> Imagine one day when _most_ people own crypto, and are willing to transact in it,
It doesn't really seem we are moving in that direction. While more people know about bitcoin and more people own bitcoin, it seems like the number of people willing to transact in it has made no progress.
> It's like asking if the goals of the Internet are dead because most people log-in via AOL and browse only AOL curated content.
Arguably, the original goals and design of the Internet ARE dead (or not dead, but certainly not dominant or ascendant). While the AOL business model may have failed, similar closed systems have dominated most of the content and use of the internet. The number of people who build their own sites on any topic or even publish blogs vs. the number of people who post to Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat is pretty tiny. Open federated chat clients have been mostly replace by closed, proprietary systems.
> The above could all fail; I'm not saying it _will_ happen. Just that it's too early to declare the original vision dead.
While it may be too early to declare it dead. Your analogy to the internet seems like a strong argument to be concerned that the vision is dying.
> While more people know about bitcoin and more people own bitcoin, it seems like the number of people willing to transact in it has made no progress.
I'd say in some cases there have been regressions. Many indie-type groups have stopped accepting Bitcoin due to its volatility and high transaction fees. Stripe has announced its support for Bitcoin will end late April.
Certainly there's the possibility that things will calm down and it will bounce back, but personally I'm pretty bearish.
It doesn't really seem we are moving in that direction. While more people know about bitcoin and more people own bitcoin, it seems like the number of people willing to transact in it has made no progress.
> It's like asking if the goals of the Internet are dead because most people log-in via AOL and browse only AOL curated content.
Arguably, the original goals and design of the Internet ARE dead (or not dead, but certainly not dominant or ascendant). While the AOL business model may have failed, similar closed systems have dominated most of the content and use of the internet. The number of people who build their own sites on any topic or even publish blogs vs. the number of people who post to Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat is pretty tiny. Open federated chat clients have been mostly replace by closed, proprietary systems.
> The above could all fail; I'm not saying it _will_ happen. Just that it's too early to declare the original vision dead.
While it may be too early to declare it dead. Your analogy to the internet seems like a strong argument to be concerned that the vision is dying.