Maybe I'm biased, but this whole article is heavily premised on investments and development in cryptocurrency systems being important, which is not a view I share.
Still, is it VCs' fault for not continuing to dump money into cryptocurrency development even though no great use cases have come out of it in the last 20 years? You would think that if there was something here, the insane investments would have resulted in more than just trading apps, prediction markets, and meme coins. Personally, I think the less money and time invested in this tech, the better we all are for it.
I think a couple of years ago there was a real window of opportunity for crypto. People could have invented crypto versions of real-life things like insurances and mortgages.
But that never really happened, because everybody was busy getting rich with shitcoins and ape NFTs. Which seemed easier than building up complex organization on a crypto foundation. Along the way they destroyed all trust and goodwill that Bitcoin had created. Maybe, in a few years, there will be another opportunity, but right now it will be hard to convince anyone to invest money in a crypto business.
> People could have invented crypto versions of real-life things like insurances and mortgages.
> But that never really happened, because everybody was busy getting rich with shitcoins and ape NFTs.
I think the failure of the former lead to the latter. The first decade had people trying to build things which were potentially useful to normal people, but the utter failure to produce a competitive solution to anything lead to everyone invested in cryptocurrency following increasingly risky endeavors because they knew that they were not going to survive, much less get rich, competing with the safer and more efficient financial sector.
My litmus test for has been PayPal: they’ve screwed so many people over the years, and their fees are enough that a viable alternative is going to get interest from a lot of people. I’ve bought a fair amount of stuff online over the time cryptocurrencies have existed, from individuals up to huge companies and NOBODY has ever encouraged cryptocurrency or, in all but a handful of cases even accepted it (I think I did buy something from NewEgg during the period where they accepted Bitcoin but instantly sold it). Given the cost of credit card and PayPal transaction fees, that’s just complete failure because there is absolutely a huge market receptive to shaving points off of their overhead rates and not dealing with a company which not uncommonly creates major problems for sellers.
> People could have invented crypto versions of real-life things like insurances and mortgages.
Crypto makes large technical sacrifices for the sake of being harder to regulate. I don't think that's a desirable quality for insurance and mortgages.
> People could have invented crypto versions of real-life things like insurances and mortgages.
Was there every any demand for such things? Those products presume people would use cryptocurrency as money for real economic activity, which turned out to be very, very rare (and wild swings in value caused by speculation would make that very foolish).
The core problem with cryptocurrency seems to be an that it's an elegant technology that is not appreciably better (and in many ways much worse) than the technology it sought to replace (fiat currency). So there's sort of no point to it, but the technical elegance made too many software engineers go bonkers and fail to see it for what it really was.
Also, it turns out the obsessions of very online libertarians aren't widely shared in the general population. So things designed to cater to those obsessions don't actually work as designed. They don't understand their "customers" for their vision.
Oh, but it is “better” in one very crucial way: it enables global transactions, that are difficult to trace yet accessible. Without crypto, we would not have the scourge of ransomware
Which makes sense, because very online libertarians basically imagine themselves to be criminals (either they imagine a totalitarian government out to get them, or they don't think the law should apply to them).
If the crypto community ever plans on being successful, it needs to show the world outside crypto why it should use cryptocurrency. Right now, people use these coins mainly for remittances and illegal trade because they allow the users to sidestep financial regulation and tracking. Beyond that a few gambling applications like Polymarket have cropped up, but these succeed not with the broader population but within the crypto social bubble because the kind of person making wildly speculative trades on virtual currency will probably also enjoy using an unregulated gambling market.
I have a hard time seeing how the market expands beyond its current demographic, many (but not all) of whom meld the worst traits of the finance and tech industries and only further alienate themselves from the mainstream in doing so.
> VCs are too traumatized to invest in the stuff regular people actually want to buy and use
What are these things? The post doesn't seem to elaborate on the "actually useful and desirable stuff".
I allocated small portions of my investment portfolio to BTC (3%) and ETH (1%) last year. I don't have any faith in crypto but it has proved me wrong for many years. Also, there is a lot of renewed doubt about the place of USD in the global economic system, and gold can only go so far. Plus it's very easy to invest in them now: IBIT, FBTC, ETHA, FETH, etc. Last, in terms of the age-old wisdom of being fearful when others are greedy and vice versa, this article is a clear buy signal. I've heard that crypto is ^SPX on steroids but the correlations I've ran seem to suggest that BTC and ETH have quite a bit of uncorrelation to equities. Time will tell!
As a developer, what is something crypto-related that is fun to dabble in?
Disclaimer: I am not a finance / investment professional and my long-term investment record is in fact very subpar (not even par)
Article appears to blame developers for not attracting VCs to crypto. Right... Because every other industry would blame the developers for not attracting VC's to their industry, right? Right? And of course VC's are where it's at...
Crypto will die but the underlying tech ie Blockchain will live on forever and change the world in ways many won't believe.
Crypto scams promoted by presidents like Trump and Milei have not helped too .
Still, is it VCs' fault for not continuing to dump money into cryptocurrency development even though no great use cases have come out of it in the last 20 years? You would think that if there was something here, the insane investments would have resulted in more than just trading apps, prediction markets, and meme coins. Personally, I think the less money and time invested in this tech, the better we all are for it.
Anyone should have the authority to create money and sell it to those willing to accept it and all will be right in the world.
If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. This will not end well for most people.
But that never really happened, because everybody was busy getting rich with shitcoins and ape NFTs. Which seemed easier than building up complex organization on a crypto foundation. Along the way they destroyed all trust and goodwill that Bitcoin had created. Maybe, in a few years, there will be another opportunity, but right now it will be hard to convince anyone to invest money in a crypto business.
> But that never really happened, because everybody was busy getting rich with shitcoins and ape NFTs.
I think the failure of the former lead to the latter. The first decade had people trying to build things which were potentially useful to normal people, but the utter failure to produce a competitive solution to anything lead to everyone invested in cryptocurrency following increasingly risky endeavors because they knew that they were not going to survive, much less get rich, competing with the safer and more efficient financial sector.
My litmus test for has been PayPal: they’ve screwed so many people over the years, and their fees are enough that a viable alternative is going to get interest from a lot of people. I’ve bought a fair amount of stuff online over the time cryptocurrencies have existed, from individuals up to huge companies and NOBODY has ever encouraged cryptocurrency or, in all but a handful of cases even accepted it (I think I did buy something from NewEgg during the period where they accepted Bitcoin but instantly sold it). Given the cost of credit card and PayPal transaction fees, that’s just complete failure because there is absolutely a huge market receptive to shaving points off of their overhead rates and not dealing with a company which not uncommonly creates major problems for sellers.
Crypto makes large technical sacrifices for the sake of being harder to regulate. I don't think that's a desirable quality for insurance and mortgages.
Was there every any demand for such things? Those products presume people would use cryptocurrency as money for real economic activity, which turned out to be very, very rare (and wild swings in value caused by speculation would make that very foolish).
The core problem with cryptocurrency seems to be an that it's an elegant technology that is not appreciably better (and in many ways much worse) than the technology it sought to replace (fiat currency). So there's sort of no point to it, but the technical elegance made too many software engineers go bonkers and fail to see it for what it really was.
Also, it turns out the obsessions of very online libertarians aren't widely shared in the general population. So things designed to cater to those obsessions don't actually work as designed. They don't understand their "customers" for their vision.
Trust derives from stability which can only be established over time.
Any "stability" crypto has/had comes from ties to fiat (see "stable coins") --- they very thing it is intended to replace.
In other words, the fact that crypto markets revolve around "stable coins" is a testament to fiat and proof of crypto's inadequacy as a currency.
I have a hard time seeing how the market expands beyond its current demographic, many (but not all) of whom meld the worst traits of the finance and tech industries and only further alienate themselves from the mainstream in doing so.
What are these things? The post doesn't seem to elaborate on the "actually useful and desirable stuff".
I allocated small portions of my investment portfolio to BTC (3%) and ETH (1%) last year. I don't have any faith in crypto but it has proved me wrong for many years. Also, there is a lot of renewed doubt about the place of USD in the global economic system, and gold can only go so far. Plus it's very easy to invest in them now: IBIT, FBTC, ETHA, FETH, etc. Last, in terms of the age-old wisdom of being fearful when others are greedy and vice versa, this article is a clear buy signal. I've heard that crypto is ^SPX on steroids but the correlations I've ran seem to suggest that BTC and ETH have quite a bit of uncorrelation to equities. Time will tell!
As a developer, what is something crypto-related that is fun to dabble in?
Disclaimer: I am not a finance / investment professional and my long-term investment record is in fact very subpar (not even par)