Neal Stephenson doesn't seem keen on crypto anymore

Post by Y_Y » Fri, Feb 24, 2023, 4:16 PM UTC

badcppdev wrote: post #9

Anyone who has read Cryptonomicon should remember that the hero protagonists went to a lot of effort to secure a large mass of gold to 'back' the currency they wanted to create. The Baroque Trilogy is less clear as Isaac Newton mints new currency. Does that mean that perhaps Stephenson's opinions were always that currency needs to be backed by something whether it is gold or national borders.

Post by kurisufag » Fri, Feb 24, 2023, 4:17 PM UTC

rednerrus wrote: post #24

legrande wrote: post #19

We all started off enthused about cryptocurrency and then the Wolf of Wall Street types co-opted it and ruined it for everyone pulling off the most sophisticated Ponzi schemes in history. The only use-case for it now is for the criminal underworld (who have to somehow convert to fiat privately using novel techniques, and that gets harder with regulation and sanctions and outright banning of tumbler systems).

Criminal Underworld was its best value add. It should have been the selling point all along. The idea that it's a store of value, and argument I've heard my smartest friends make, is testament to the adage "Greed makes man blind and foolish, and makes him an easy prey for death."

Post by taeric » Fri, Feb 24, 2023, 4:19 PM UTC

ricardobeat wrote: post #52

taeric wrote: post #22

This reads oddly to me. In particular, I don't see what makes any of this narrative different to anything else you can make or sell. Indeed, most folks that are making money are doing it by selling their labor or thought work. That is, any discussion of "intrinsic value" is doomed to be axiomatic. Things have value largely because we agree for them to have value. And indeed, a ton of "wealth" is built up on the value…

None of that is disputed in the article or the talk, you seem to have missed the point: it's not that the intrinsic value of things "isn't real", but that people were expecting things to have value (in crypto) without a connection to labor, personal experience or needs. Think generative artworks.

Post by wpietri » Fri, Feb 24, 2023, 4:20 PM UTC

strict9 wrote: post #47

legrande wrote: post #19

We all started off enthused about cryptocurrency and then the Wolf of Wall Street types co-opted it and ruined it for everyone pulling off the most sophisticated Ponzi schemes in history. The only use-case for it now is for the criminal underworld (who have to somehow convert to fiat privately using novel techniques, and that gets harder with regulation and sanctions and outright banning of tumbler systems).

> The only use-case for it now is for the criminal underworld You must not have a need to send money to recipients in other countries. I tried every option I could find until giving up in frustration and sending crypto instead. Not denying the negative aspects but it's a privileged position to assert criminality is the only use case.

Post by taeric » Fri, Feb 24, 2023, 4:21 PM UTC

tlb wrote: post #35

taeric wrote: post #22

This reads oddly to me. In particular, I don't see what makes any of this narrative different to anything else you can make or sell. Indeed, most folks that are making money are doing it by selling their labor or thought work. That is, any discussion of "intrinsic value" is doomed to be axiomatic. Things have value largely because we agree for them to have value. And indeed, a ton of "wealth" is built up on the value…

I think the problem is the scale of the money. No one is worried when people pay $10 for some intangible thing like in-game bling. But NFTs sell for amounts of money people associate with cars or houses, and it gives them icky feelings when other people can throw around money like that.