David Rosenthal on cryptocurrencies
There are some fundamental misconceptions still, but it&#x27;s a great post.<p>First, crypto currencies networks are not attempting to rely on no intermediaries, but rather removing the need for  trusted intermediaries. Yes there are challenges and constraints to this, but the successful operation of the Bitcoin network without a single trusted intermediary (and surviving several large physical shifts and attacks from the mining community) is a testament to its success. Prior to Bitcoin, there wasn&#x27;t a single non-bank digital currency system that succeeded precisely because of the trust issues. Bitcoins success in that regard is not mentioned once.<p>Second, the current cost of token ownership is not always the representative cost of entry for users. Where the network requires high fees, this may be true, but there are low fee networks with varying degrees of decentralization (Stellar, Hadera, Avalanche, Solana to name a few) that get no mention here. And no, because they are less decentralized that doesn&#x27;t make the point moot. It&#x27;s a spectrum, and ultimately many infrastructure services do try to achieve some form of decentralization in even more traditional contexts, so to throw out the low cost fee networks makes no sense. For things like Ethereum and Bitcoin, the fees are akin for users having access or using underlying settlement and base infrastructure systems (like mainline Telcom cables, the water main, or the high value payment system of a country). These systems are all expensive. The fact that they are expensive is indicative of demand at best and a limitation of performance given security constraints at worst.<p>Third, the alleged illicit use of cryptocurrencies continues to be incorrect. The early years of the ransomware wave didn&#x27;t even take place on Bitcoin although they both existed simultaneously, to prove that ransomware did grow on its own accord just fine. And today the vast majority of criminal activity occurs through traditional payment rails. Many studies have shown Bitcoin network criminal activity to be incredibly small (in the range of one percent). Bitcoin cannot simultaneously be an incredibly useless, overly expensive, non-currency like system but also be purposely built for criminal payments when those criminals have the exact same requirements with traditional payment systems. Of the 4B hack made almost 6 years ago, not even a billion dollars was successfully laundered. That&#x27;s appalling by criminal standards in which multi trillions of dollars are laundered every year.<p>Fourth, feeding off my last point, KYC&#x2F;AML should never be the shining bastion of success to stand behind. Simply look at the reported success numbers, read the 2011 UN report, or listen to the markets estimated billions in wasted cost. It&#x27;s empirically a failure of the modern financial system more than a success.<p>Finally, the presence of tokens in a network more than anything represents the monetization of that networks underlying value. How this is not applauded and encouraged blows my mind in the current age we live in. Digital networks in their modern form have been the source of incredible monopolies, abuse, and systemically destabilizing elements within society for two decades now. That we should not wish to see their fundamental arrangements challenged baffles me. The usage of a token to facilitate network activity, direct user ownership, and provide a scarcity element in an otherwise infinitely reproducible domain is necessary work. I would support this innovation to be done within the confines of our traditional financial system had the current banking system not proven itself to be ossified and unusably gridlocked in innovation. Just look at the rise of fintech, the growth of nonbank finance, and the continued failure of developing market funding (not just developing economies, but the actual lower end segments of our individual markets characterized by small businesses) as proof.<p>And I agree with parts of his presentation. Cryptocurrencies are currently incredibly divisive, unreliable, risky, and a few have incredibly poor environmental outcomes. But there is incredibly necessary innovation that is occurring at the core of the market. The existing high wealth inequality, cyber risks, overconcentration, and stagnation of our broader more traditional markets is proof that there are raw opportunities that need to be solved.<p>In the end, I am saddened to see the state of our world. I see the initiation of this work from a small group of anarchists and libertarians as both a failure of our system and as the only probably place it could have come from.<p>The existing system has failed, I am shocked at anyone who can refute that claim after the insane levels of market corruption and speculation that characterized the 90s, the financial crisis of 2008, and the absolute global stagnation of production following that has then led to the progressively high levels of public and private indebtedness since. To act as if Bitcoin, once characterized as the &quot;evil spawn of the crisis&quot;, wasn&#x27;t exactly what our society deserved is IGNORANT and ARROGANT.