> This is a long way of asking: do you want cryptocurrency to succeed if you knew that you could not profit from it doing so?
That is a brilliant question!
Instead of all the endless bickering between crypto-fans and -haters reaching from technology to fiscal policy to society, it reduces the conflict to one simple test, as a sort of precondition.
Anecdata, but just going through my set of acquaintances, personal profit was always a factor. And I never even thought to question it. In hindsight, however, it seems (1) such an obvious thing to do, and (2) makes it clear to me that my acquaintances probably wouldn't give a damn about crypto if there wasn't a chance to profit from it.
I mean, the only reason Bitcoin went mainstream in the first place is not because of the technology (which existed for a decade), but because there was a extreme bubble (again) and mainstream people wanted to get rich quick.
I always have been excited about Bitcoin because allows me as a developer to do things with money in the internet. I could create a service like PayPal without the need of having deals with hundreds of banks all over the world. A homeless can have a btc wallet but probably not a bank account. I could automate transfers and payments. In countries like Argentina there are a few banks and they're really bad quality, both in terms of services and tech, so there are not things like stripe, etc.
I'm talking just about the positive potential of Bitcoin as a technology. There are many downsides and the current landscape of cryptocurrencies is not so great.
My vision is that crypto is going to be used like credit/debit cards, as a way to use money digitally, but it will backed against fiat.
> I always have been excited about Bitcoin because allows me as a developer to do things with money in the internet. I could create a service like PayPal without the need of having deals with hundreds of banks all over the world. A homeless can have a btc wallet but probably not a bank account. I could automate transfers and payments. In countries like Argentina there are a few banks and they're really bad quality, both in terms of services and tech, so there are not things like stripe, etc.
But the problem is not the technology (it is there and exists for decades), but the laws. Better concentrate on that problem.
It's also the technology, currently outside of crypto you're always going to be connecting to some company's servers using their API after you get their authorization.
There's no way the current system can have a stable and uniform API that works globally.
For me it's like asking, would you want Amazon to succeed if you did not profit from it?* Obviously, if I am not personally invested in Amazon, I don't really care that much. But it still could have value for society for other reasons than getting rich off of speculating.
* To those people who say, "You can't compare crypto to a company because companies pay dividends," that is specifically why I chose Amazon as an example, a stock that does not pay dividends.
As an example of a tech, if someone asked me would you want self driving cars to succeed if you could not profit off of them, I would say that's a resounding success. A lot of people are excited about this tech because of the improvement in their daily lives, not because of a profit motive. Compare that to crypto
The right question would be: (assuming that there isn't already a monopoly) would you want one specific VCS to gain a monopoly if it was one you have no experience in it? (and all your mastery of other VCS would so become worthless)
1) I would want Amazon-like businesses to succeed -- in the sense of "someone who finds a sustainable way cut the fat out of retailing" -- even if I could not profit as a shareholder. But I still think I would benefit (as a buyer) from that success.
2) I would want decentralized, arbitrary-money-printing-proof cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin to exist as a shield against governments that inflate away their money (like Venezuela or Zimbabwe) or abuse their central bank status for bailouts (in the first world), even if I could not profit as a holder (sorry, HODLer) of the currency. But I still think I would personally benefit as a prudent saver and (non-politically-connected) investor.
That is a brilliant question!
Instead of all the endless bickering between crypto-fans and -haters reaching from technology to fiscal policy to society, it reduces the conflict to one simple test, as a sort of precondition.
Anecdata, but just going through my set of acquaintances, personal profit was always a factor. And I never even thought to question it. In hindsight, however, it seems (1) such an obvious thing to do, and (2) makes it clear to me that my acquaintances probably wouldn't give a damn about crypto if there wasn't a chance to profit from it.
I mean, the only reason Bitcoin went mainstream in the first place is not because of the technology (which existed for a decade), but because there was a extreme bubble (again) and mainstream people wanted to get rich quick.