I’d say that’s a good point but perhaps doesn’t exhaustively cover all the problems. The way I’ve come to think about crypto which I think is roughly congruent is that the things crypto is good for (decentralization, security against hacking) are not major vectors of attack by bad actors under the status quo, and the things it isn’t robust against definitely are. (social engineering, obfuscation of value)
how broad did you intend “status quo” to read here (status quo of the non-crypto society, status quo of the crypto-only society, or status quo of all of society)? there’s a certain interpretation of this comment which is almost tautological: the things any social system is good at are (definitionally?) the things about it which can’t be exploited, the things it isn’t robust against are those where it can be exploited. but i can’t tell if that’s exactly what you’re getting at, or not.
I think I see your point but I’m not sure how to answer the question as you posed it so let me make an analogy:
Imagine I come to you and say “I have a revolutionary new car design that will revolutionize the market and break the chokehold of big auto! Best of all, it’s completely safe; the locks are unpickable and the windows are unbreakable, so no one will ever be able to mug you in your car!”
You would be wise to ask “Okay, but what about in a crash? Is it safe there?” and the truth would be no, not really. Actually people who get caught in crashes with this car are in more danger. And car crashes are so much more common than people being mugged in their car that if you do the math my new car substantially increases your risk exposure.
So when I’m talking about the status quo, I’m talking about the risk landscape that the technology needs to be robust against. Normal currency is subject to a lot of social engineering attacks and very few technical ones, so crypto is solving the wrong problem because as thousands of stolen Bored Apes can attest, you can still be easily tricked into giving the wrong people your wallet details. Although the normal currency world is far from perfect it does at least have recourse sometimes, like transaction reversals or legal redress.
This is a really good way of putting it, and I’ve never thought about it this effectively before. Before reading this, my best thoughts like this on crypto were comparing cryptocoins to gold reserves or corn or oil, which are difficult to flood the market with. But, like, you might end up disappointed if a new cold war starts and world gold reserves get sold off. But that risk is nothing compared to crypto exchanges tanking the industry or everything related to hacking. If AI becomes a fire hose of cognitive labor that makes everything topsy turvy then that’s even worse for crypto.
I’d say that’s a good point but perhaps doesn’t exhaustively cover all the problems. The way I’ve come to think about crypto which I think is roughly congruent is that the things crypto is good for (decentralization, security against hacking) are not major vectors of attack by bad actors under the status quo, and the things it isn’t robust against definitely are. (social engineering, obfuscation of value)
how broad did you intend “status quo” to read here (status quo of the non-crypto society, status quo of the crypto-only society, or status quo of all of society)? there’s a certain interpretation of this comment which is almost tautological: the things any social system is good at are (definitionally?) the things about it which can’t be exploited, the things it isn’t robust against are those where it can be exploited. but i can’t tell if that’s exactly what you’re getting at, or not.
I think I see your point but I’m not sure how to answer the question as you posed it so let me make an analogy:
Imagine I come to you and say “I have a revolutionary new car design that will revolutionize the market and break the chokehold of big auto! Best of all, it’s completely safe; the locks are unpickable and the windows are unbreakable, so no one will ever be able to mug you in your car!”
You would be wise to ask “Okay, but what about in a crash? Is it safe there?” and the truth would be no, not really. Actually people who get caught in crashes with this car are in more danger. And car crashes are so much more common than people being mugged in their car that if you do the math my new car substantially increases your risk exposure.
So when I’m talking about the status quo, I’m talking about the risk landscape that the technology needs to be robust against. Normal currency is subject to a lot of social engineering attacks and very few technical ones, so crypto is solving the wrong problem because as thousands of stolen Bored Apes can attest, you can still be easily tricked into giving the wrong people your wallet details. Although the normal currency world is far from perfect it does at least have recourse sometimes, like transaction reversals or legal redress.
This is a really good way of putting it, and I’ve never thought about it this effectively before. Before reading this, my best thoughts like this on crypto were comparing cryptocoins to gold reserves or corn or oil, which are difficult to flood the market with. But, like, you might end up disappointed if a new cold war starts and world gold reserves get sold off. But that risk is nothing compared to crypto exchanges tanking the industry or everything related to hacking. If AI becomes a fire hose of cognitive labor that makes everything topsy turvy then that’s even worse for crypto.