In With the Good, Out With the Bad

Cryptocurrency, distributed ledger technology, and “trustless” systems are still very experimental solutions. Most of their value remains speculative. Many of the solutions being proposed, are being built to address problems which are not unsolved. This point, I’ve heard frequently voiced by skeptics of the blockchain revolution… And frankly, I agree with them. Completely. As much as I would like to believe that most projects have arisen for the specific remedy of a clear problem… That simply is not the case. However, that’s not to say that these solutions aren’t capable of replacing those which exist currently. The important element to analyze is not whether the function of this technology fills a chasm-sized need. Rather, the focus should center upon their fitness to fill those needs, and the ability to replace those solutions built on a faulty premise. Further, to say that the existence of a previous solution negates the potential of this emerging field of tech would be short-sighted. Such a sentiment suggests ignoring entirely the novel components of game theory — Hell, developers are even managing to engineer altruism… Improvement is part of the design. Don’t believe me? Maybe Mr. Buterin is more effective in communicating these concepts than I am. Rational decision-making and a mathematical equilibrium of choice remain integral concepts in the philosophy and architecture behind cryptoeconomics.

Prior to the advent of the internet, scientists needed to communicate just as quickly and freely as the internet has now come to make possible. They may not have been communicating with great ease, speed, or with as few barriers… But, solutions did exist for the issue of communicating across geographical distance. Technology like the internet simply presented a much more effective and superior solution than those that were in place. But, adoption of new technology takes time… home use of the internet serves as a prime example.

A red herring exists as an unintentional byproduct within the blockchain industry. Those seeking technological solutions similar to bitcoin would be misled to classify these solutions as a purely “tech” just as it would be a grossly poor generalization to label the internet in such a way. These innovations are most certainly technological in form and will continue to shape that tech landscape, globally. However, at its most basic level, blockchain technology serves much more as a conduit or a necessary bridge between raw technological capability and a new realm of economics, previously plagued by bad-actors and an excessive requirement of “trust.” Cryptoassets, more than a novel solution, actually present with them a radically improved blueprint for the mechanics behind logical (or illogical) decision-making between independent parties. Smart contracts allow application of this blueprint at the level of individual actors, as well as that of supermassive corporate and state-level entities.

While it is easy to see that the world is gradually becoming comfortable exchanging currencies traded on the FOREX for cryptoassets… That practice has brought with it a discussion: do cryptocurrencies function as an abstraction of wealth, in a way that is similar to a federal reserve note or credit cards?

Andreas Antonopoulos addressed currency adoption from this perspective during a Q&A nearly a year ago (May 2017).