Would the world be better off with no cryptocurrency?
Here’s a thought-provoking post:
Here’s the biggest point:
[Bitcoin and similar have] given utility to some individuals, by making them rich. But since no new service or good has been created in the world, this comes at the price of making everyone else a little poorer.
Can this be true? Crypto has burned up a huge amount of electricity so it made at least some electric utilities richer as well as holders of crypto currency becoming richer. Sam Bankman-Fried and at least one of his sex partners are making the prison-industrial complex a little richer. But would the world overall be better off if crypto had never been developed or used? Think of all of the important mRNA vaccines we could have enjoyed if some of our best and brightest minds weren’t sidetracked into crypto fever.
The same author on X explains why we have to hear 24/7 hype from Bitcoin holders whereas those who own Malaysian ringgit are mostly peaceful: “… for people who hold it, it is pure economic advantage to hype it. This predictably creates a landscape of self-reinforcing hype.”
Related:
- “LUIGI hits all-time high at $60M market cap after Luigi Mangione’s arrest for murder” (Crypto News): The Luigi Inu (LUIGI) token first started gaining traction following Mangione’s arrest in Altoona, Pennsylvania and charged on Dec 9. The token’s market cap reached $29 million before it rocketed higher to $60 million, after the arrest was confirmed. Originally launched by anonymous crypto traders, the token is trending on Raydium, the automated market maker built on Solana. The connection between Mangione and the memecoin lies in the fact that his arrest and the subsequent media attention have significantly boosted the token’s popularity and value.