memes

As someone who used to be (but no longer is) into crypto: These statements are all technically accurate to some degree, but are missing extremely important nuance.

The stablecoins part is accurate. Most purchases made in crypto are with stablecoins.

What's missing here is the fact that these stablecoins are issued and controlled by private companies, or would be influenced by them otherwise. For example, Circle issues USDC, one of the most popular dollar stablecoins. (as well as EURC for Euros)

Circle holds real dollars in real bank accounts to back USDC. Circle can also freeze your balance and blacklist addresses, because they don't want their banks to stop working with them. That's it. They can unilaterally stop you from using your USDC.

Other mechanisms for keeping a stablecoin at $1, such as algorithmic pegs, failed spectacularly many times, the most famous of which being the Terra disaster.

Some other stablecoins use centralized coins as backing to then issue new coins. (e.g. 1 STABLECOIN is backed by 1 USDC, and can be exchanged freely) These coins could then be in trouble if they're used enough for fraud, and Circle just blocks the coin itself from exchanging between itself and USDC to maintain the peg, making it worthless. This is an inherent risk. You either use a centralized platform less accountable than card companies, or you use a third party backed by that centralized asset that could face peg issues.

As for the inefficiency, it's actually true that PoW is being phased out by most chains other than Bitcoin for PoS, which is incredibly energy efficient by comparison. Truly, it's actually just pretty energy efficient. This isn't missing much nuance, though you could argue that the financial mechanisms used by the systems running on top of a PoS consensus mechanisms are still complex in their own right.

For the fraud part, this is only half accurate. Fraud in crypto has been on the rise, and while it's maintained itself at a level lower than credit card fraud, this is also because of the limited scope in which crypto operates. If crypto were to be used in more situations like credit cards are, then there would be more opportunities to be defrauded in the first place.

The majority of activity in crypto operates within speculative markets, protocols offering yield farming and staking, liquidity pooling, vote bribing, and an untold number of other mechanisms that exist. As such, scammers are mostly limited to tricking people in the field of investments.

If crypto was also used to pay your bills, for your purchases at the store, for every rideshare and food delivery app, and to pay friends back for dinner, then the scope of fraud becomes much larger.

Crypto does not have less fraud because it is fundamentally better at preventing it, crypto has less fraud because it's used in less circumstances.

(There is also an argument to be made that many investments in crypto that don't work out because of rugpulls, failed promises, unaccountable DAO leaders, etc, aren't counted in fraud statistics, and that the number should be much higher)

Now, finally, as for regulation, it's true that crypto has seen much more regulation than it used to have, but it's only getting a bit stronger, and is nowhere near the sheer quantity of regulations that financial corporations have to follow, though some are technically not necessary for crypto as most crypto is already transparent via the blockchain's very structure, and thus doesn't require some of the transparency regulations corporations often follow.

Crypto still lags far behind, and there's a degree to which it physically can't be regulated in the first place. For example, you can't regulate how the Uniswap exchange handles user funds, because the code for Uniswap has already been immutably deployed to its respective chains.

If a system is built on rejecting authority, there will always be a degree to which justifiable authority that could protect people becomes impossible by its very nature.

I'm not wholly against any possible use of crypto. If someone being, say, censored by payment processors is able to use crypto to send money home to their family, or pay for a thing the corporations currently deem to not be nice for their brand image, that's all well and fine.

But as a whole, crypto is nowhere near being more beneficial than harmful.

Stronger argument is that deflationary currency is not something someone with an investment mind wants to spend. Which is why there is the same price fixation and attempts to hype up crypto like stocks because most people got into it not to spend it, but hold onto it like an asset. Its why people encourage rebuying crypto if you use it to buy something to replenish their balance to not regret having wasted what could be a house to get a slice of pizza.

Now sure there are stable coins but that is more used by investors to move assets around exchanges to then go and buy other crypto that they believe will return a profit or move into when they believe a dip is occuring so they can reenter later to expand their assests by buying low. Pretty much most crypto communities are highly fixated on price as opposed to treating it like currency that should be spent. It's always this is the next big thing, it is going to moon, hodl, etc.

So I guess point is as much as people like to act like they are anticapitalist the culture of crypto once prices started going up is pursuit of capitalism and wealth hording. The values people claim to have was most present when crypto was new and people were giving it away, having fun spending it, and transacting it. But, then greed took over as people saw people becoming millionaires and billionaires for holding what they got early.

It's ironic looking at it now given the state of dogecoin but that maintained the original spirit of crypto for a really long time before it too skyrocketed in price and got pulled into the same asset category.

By inefficiency I just mean transactions per kWh. It's insane how expensive cryptocurrencies can get.

The lack of regulation is pretty much a goal. When a government controls or regulate a currency, your liberty is attacked.

If your argument hinges on avoiding regulation, then it's guaranteed to fail. Having oversight is not a bad thing.

The idea of positive self-regulation, especially of a currency in a capitalist system, is pure fantasy.