this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2026
149 points (97.5% liked)
Privacy
4632 readers
623 users here now
Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That fails the point. Wero is good because it breaks open a duopoly and mitigates the risk that the US can bring the European economy to a halt via Visa/Mastercard.
More comoetition is good, monopolies aren't. Nor would a Wero monopoly be.
From a strategic view Wero is extremely important for Europe. You are looking from a cery different view on the topic but that does not invalidate that other view per se.
My own views are that we need a balance of control and chaos. Both extremes have substantual downsides.
I'm not convinced that a triopoly (not sure what it's called) is significantly different from a duopoly.
My main view is that a centralized system can be built on top of a decentralized one, but not the other way around. And by the way, if crypto and traditional banking co-existed, with broad support for both, that would be a decentralized system, and I'm fine with that. As long as people can easily convert their fiat to crypto and interact with the same sellers in order to bypass censorship.
More competition is better than less. It is that simple. Your argument is just either nihilistic or an excuse to support a duopoly.
Well crypto is fully decentralized, with every node acting independently, so it really is the most competitive environment you can imagine, if that's what you're looking for