Crypto is part of a wider agenda - decentralisation.
What generally fails in most proposed social structures is actually not their political orientation, left or right, but rather the degree to which power is centralised.
Heavily centralised structures, like those traditionally found on the left, over time attract psychopaths. This is their failing not the politics.
Thank you Daniel for your thinking, insights and sharing with the world and change makers. It gives me a compass for what blockchains to support and be associated with. You are a gem! :)
Love that you are looking into this emerging field. One of the best reasons to move to non-state controlled money is to separate the government from the abuse of power that happens when they control the money supply. Look at the USA and the 50% increase in dollars over the last two years. Decentralized networks can work and Ethereum PoS is the most decentralized yet. It can be programmed with incentives aligned with humanitarianism in mind.
Yes... I know we just approved another $800 billion military bill... However restricting the amount of money governments can issue will also make it difficult to create universal social programs. The opposite idea is proposed by Modern Monetary Theory... MMT advocates say the government can simply create money to pay for social programs, then use taxes to restrain inflation.
At the end of the day it is about accountability to the people of the democracy. The idea of taxes to restrain inflation does not work in my opinion, unless they are going to reduce the money supply with the taxes, but what nation would allow their currency to get more valuable after a period of high inflation? I believe the future holds a place for both fiat and crypto to work together. Governments will continue to spend and inflate their national currency and people who want to store value will use Bitcoin as gold was used in the past. The real advantage is in programable money that can bring people together to create social good, hopefully one day these new entities outshine governments in the good they can produce and the value they create for their participants. (win:win)
A great summary. Thanks for setting the intention to explore blockchain leftism more deeply. It’s an area I’ve been trying to understand better, and I’m excited for your perspective on ongoing projects in the space. 🙏🏼
the problem is that capital always tends to support more capitalist enterprises... For example the identity problem of the Web could have been solved with Identity Commons type ideas, which would have led to a much healthier and saner Internet ecosystem, but that didn't happen because the Capitalist exploitation of model was far more lucrative.
Thanks Daniel, I’ve been following your work for years and love that your research interest is so broad.
That said, a lot of the criticism in the fist half of your entry could've been spared with a proper appreciation of the clear delineation between Bitcoin on the one hand and “crypto” on the other.
Only the former is truly decentralised, regardless of any oxymoronic "progressive decentralisation" VC talk.
You also “presume” wrongly - Bitcoin’s decentralisation isn’t reliant on miners, but on the distribution of its nodes. Just ask the head of Coinbase why his dalliance with miners weren’t enough to win the block size wars.
I would further implore you to focus more on how Bitcoin works on a fundamental level. At best, "crypto", CBDCs, 'blockchain tech', etc. are i nthe greater schemes of things essentially jsut entertaining red herrings while Bitcoin, being optimally anti-fragile, consolidates further and further like a [Mycelium](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTgDQ56Su38) network as it blissfully rides the Lindy Effect wave.
Without a proper appreciation of Bitcoin's revolutionary value propositions, one just joins the chorus of the same old tired and debunked talking points. Conversely, when it then, for example, comes to all the popular criticisms aimed at Proof of Work, one would realise the real debate isn’t about Bitcoin’s energy consumption per se but rather an ill-informed disbelief in the value Bitcoin provides, as Nic Carter argues [here](https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/bitcoin-and-gold-energy-debate).
Crypto is part of a wider agenda - decentralisation.
What generally fails in most proposed social structures is actually not their political orientation, left or right, but rather the degree to which power is centralised.
Heavily centralised structures, like those traditionally found on the left, over time attract psychopaths. This is their failing not the politics.
Thank you Daniel for your thinking, insights and sharing with the world and change makers. It gives me a compass for what blockchains to support and be associated with. You are a gem! :)
Thanks. Casey!
Love that you are looking into this emerging field. One of the best reasons to move to non-state controlled money is to separate the government from the abuse of power that happens when they control the money supply. Look at the USA and the 50% increase in dollars over the last two years. Decentralized networks can work and Ethereum PoS is the most decentralized yet. It can be programmed with incentives aligned with humanitarianism in mind.
Yes... I know we just approved another $800 billion military bill... However restricting the amount of money governments can issue will also make it difficult to create universal social programs. The opposite idea is proposed by Modern Monetary Theory... MMT advocates say the government can simply create money to pay for social programs, then use taxes to restrain inflation.
At the end of the day it is about accountability to the people of the democracy. The idea of taxes to restrain inflation does not work in my opinion, unless they are going to reduce the money supply with the taxes, but what nation would allow their currency to get more valuable after a period of high inflation? I believe the future holds a place for both fiat and crypto to work together. Governments will continue to spend and inflate their national currency and people who want to store value will use Bitcoin as gold was used in the past. The real advantage is in programable money that can bring people together to create social good, hopefully one day these new entities outshine governments in the good they can produce and the value they create for their participants. (win:win)
A great summary. Thanks for setting the intention to explore blockchain leftism more deeply. It’s an area I’ve been trying to understand better, and I’m excited for your perspective on ongoing projects in the space. 🙏🏼
PS: I wholeheartedly agree with your push for more leftists to get their hands dirty and start building in blockchain. Less critique; more offense
the problem is that capital always tends to support more capitalist enterprises... For example the identity problem of the Web could have been solved with Identity Commons type ideas, which would have led to a much healthier and saner Internet ecosystem, but that didn't happen because the Capitalist exploitation of model was far more lucrative.
Thanks Daniel, I’ve been following your work for years and love that your research interest is so broad.
That said, a lot of the criticism in the fist half of your entry could've been spared with a proper appreciation of the clear delineation between Bitcoin on the one hand and “crypto” on the other.
Only the former is truly decentralised, regardless of any oxymoronic "progressive decentralisation" VC talk.
You also “presume” wrongly - Bitcoin’s decentralisation isn’t reliant on miners, but on the distribution of its nodes. Just ask the head of Coinbase why his dalliance with miners weren’t enough to win the block size wars.
I would further implore you to focus more on how Bitcoin works on a fundamental level. At best, "crypto", CBDCs, 'blockchain tech', etc. are i nthe greater schemes of things essentially jsut entertaining red herrings while Bitcoin, being optimally anti-fragile, consolidates further and further like a [Mycelium](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTgDQ56Su38) network as it blissfully rides the Lindy Effect wave.
Without a proper appreciation of Bitcoin's revolutionary value propositions, one just joins the chorus of the same old tired and debunked talking points. Conversely, when it then, for example, comes to all the popular criticisms aimed at Proof of Work, one would realise the real debate isn’t about Bitcoin’s energy consumption per se but rather an ill-informed disbelief in the value Bitcoin provides, as Nic Carter argues [here](https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/bitcoin-and-gold-energy-debate).