Crypto is part of a wider agenda - decentralisation.
What generally fails in most proposed social structures is actually not their political orientation, left or right, but rather the degree to which power is centralised.
Heavily centralised structures, like those traditionally found on the left, over time attract psychopaths. This is their failing not the politics.
Thank you Daniel for your thinking, insights and sharing with the world and change makers. It gives me a compass for what blockchains to support and be associated with. You are a gem! :)
Love that you are looking into this emerging field. One of the best reasons to move to non-state controlled money is to separate the government from the abuse of power that happens when they control the money supply. Look at the USA and the 50% increase in dollars over the last two years. Decentralized networks can work and Ethereum PoS is the most decentralized yet. It can be programmed with incentives aligned with humanitarianism in mind.
A great summary. Thanks for setting the intention to explore blockchain leftism more deeply. It’s an area I’ve been trying to understand better, and I’m excited for your perspective on ongoing projects in the space. 🙏🏼
Thanks Daniel, I’ve been following your work for years and love that your research interest is so broad.
That said, a lot of the criticism in the fist half of your entry could've been spared with a proper appreciation of the clear delineation between Bitcoin on the one hand and “crypto” on the other.
Only the former is truly decentralised, regardless of any oxymoronic "progressive decentralisation" VC talk.
You also “presume” wrongly - Bitcoin’s decentralisation isn’t reliant on miners, but on the distribution of its nodes. Just ask the head of Coinbase why his dalliance with miners weren’t enough to win the block size wars.
I would further implore you to focus more on how Bitcoin works on a fundamental level. At best, "crypto", CBDCs, 'blockchain tech', etc. are i nthe greater schemes of things essentially jsut entertaining red herrings while Bitcoin, being optimally anti-fragile, consolidates further and further like a [Mycelium](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTgDQ56Su38) network as it blissfully rides the Lindy Effect wave.
Without a proper appreciation of Bitcoin's revolutionary value propositions, one just joins the chorus of the same old tired and debunked talking points. Conversely, when it then, for example, comes to all the popular criticisms aimed at Proof of Work, one would realise the real debate isn’t about Bitcoin’s energy consumption per se but rather an ill-informed disbelief in the value Bitcoin provides, as Nic Carter argues [here](https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/bitcoin-and-gold-energy-debate).
Crypto is part of a wider agenda - decentralisation.
What generally fails in most proposed social structures is actually not their political orientation, left or right, but rather the degree to which power is centralised.
Heavily centralised structures, like those traditionally found on the left, over time attract psychopaths. This is their failing not the politics.
Thank you Daniel for your thinking, insights and sharing with the world and change makers. It gives me a compass for what blockchains to support and be associated with. You are a gem! :)
Love that you are looking into this emerging field. One of the best reasons to move to non-state controlled money is to separate the government from the abuse of power that happens when they control the money supply. Look at the USA and the 50% increase in dollars over the last two years. Decentralized networks can work and Ethereum PoS is the most decentralized yet. It can be programmed with incentives aligned with humanitarianism in mind.
A great summary. Thanks for setting the intention to explore blockchain leftism more deeply. It’s an area I’ve been trying to understand better, and I’m excited for your perspective on ongoing projects in the space. 🙏🏼
Thanks Daniel, I’ve been following your work for years and love that your research interest is so broad.
That said, a lot of the criticism in the fist half of your entry could've been spared with a proper appreciation of the clear delineation between Bitcoin on the one hand and “crypto” on the other.
Only the former is truly decentralised, regardless of any oxymoronic "progressive decentralisation" VC talk.
You also “presume” wrongly - Bitcoin’s decentralisation isn’t reliant on miners, but on the distribution of its nodes. Just ask the head of Coinbase why his dalliance with miners weren’t enough to win the block size wars.
I would further implore you to focus more on how Bitcoin works on a fundamental level. At best, "crypto", CBDCs, 'blockchain tech', etc. are i nthe greater schemes of things essentially jsut entertaining red herrings while Bitcoin, being optimally anti-fragile, consolidates further and further like a [Mycelium](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTgDQ56Su38) network as it blissfully rides the Lindy Effect wave.
Without a proper appreciation of Bitcoin's revolutionary value propositions, one just joins the chorus of the same old tired and debunked talking points. Conversely, when it then, for example, comes to all the popular criticisms aimed at Proof of Work, one would realise the real debate isn’t about Bitcoin’s energy consumption per se but rather an ill-informed disbelief in the value Bitcoin provides, as Nic Carter argues [here](https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/bitcoin-and-gold-energy-debate).