One thing that I know for sure. By now we should already provided something similar by legal institution.
Like you know when you paying with bank app? thats not "your money" that can you hold and move between wallet. Like we shouldnot use paper money anymore. Something that storage whaever data to trade (no, its not fuvking credit card) should already became standard.
Its crazy even now its only idea that started from random nerd on internet and that still far from materialized.
(this is a long reply, and it's not really to your post, but your post is what kind of inspired me to write it ... I don't think you're coming from a place of malice or anything, I think you're sharing a point that is commonly expressed about the value of crypto. It's a point and line of reasoning that I used to believe in too, and I've only recently started to rethink it, so I want to go through my thought process for why I rethink it)
This is what I mean by 'religious beliefs' around crypto, and I know you're coming from a place of good will so I'm not singling you out, it's a very common thing among the crypto evangelizing community that has then bled out to the wider society. I used to say the same thing, I got really into blockchain, took one of those online courses on it to learn more about it from a technological perspective, and slowly started to lose faith in the argument over time.
Crypto evangelists pose something as a problem, like some theorem: "We need trust in financial transactions on the internet." And, otheer non evangelists will usually just kinda take it as a matter of faith, "Well, sure, makes sense." But someone might challenge that with, "Well, don't we already have trust in financial transactions?" And then the crypto evangelist goes a step further, "Sure, there's faith but only through a third party [Stripe, Venmo, Visa, PayPal, whatever up and down the complexity chain] and that's not sufficient," and usually because the first statement makes sense, there's like this religious leap that a lot of us take (myself included) where we're like, "Yeah! Trusting financial institutions isn't sufficient!" And that's when the crypto evangelizing becomes a religious belief, typically grounded in some sort of financial or techno libertarianism, like this idea that we can't trust banks, can't trust governments, can't trust the regular levers that control currency, like they're not to be trusted, so we need to invent something that solves these problems. But for most people, somewhere north of like 99%, that initial thing isn't a real problem -- faith in financial transactions, distrust in 3rd parties -- and then, likewise, for most people, cryptocurrency doesn't actually solve those problems for them, because for most people using crypto in some way they're *probably* going through a 3rd party exchange system, which isn't very different from those 3rd parties that we were originally told to distrust. For the bitcoin/crypto users who do legitimately "own" their own digital possessions, that's a really, really small portion of people who are participating in the crypto ecosystem. It's like a subset of a subset of a subset.
Now none of this is really a problem at all if crypto is just a technological curiosity, if it has a negligible impact on the environment, human societies, local ecology, and so on. But it doesn't -- it has significant ecological, environmental, and human cost. As another crypto-evangelist shared from twitter in another thread about the same topic a week ago, someone argued that "Bitcoin is designed to use a lot of energy, it's not a bug it's a feature," with this idea being that the energy consumption it demands is part of the system that makes it trustworthy or prevents inflation or some other "feature" of bitcoin ... that this was necessary to maintain some important axiomatic character of bitcoin. That's the point where I think crypto evangelists and those who have been preached to (you and me) should take a step back, and re-evaluate that initial set of things that we took on faith were "problems" that needed to be "solved." And when we reverse our steps, I think that we see that the "solutions" crypto is proposing really aren't solutions for 99%+ of people, and those "problems" really aren't problems for 99%+ of people, but the fallout of crypto is very real -- ecologically catastrophe and human suffering *IS* (or will be) a problem for 99%+ of people.
After challenging those religious beliefs in the problems that crypto is trying to solve which aren't problems for the vast majority of people, sometimes the evangelists pivot to the developing world.
I think there's a necessary component of European/American/Western racism inherent in the justifications of bitcoin as well. You often see the argument of something like, "Well, you [American] can trust your bank, Venmo, or PayPal, but someone in the developing world can't, and that's another reason why we need this decentralized digital currency..." But, again if we take a step back from that and analyze the problem ... First, no, like of the pressing problems in the developing world, decentralized digital currency transactions are really not in the magnitude of problems that "The West" needs to solve for "them." Clean drinking water, electricity, medicine, sure if that's your thing, decentralized digital currencies ...... probably not. But, even if we do take that as a problem, and accept as a matter of faith that the developing world needs white wealthy software engineers from the colonizing countries to solve their perceived financial problems, the solution that us techno-colonizers are proposing is absolutely devastating for the developing world. Us in Europe, the Americas, and developed pacific countries are generally not going to suffer the harshest fallout from climate change, the developing world is: flood, drought, famine is going to have much more affect on developing nations than on those colonizing nations which are largely behind the push for crypto adoption. And the energy generation for crypto mining is, generally, coming from slave or extreme low-wage labor in developing or authoritarian countries.
The reason I like the religious analogy so much is because of this tangential argument ... that "we" need to develop a decentralized trustworthy digital currency to benefit the developing world. It's just so similar to me the argument that colonizers made in the 18th and 19th century. The savage bushmen of central Africa need our Dutch sophistication so that they can speak a
real language, convert to Christianity, and be saved in the afterlife. Of course European colonization of the Congo is necessary! How else will the native people's come to appreciate the stage plays of Joost van den Vondel!?! And (breaking out of the colonizers voice) in reality colonization wasn't to save the aboriginal bushman, it was to line the pockets of wealthy Europeans. Maybe occassionally there would be some mission that would try to bring medicine or more productive farming practices to some rural population, but by and large, it was devastating and destructive, and whatever benefits there were -- the rare farming innovation -- were vastly outweighed by the humanitarian and ecological disaster that colonization wrought, while the slave traders and colonizers became rich on the suffering of those they colonized.
