I'm not proposing that fiat currencies overtake each other through violence. If you're accustomed to some bully overriding your notion of "value" to align with their agenda, then you likely don't lose much by swapping them out for a different bully. I mean, some bullies are better or worse stewards of a currency than others, but you're still living under a system designed to protect bullies.
I'm proposing that fiat currencies overtake their alternatives by violence, and I'm interested in those alternatives. So it was really a poke at the Roman empire. Or perhaps my history isn't quite right and its some other empire. Surely somewhere, somewhen, there was a people who would be presented with a token for exchange and who would accept or reject it based on the wisdom or skill or empathy shown by whatever group was involved in the creation of that token.
Choosing what to accept as money would be an expression of one's personal values: each transaction a sort of vote. Leaders would have an incentive to remain wise or skillful or empathetic, because their power comes from the people's willingness to trade in their tokens. Noticing that somebody else is using the same kind of money as you would be an indicator that you value the same outcomes as they do. If they have a lot of it, it would be evidence that their actions have been furthering your goals.
Fiat currency, as practiced today, forces us to act as though we all value the same things (which, in some sense we do: not being harmed by the bully, but that's hardly a useful policy objective). Crypto looked like a way out for a while. A place where we could opt in to good ideas by chosing to use tokens which were involved in carrying them out, a market where the desirability of the externalities determined the value of the abstraction.
I really want to see how far technology can amplify a consent-based system as opposed to a bullly-based one, so the collapse of Web3 into a casino feels like a tragedy. What we're doing isn't working, and yet we're apparently too afraid to explore alternatives.
I'm proposing that fiat currencies overtake their alternatives by violence, and I'm interested in those alternatives. So it was really a poke at the Roman empire. Or perhaps my history isn't quite right and its some other empire. Surely somewhere, somewhen, there was a people who would be presented with a token for exchange and who would accept or reject it based on the wisdom or skill or empathy shown by whatever group was involved in the creation of that token.
Choosing what to accept as money would be an expression of one's personal values: each transaction a sort of vote. Leaders would have an incentive to remain wise or skillful or empathetic, because their power comes from the people's willingness to trade in their tokens. Noticing that somebody else is using the same kind of money as you would be an indicator that you value the same outcomes as they do. If they have a lot of it, it would be evidence that their actions have been furthering your goals.
Fiat currency, as practiced today, forces us to act as though we all value the same things (which, in some sense we do: not being harmed by the bully, but that's hardly a useful policy objective). Crypto looked like a way out for a while. A place where we could opt in to good ideas by chosing to use tokens which were involved in carrying them out, a market where the desirability of the externalities determined the value of the abstraction.
I really want to see how far technology can amplify a consent-based system as opposed to a bullly-based one, so the collapse of Web3 into a casino feels like a tragedy. What we're doing isn't working, and yet we're apparently too afraid to explore alternatives.