Cascading Decentralization
Decentralization is a Spectrum
Everything is Centralized.
Everything is Decentralized.
Central banking is Decentralized.
In the image above imagine the four central nodes in the 'decentralized' category were central banks. Each central bank is connected to multiple retail banks, and all the central banks are connected via the SWIFT system. It is in this way that fiat is obviously a decentralized system.
But it is obviously not decentralized enough to prevent corruption.
Which is why we are here to fix the problem.
The Banks are in charge.
They even make it seem like they aren't in charge by calling themselves the Federal Reserve, even though they are a private bank with the majority share of board member seats. Now that the banks have been in charge longer than anyone has been alive, we all simply accept this new narrative as the way it's always been and the way it should be.
But the banks are weak.
The banks are dinosaurs. They are such hulking monsters that they don't even know what to do against an opponent that could rival them. All they know how to do is stomp on everything on the ground and make sure it can't grow to their size. Luckily, Bitcoin can not be squashed, and regulators have been playing whack-a-mole ever since its inception, growing back bigger after every bear market.
The BTC comet has already struck Earth.
It's only a matter of time now.
All the dinosaurs that don't evolve, will die.
But make no mistake,
many will evolve and perhaps be even more powerful than before.
CBDC
How will governments disrupt the Banks? CBDC. Interestingly enough, central bank digital currencies will not be central banks. A central bank is a bank for banks, and CBDC doesn't have any reason to give retail banks loans when they can just print money directly and distribute that value to the liquidity pools. Again, there's zero reason for a CBDC to issue loans. They are going to finally circumvent all those pesky laws that prevent them from issuing currency directly (a thing that the 'printer go brrr' people ignorantly assume they are already doing). CBDC actually allows printer to go brrr without limit, but it will still be forced to compete with the open-source opt-in attention economy.
This brings up an interesting revelation.
If a CBDC isn't a bank for banks (central bank) then CBDC currency isn't even debt. That's a huge upgrade for the entire economy. By removing debt from the economy everything becomes more sustainable.
Now, you might be thinking this is ridiculous.
Surely, CBDCs will be debt!
And some of them might be.
But the point is some of them definitely won't be.
All CBDCs will be different.
They will all do whatever they are programmed to do,
in a permissionless environment.
Imagine 100 CBDC currencies controlled by 100 governments.
Surely, some of these currencies have been programed to have some pretty unique and interesting features.
But then the governments get 'killed' by the corporations.
And by 'killed' I mean disrupted. Remember all those "point" systems that corporations have in order to avoid securities regulation? Those will all turn into real unregulatable currencies eventually.
- The banks will have to compete with the governments.
- The governments have to compete with the corporations.
- The corporations have to compete with the communities.
None of these things are happening in a vacuum.
Once CBDC is implemented, it will logistically be impossible to ban other cryptocurrencies (unlike many assume). There's no way to spin the narrative that politicians get to be 100% in control of a currency that they force on everyone and all competition is not allowed. Everyone knows what Monopoly means. People are trusting, but they aren't THAT trusting. Everyone can see that obvious conflict of interest, even gullible citizens that normally would believe the 'official' narrative.
Not that it matters...
If crypto gets "banned" we've already seen that it can't get banned and people just ignore the ban. Just look at India: it doesn't work. Bans come from the top-down. That means when something gets banned (like Online Poker or Cuban Cigars) the ban doesn't target individuals; it targets the banks or the ports or the corporations or any other centralized bottleneck. Regulation is a centralized process. You can't regulate decentralized things, and people/communities are decentralized by nature. Only the institutions that govern the people can be regulated.
Conclusion
Decentralization is a cascading waterfall. While the banks are busing trying to control the governments, the governments are trying to control the corporations, and the corporations are trying to leech the people. What happens when the people realize... they don't need them?
It's poetic that this all takes place in a church. The church represents the infinite unknown and the faith-based mindsets that arise from trying to explain those unknowns. However, a new truth is emerging, and that truth is uncensorable and stored forever on the blockchain. This church is about to get ugly. Perhaps we need a new religion.
Edicted, will you and TaskMaster be our new popes? We need to decentralize.
Popes are centralization, bro. Be the pope you want to see in the world.
You're right! I hereby declare everyone here a Pope!
Good to see you Pope Valued Customer!
Sir. You used the same pic 3 times lol.
It is a good pic.
Banks are weaker than we think. They have a lot of runway and by that I mean capital, but they lack innovation. Crypto is making them obsolete and they are scared so they will manipulate markets while they can.
Sadly and that’s how they get to the community that depends on these centralized entities. But do you think it’s possible that the world can get fully decentralized.
Decentralization is a slow process.
Only the things that need to be decentralized will be decentralized.
Decentralization is inefficient, but robust.
The faster things fail, the more quickly they will be decentralized out of necessity.
Your content has been voted as a part of Encouragement program. Keep up the good work!
Use Ecency daily to boost your growth on platform!
Support Ecency
Vote for new Proposal
Delegate HP and earn more
What are your thoughts on IOTA's tangle? ;)
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I haven't looked at IOTA since 2018.
Truly I don't have a reason to even consider it until Hive reaches the scaling limit.
The bank are wicked, they are one of the problem BTC are facing today. I believe bank don't want BTC to exist but the strength of BTC is dominating the whole world.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
So when we draw out that logical conclusion...
Autism is a spectrum.
Everything is Autistic.
This guy gets it.
I think that instead of making decentralization into a meaningless nothingburger, it would be better to draw a comparison to pH scale. There are weak acids and strong acids but we don't call it a base until it gets past a certain point. This would retain your cascading effect without completely muddling the whole dichotomy which has more utility than trying to say vinegar is basic because sulfuric acid is more acidic.
Kinda sounds like a spectrum which is exactly how I described it.
And then I linked to a previous post that explains that exact topic in way more detail.
So, nah, I think I explained it more than enough already.
pH scale is the exact same thing as what I already said.
Pretty good example though, I'll leave you to it.
You probably shouldn't nitpick about some random detail at the beginning of the post that isn't really relevant to the main message being conveyed. Even if you win the battle you lose the war. You picked the wrong hill to die on.
How do I lose the war? It's your thesis statement that I'm refuting and if you took that idea outside of the echo chamber of sycophants here into a real marketplace of ideas, you would find your idea challenged more broadly. There is a lot of faulty logic in your statement which takes away from what good could be gleaned from it. Trying to say everything is centralized and everything is decentralized is not only bad reasoning it also just makes the terms pointless. Even if something were a spectrum, that doesnt make everything on both sides of the spectrum nor does is that spectrum all inclusive. There's a political spectrum but that doesn't make everything political or both right and left.
"sycophants" eh?
Interesting choice of vocabulary you have here.
Only know one other person around here that talks like this.
I am not some little bitch who surrounds myself with yes-men who stroke my ego.
So you can drop that shit right now.
Since you don't seem to understand the topic at hand let me spell it out for you:
While these dinosaurs are running around playing whack-a-mole with all the low-hanging fruit, we gain strength and expand our censorship resistant infrastructure. We don't have to worry about all the garbage out there, because that garbage acts as a meat-shield for everything else.
Now do you have anything useful to add to this narrative?
Or do you want to keep pursuing this bullshit semantical argument about the definition of "decentralization"?
Like seriously you look like such a jackass right now.
It's like a child came into my comments after reading the first 14 words of the post looking to start an argument over a subject that actually has nothing to do with the main topic.
Did you read farther than this?
You've written 3 comments so far, and it is impossible to tell if you actually read past the first 14 words, ass.
Come in here and think you can just insult my character and argue about the definition of a single word that has no relevance within the macro context of the original post? Get the fuck out, kid. Go troll someone else. You've brought nothing to the table except opened with a passive-aggressive backhanded comment followed by nitpicking the definition of a single word within the article.
No I read the entire post before commenting. I was also trying to engage in a provocative but polite way then got a little insulted by the hand-waving you did saying I was nitpicking so I came back with a bit of a counterpunch but I came in a little hot and you're right, I shouldn't attack your character like that. It was meant to be more in jest but a lot gets lost in text and I should have given myself a minute to chill to phrase it better. I do think my points are more than just nitpicks and it ties into the rest of your post than but I could have done better to not get stun locked by that aspect. I didn't come here to troll and I was being polite before my last comment.
Interesting. Well I take it all back then.
Very surprising response I must say.
Good de-escalation.
How refreshing.
The pH thing is a good analogy and I may use it somewhere down the road.
Telling someone they look like a bitchboy bc they challenged the logic of your posts title is really strange behaviour. We are all friends in this blockchain space and he is just pointing out a logical fallacy to help you grow. I usually enjoy reading your content and especially the comments but wooow wtf is this?
ITS PURE UNFETTERED RAGE MUHAHAHAHA IM AN ANIMAL!
Couldn't tell you man I was in a mood that day.
#triggered
Also if there was some kind of lesson to be learned it went totally over my head.
Logical fallacy? What logical fallacy?
Lol
I don't think a CBDC helps the central banks but it does help the politicians and the government. Right now to print money, they need to issue treasuries and bonds but if they issued the CBDC then the central banks and the feds are cut out of the process.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Yes I feel like this is the idea.
But if governments and central banks and corporations are all competing in a digital war over money... everyone wins.
That's the main point.
Everyone wins because everyone is forced to compete.
No one can burn the bridge behind them and corner the market.
Iono mang. I can see CBDCs putting the banks(ters) on the throne so completely they are literally gods relative to mere mortals, particularly as I expect government to be actually abandoned for rule by algorithms that are used to allow individuals to transact with their CBDC based on their good boy points.
In such a system the term bank doesn't really make sense anymore. The issuer and controller of CBDC becomes God in effect. That's what I have assumed is the end goal of the NWO conquest of the world ongoing. I see no role for crypto, and only see barter as potentially useful to outcasts, whom I expect to be hunted by swarms of drones and to wail and gnash their teeth a lot. Before they die, that is.
Why should they not aim for that supreme authority?
Yes but it doesn't benefit the banks. If the government can directly control the money then banks are no longer needed so I don't think CDBCs will actually pass.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
The agents and agencies of governments are so thoroughly corrupted by oligarchs that I am left conceiving of government as little more than a vector for corruption, and a veil that conceals, and thus provides the security of obscurity, the oligarchical power behind the cardboard throne. Government so defiled is a very poor choice to deploy as a mechanism to exert real power.
Banks are relatively virginally pure in comparison, and potential of reliably exerting power via CBDCs, IMHO.
I do not do religion but this is a great article. I'd love to come across more articles like this.
👍👍
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I am unable to muster a gut check that grants me confidence in any of several assertions herein, such as that crypto can't be banned. Several times in the last week the comms in Kazakhstan were shut off. This was quite a threat to BTC because of the amount of mining KZ undertakes. Were that shutoff to have been more durable, or only to have been restored in such a limited way that digital uploads weren't possible to the people of KZ, they would be without their cryptos, or at least without any ability to transact with them other than pen and paper.
As I don't hold BTC, I really didn't look to see what affect that temporary shutdown had on BTC. Did you notice any effect from the majority of BTC mining being offline? Just curious, in an academic sort of way.
Regarding people being unwilling to allow government to have a monopoly on money making, I don't think that's credible at all. I think most people think government does have a monopoly on money making, and would be surprised to learn how dollars actually come into existence, and further, that most people would prefer that government have a monopoly on money making and all that pesky debt being dumped on citizens end right quick, particularly as the money to make the interest payments isn't created with it.
I have no particular expectations of diversity of CBDCs. I guess I'd be surprised more by a wide diversity than the opposite. I'm sure I'll be surprised no matter how these eventuate, because people a lot smarter than me will be doing it.
I should let you know I am surprised to have more hope in the future of money after reading this post than I did before reading it. I'm not sure if I should curse you or thank you for that. I will thank you nonetheless, as most folks reckon hope is a good thing. I consider it my worst enemy. Still...
Thanks!
You see we are taking the same piece of evidence and coming to exact opposite conclusions.
Kazakhstan was an amazing display of exactly why we don't need to worry.
I don't even know where to start.
First of all in America people are more entitled than anywhere else in the world.
Turn off the Internet here and see what happens, I dare them.
I haven't written the post yet but this is a precursor to actual mesh networks,
and a decentralized Internet itself.
It doesn't matter if the Internet is down for a few days.
Every time the "immune system" of the economy fails, it will destroy the threat with a decentralized solution and become 1000 times more robust.
We can't freeze these moments in time and extrapolate them out like they won't be fixed.
Also important to note that if the Internet is down... the banks themselves will be down.
Fiat's only purpose in the new world will soon be cash redundancy: a physical backup.
This is funny, because you are the one that turned me on to an edition of the Corbett Report that made me realize that this is extremely credible. In order to control the people the elite must control the narrative. If they can not control the narrative then they aren't going to get what they want. CBDC destroys the narrative entirely and automatically legitimizes all crypto. There's no way to ban it after that. Collectively people will overwhelmingly reject the "crypto bad" narrative if the government itself implements its own crypto.
I'm quite certain that the crazy shit we are seeing today will be nothing to what we see 5 years down the road. Sure it's fun to try to speculate but... in the end I'm sure we're both wrong about most of the shit we babble on about.
Again I am struck by how your comments stir up hope in me I have long sought to disregard. I do hope you're right, and entirely against my will and such feeble judgment as I have.
On that we are in complete agreement.