Thank you, once again, for engaging. It it is a time-consuming thing to take time to respond to views that are different, but something rare in the space and I have vast appreciation for it.
Your response goes right to the heart of the debate about crypto. So I’ll come back to the two main issues that you provided responses that move things along.
First, crypto as an “asset”. You may be able to point to something I’m unaware of or don’t see it the same way, but I would be curious to know what other things are in your view or experience “unconstrained” assets. I have heard of “unconstrained investing”/”unconstrained portfolios” but never an “unconstrained asset”. But it does otherwise logically make sense that crypto is the only thing so described (unless we call betting-without-knowledge-of-the-probability-space an unconstrained asset). In principal, crypto is then effectively all tail-risk. But maybe my financial background/education needs an assist.
The second issue/question is “what is the validity of crypto as a valid means of value transfer”. That it can be simply a “means of value transfer” does not establish its validity. As a valuable commodity, heroin could share an identical characterization. The analogy to gunpowder implies that we were not able to accomplish the same thing as a money transfer prior to crypto. Everything characteristic of value transfer— good, bad, cheap, expensive, easy, hard — is all currently possible. The most unique and entirely new thing about crypto is that the value can be transferred and can be nearly if not completely untraceable. So that means its only unique “validity” is that. If prior to gunpowder we could tunnel and launch rockets and shoot guns and cannons with the full spectrum of characteristics, the arrival of crypto would be more analagous to the arrival of the atomic bomb. Yes, we could use atom splitting for energy, but as we all know now, that is an extremely compromised use at best and one that we’re able to do better and way more safely with alternatives.
Trying to decide if an invention is immoral should really be a first and ongoing consideration so we don’t end up in yet another type of MAD (mutual-assured-destruction) world we live in. Agreed?
