Sort:  

Appreciate your additions, I would have contradictory statements to both:

  • many obscure monetary objects have been used in history; Bitcoin certainly did not have any market acceptance.
  • this is absolutely not a requirement. Period.
  • this is a goal, not a requirement
  • ye fellow, thy still living in old times. There is really no requirement for this, that is the beauty of this cryptoeconomic movement

@kyle.anderson, always a pleasure - I dig your posts and I agree that no money is real - least of all, the USD which is basically monopoly money.

Market Acceptance - many obscure monetary objects have been used in history; Bitcoin certainly did not have any market acceptance.

This is true, some places had supposedly used shells and whatknot, but both parties must recognize an object as payment for it to be accepted in exchange for goods, services, etc. Even if the recipient of funds is the 1/10 or 1/8 Americans whom recognize BTC as currency, they may not be able to accept it because their bills and overhead are in USD. This convo reminds me of a book: Debt the First 5000 Years.

Acceptance as legal tender - this is absolutely not a requirement. Period.

Nor is this an argument. But, for the sake of argument, a currency or form of payment becoming legal tender will both drive up the worth of the holder and put law enforcement behind it's acceptance as payment - in turn, making something money. We actually saw this in America when the govt forced people to accept paper money as tender.

Investor Confidence - this is a goal, not a requirement

I would say that this is both a goal and a requirement, especially while aspiring to maintain fair or superior exchange rates to other currencies.

Backing with material goods - ye fellow, thy still living in old times. There is really no requirement for this, that is the beauty of this cryptoeconomic movement

I suppose that I would prefer the pre-1971 gold backed dollar system, because at least then the banks and federal reserve would be forced to conduct safe Liquidity & Solvency practices, though I have done well as a result of poor practices. Actually, I agree with you on this point and would strike it out if I were more proficient with markdown!

I agree with everything you said; you left me nothing:).

I do see a future where decenteralized exchange tech is at a point where users can choose to send and receive money in whatever denomination they choose - the market will arrange the trade.

Then we're even, because you did it to me earlier, lol.

I agree on your visions of the future, and it might even add a new dynamic by which investors can trade both shares of a company as well as blockchain coins for specific projects like supply chain managment.

This is probably what the citizens of Elysium did for a living!

elysium+17.jpg

Is that a video game?

Sci-Fi movie about the not-so distant future, where 'spreading the wealth' ran the elites into isolation and the impoverished to fend for themselves. Starring major political themes like "free healthcare is a basic human right", "It's everyone's money", "corporations don't value human life", "white privilege oppresses Spanish speaking people" and "love, like...trumps hate?"... and Matt Damon.

You should check it out.

That certainly looks like it is down my alley.
Cheers!!