I've felt like writing a "Money is not a real thing" article for a while, and this would be a prime example of why you don't optimize for revenue but rather e.g. physical goods.
The generalization of your argument is that rapidly increasing productivity of any good is bad, because it decreases the relative power of existing capital holders.
If all the miners on all proof-of-work currencies lost all their revenue and the currency was equally secure, I would consider this a good thing since the electricity could be allocated elsewhere.
I guess schumpeters point with creative destruction was the rupture required to replace one paradigm with another (Incidentally, he got this straight from marx). Technology, and markets, move in fits and starts as conservative tendencies meet with more efficient, or qualitatively different, competion. For both schumpeter and marx this view was seen as opposed to equilibrium models of economics on which much of mainstream economics and game theory still relies
If disney lost the copyright on their older works and copyright law started expiring after 20 or 50 years instead of the 100 plus today, I would consider this a good thing.
People who make billions of dollars from the status quo have great power to maintain the status quo.
The generalization of your argument is that rapidly increasing productivity of any good is bad, because it decreases the relative power of existing capital holders.
If all the miners on all proof-of-work currencies lost all their revenue and the currency was equally secure, I would consider this a good thing since the electricity could be allocated elsewhere.