitions of the people putting it in place.

palmfacehn 2y ago
There's nothing in it that prevents fraudulent resale of equipment or fraudulent billing to contractors. Nor would it prevent million dollar research grants for "Prawns on Treadmills". The question of fraud is almost irrelevant when you consider the scale of wasteful spending. At the extreme end of native payments it could be useful in preventing fraud or even waste by transparently and publicly tracking all transactions. In this example all expenditures, including salaries would be paid with the blockchain. Public keys would need to be mapped to organizations and individuals. The public would no longer need to ask permission to examine matters of the public record. However, I'm not in favor of a full on CBDC approach. There are too many moral hazards in absolute state control. The privacy implications are also troublesome. All of this is a bit of over analysis when you understand the context of the Tweet in question. Mario is one of the most popular "Twitter Spaces" hosts. He wants to bill cryptocurrency projects for time on his program. Elon sometimes appears on his program for PR purposes. There is a synergy between the two. They both have an incentive to feed each other. The author just wants clicks. As I said in my first concise comment, there's no real substance here.
- talldayo 2y ago
  > The question of fraud is almost irrelevant when you consider the scale of wasteful spending. Which is why an itemized ledger is pointless! If you want to adjust the spending of a government organization, adjust their budget. Make them justify the $2,000 toilet seat for the B-21, because there are people in America who will gladly run the materials science by you if you're not aware. America cares about the sticker price, centralized planning is the commie playbook. Using a blockchain for government spending is a masturbatory nerd impulse that will be quickly dismantled if it even reaches approval, let alone serious adoption.

palmfacehn 2y ago

There's nothing in it that prevents fraudulent resale of equipment or fraudulent billing to contractors. Nor would it prevent million dollar research grants for "Prawns on Treadmills". The question of fraud is almost irrelevant when you consider the scale of wasteful spending. At the extreme end of native payments it could be useful in preventing fraud or even waste by transparently and publicly tracking all transactions. In this example all expenditures, including salaries would be paid with the blockchain. Public keys would need to be mapped to organizations and individuals. The public would no longer need to ask permission to examine matters of the public record. However, I'm not in favor of a full on CBDC approach. There are too many moral hazards in absolute state control. The privacy implications are also troublesome. All of this is a bit of over analysis when you understand the context of the Tweet in question. Mario is one of the most popular "Twitter Spaces" hosts. He wants to bill cryptocurrency projects for time on his program. Elon sometimes appears on his program for PR purposes. There is a synergy between the two. They both have an incentive to feed each other. The author just wants clicks. As I said in my first concise comment, there's no real substance here.

talldayo 2y ago
> The question of fraud is almost irrelevant when you consider the scale of wasteful spending. Which is why an itemized ledger is pointless! If you want to adjust the spending of a government organization, adjust their budget. Make them justify the $2,000 toilet seat for the B-21, because there are people in America who will gladly run the materials science by you if you're not aware. America cares about the sticker price, centralized planning is the commie playbook. Using a blockchain for government spending is a masturbatory nerd impulse that will be quickly dismantled if it even reaches approval, let alone serious adoption.