Yeah I mean the post is clickbait, but crypto (which can be bought with USD) unsurprisingly has similar inequality issues to USD. But the selling point of crypto was never curing inequality. It could have never done that. So the entire post is a bit of a straw man.
Inequality is implicit. If you believe the banking system is a mechanism for enabling plutocracy, you don’t want the banks bailed out. There’s that, and also all of the writings on the forums in which Satoshi hung out.
With fiat money the cantillon effect [1] plays a big role.
In Bitcoin (fixed supply cap) that part is very very different.
One big difference is that fiat/political money (political because political decisions decide how money is created and spent first before it inflates and arrives to the rest of the population).
Like El Salvador: they use the Dollar.
But do they get some of the newly (for free) created trillions? Or do they only see the consequence of that money, meaning seeing their money inflated away… their part of the pie stays constant while the rest of the pie got inflated/bigger.
[1]: just google “cantillon effect”. It is interesting (the power is not only in the hands of the money holders but also in the political decision makers and those who have good relationships with them… a bit like it used to be with religion and the state… but now still with money and the state)
Do you have any evidence that the Cantillon effect plays any significant role?
I hasten to add that BTC currently experiences money supply growth of 1.7% p.a. (though of course BTC inflation has approached 100% in the last half year).
So what? The gold standard is known for driving inequality and bitcoin is modelled around it. Have you never wondered why abandoning the gold standard was inevitable the moment the global economy started growing? Maintaining a gold standard by force would be the same as never letting globalization happen and thereby abandon billions of people in their poverty.
> the selling point of crypto was never curing inequality
Sure it was. Definitely not the only selling point, but there is a ton of drivel out there about how it is supposed to liberate us from the big bad banks (banks are now replaced by Coinbase et al) How something that's supposed to be decentralized, consensus-based, not prone to manipulation by the greedy corporations, greedy individuals and governments is now actually turning out to be something else. And it even has some real equality-related use cases like wiring remittances to Argentina, or the failed El Salvador experiment. But overall trending in the opposite direction to equality.
Government money is a tool nations can use to further their own national interests.
While this isn’t without its downsides (though see Yanis Varoufakis on CBDCs [1]), the gains from it are socialized.
By contrast, an enormous percentage of bitcoin and all other major cryptocurrencies was mined (or worse, “premined”) in the first few years after launch. What nation of people benefits from this form of inequity? Cryptocurrency is entirely nationless.
I think it's a bit of an oversimplification to define equality as 'current distribution of wealth.' A very important part of wealth is being able to actually use it, and there are many ways holders or would-be-recipients of USD are restricted in who they can transact with that are far from equal. Cryptocurrencies are not without restrictions of their own, but their restrictions are more objective/technical rather than the vaguely phrased, regularly changing, cultural nature of traditional 'laws' that govern USD transactions.
Ultimately, I agree with your assessment of the research avenue as a straw man.
