What if we entertain the idea that central banks collapse; what would be better in your view, fixed-supply Bitcoin or Private Central Banks issuing Stablecoins which compete against one another?
I've said this a lot but I really think the unseizability of cryptoassets are their most undervalued and underappreciated feature
-
-
If government's stop seizing money this attribute becomes a mute point. Regardless value stable money in comparison with each other is value stable you can't add "But what if its valued less?"
-
Unseizable, arbitrarily uninflatable under no circumstances, censorship resistant, no KYC, no AML, private, anynonynous, unlinkable, borderless, outside of state control. You are from the West, you don’t know what kind of censorship / capital controls / seizures exist elsewhere
-
Listen. You gotta stop. Relationally value stable money is value stable. You are trying to imply central banks can't also print money on the value is bitcoin and they can't choose to offer features as well. It's silly.
-
Why would you ever think that a monopoly on money supply is a good thing? Currencies should compete just like any other business or product
-
Who are you directing that too?
-
Anyone who thinks money supply should be only 1 authority’s centralized control
-
And why is it posted in a thread directed to any of us?
-
Because you still insist on the idea that archaic fiat and archaic central banks must exist
- 18 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.