> Those things arent currencies. And it seems people have solutions to hedge against inflation already. That use case isn't the point.
The point is that there is a use-case for decentralized assets.
> Point is it being not tied to a state level actor is only useful if you can use it to get out from underneath the control of an oppressive regime by not being beholden to it's financial system.
Or if you don't want the value of your money inflated away by central bank policy.
> So far we haven't seen a crypto succeed at that. So... so what if it has that property? Doesn't seem to be useful in practice. In theory yes, but not in practice.
Yes, that's true. Although you could argue Bitcoin has succeeded, just not as a currency. It has succeeded as an asset class. But the question of why crypto hasn't succeeded as a currency is what Kong appears to be attempting to solve. Their answer to that question is that it doesn't have some of the nice properties of physical cash, so they made one that does.
I'm not sure I think that this will change much, but I don't think the fact that cryptos haven't displaced national currencies yet is evidence that they don't solve any problems. They do solve important problems, they just create other ones, and those things don't yet balance in their favor.