I was just pondering the future, as you do, and I thought I’d share where I’m at to see if anyone wants to pick some holes in it and make me rethink.
So my thoughts go like this. Debt-based money creation is unsustainable. Unsustainable doesn’t mean irresponsible, it means it will definitely come to an end, as far as I can see anyway.
When the bubble pops and the house of cards eventually come crashing down the govt will face a hard situation and 2008 has prepared them for it. They know they will not be able to bail in or bail out next time. They are quite aware of the situation that’s coming and there’s really only one clear option to get out of it. They will have to let the bank’s fail. I’m pretty sure the banks realise this too, which is why everyone is just partying until the music stops, milking it for all it is worth while they can.
When TSHTF the govt will let the banks fail and wipe out a lot of the crazy derivative debt that is totally insurmountable. A lot of people will lose their pensions and investments, but the paternal state will swoop in and save the day with big brother’s GVT coin. They will match the balance of accounts from the failed banks who can’t honour their customers’ balance and take money creation away from private banks and put it back into the hands of the central bankers.
In my crazy-eyed speculation I see a barrier though and the reason this space is being allowed to flourish unfettered… for now. GVT coin can’t operate like a database or a traditional blockchain. They want central control, but they also want scalability and a different way to form consensus other than PoW. GVT coin will not be accepted internationally if it is just a single govt database, so they can’t get away with just calling it a blockchain, it does need to be robust and secure etc.
My hypothesis is that the wild west will end as soon as we produce some tech that allows them to realise that goal. Once we have a really well-implemented PoS and something like ‘sharding’ we will see the decentralist movement come under immediate assault from all quarters and all the major nations will try to squash out the decentralised stuff.
Does anyone else agree that we might just be the architects of our own destruction in crypto? Might we be being used and the reason projects like Eth (that are working on both sharding and PoS) are pumped to dizzying heights with crazy icos everywhere and no regulatory interference is just because theman wants them working on those problems, so he hasn’t stepped in? In fact, the string pullers might even have been encouraging others to get involved so we get there as quickly as possible?
I’m just spit-balling here and I don’t want to sound like a tinfoilhatman, but at least some of that could well be true couldn’t it? In which case, perhaps when blockchains finally solve all those issues maybe we should be selling that optimism in anticipation of them having outlived their usefulness to the powers that be?
Obviously none of this really applies to SAFE. It would be much harder to destroy a utility and network that people use (without being detectable) compared to a shared ledger for a store of value (trust/faith etc) reliant on centralised mining. In fact, you might think that if govt tried to crack down and they did kill a few big blockchains then the hoards of freedom lovers would flock to SAFE in protest.
Ok, I’ll leave it there, maybe I’ve been watching too much Game of Thrones and Billions . I just wanted to see if anyone had any more interesting thoughts or could pick some holes in mine.