Crypto is a complex technology that requires a relatively high level of computer proficiency to use directly. Because of this, basically since its inception, third parties have inserted themselves to make things easier for the end user. At this point, basically 100% of people who deal with crypto do so through a third party, often a VC-funded startup with much less regulatory oversight than the established monolithic financial industry.
As well, even the nature of crypto itself — every transaction being a permanent addition to a ledger — I'd argue is less secure than traditional assets. You can be sure that your funds are in the hands of the receiving address, but that's not inherently secure. In fact, it means fraud, hacks, and simple mistakes are set in stone and can only be undone through access to the receiving wallet, if it even exists.
This is not even to mention that, because crypto's value is entirely beholden to speculation, it is simply too volatile to be used as a currency in everyday life, and even at its most stable is still vulnerable to mismanagement by those same third parties that allow the general populace to participate.
The financial system we have is certainly not perfect, there's no doubt about that. But the crypto space has essentially just recreated the traditional financial system we already have, just with extra steps and fewer protections for the end users. All this, supported by a small country's worth of power fueling purposely wasteful brute forcing of random math problems in order to ensure that the money it made up isn't spent twice. Is it worth it to be using the most powerful single computer network to prop this up? I'd say no, it very much isn't.
cucumbercat5714 karma
I feel like this take lives in a vacuum.
Crypto is a complex technology that requires a relatively high level of computer proficiency to use directly. Because of this, basically since its inception, third parties have inserted themselves to make things easier for the end user. At this point, basically 100% of people who deal with crypto do so through a third party, often a VC-funded startup with much less regulatory oversight than the established monolithic financial industry.
As well, even the nature of crypto itself — every transaction being a permanent addition to a ledger — I'd argue is less secure than traditional assets. You can be sure that your funds are in the hands of the receiving address, but that's not inherently secure. In fact, it means fraud, hacks, and simple mistakes are set in stone and can only be undone through access to the receiving wallet, if it even exists.
This is not even to mention that, because crypto's value is entirely beholden to speculation, it is simply too volatile to be used as a currency in everyday life, and even at its most stable is still vulnerable to mismanagement by those same third parties that allow the general populace to participate.
The financial system we have is certainly not perfect, there's no doubt about that. But the crypto space has essentially just recreated the traditional financial system we already have, just with extra steps and fewer protections for the end users. All this, supported by a small country's worth of power fueling purposely wasteful brute forcing of random math problems in order to ensure that the money it made up isn't spent twice. Is it worth it to be using the most powerful single computer network to prop this up? I'd say no, it very much isn't.
View HistoryShare Link