I'm not sure why, but there are a large number of bitcoiners out there who also seem to think that the rest of the crypto space still has a place in the real world economy.
You probably can think of a few.
They have a crystallized view of Bitcoin's future, but vaguely weave in the rest of crypto into some abstract category of relevance. Crypto is just "here to stay" without explaining how.
Crypto as an "asset" class represents many things, but I think we can simply let crypto’s kingpin Vitalik Buterin spell out why crypto can't function in reality without even realizing it.
This is an old gem of a clip. Watch it.
While his comments pertain to proof-of-stake protocols, other proof-of-work coins suffer the same inevitable fate as PoS crypto.
The problem? Well, let’s read his exact words:
“Proof of work is based on the laws of physics, so you have to work with the world as it is. You have to work with electricity as it is, hardware as it is, what computers are, as it is…Whereas because proof of stake is virtualized in this way, it’s basically letting us create a simulated universe that has its own laws of physics. And that just gives us as protocol developers a lot more freedom to optimize the system around actually having all of the different security properties that we want…”
He implies that the restraints of working with the world "as it is" is a negative thing.
Lack of restraint is exactly why PoS crypto is just fiat 2.0.
Other PoW coins fall into the same boat because they simply can't gain enough market share from Bitcoin and can't guarantee BTC's perfect tokenomics.
Now replace “proof of work” and “proof of stake” with “Reality” and “Minecraft” and imagine a video game developer speaking.
Reality is based on the laws of physics, so you have to work with the world as it is. You have to work with electricity as it is, hardware as it is, what computers are, as it is…Whereas because Minecraft is virtualized in this way, it’s basically letting us create a simulated universe that has its own laws of physics. And that just gives us as protocol developers a lot more freedom to optimize the system around actually having all of the different security properties that we want…”
Crypto is a lot like Minecraft — a simulation of reality. Because it’s built on its own properties, not those of the reality we all live in, crypto “works” in its own world, but not in the real world.
In crypto, you can:
  • Print more cryptocurrencies out of thin air via staking/yield farming
  • Play soul-sucking blockchain games and explore soulless metaverses
  • Trade shitcoins and NFTs for other shitcoins and NFTs
  • Speculate on fiat fluff technologies
  • Straight up gamble
You’re free to have all the crazy fun playing with ponzinomics that crypto created in its simulated universe. Go for it.
But somehow, whether cluelessly or nefariously, Vitalik doesn’t stop to think about this statement for a moment.
With a system admittedly simulating its own laws of physics, how can one see this system functioning in the real world that requires restraint?
It doesn’t. Which is why after 14 years, only one continuously proves itself worthwhile.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said
the rest of crypto [exists] in some abstract category of relevance
I think we can all agree that crypto is a thing that exists. It's a bit silly to pretend it doesn't. For better or worse it's probably going to continue to exist in some form or another for the foreseeable future.
That said, I'm not at all concerned with it competing with Bitcoin. It's pretty clear Bitcoin has already won the money game. Nothing else even comes close.
What I don't know is if any of them will be relevant in any meaningful way for other purposes. I don't really care to speculate.
For the record, I don't own any crypto. But I do try to observe the world and make sense of what's happening in it, good or bad and try to understand why it does / can happen that way.
reply
As long as fiat is around, crypto will continue creating problems to solve to try and maintain its relevance.
I also find that having a solid understanding of the crypto space can conversely enhance your understanding of bitcoin and money in general. Once I understood what doesn't work, I'm able to appreciate what does work, and also have another framework to view things like the US dollar. From a "crypto tokenomics" perspective, you can obviously see how awful the US dollar is at serving the role of money.
reply
What will happen is you'll be able to buy/atomic swap cbdcs with Bitcoin but not the reverse.
reply
Yup, probably on Ethereum or some government shitchain
reply
Yes yes this is true, but just to add to what you've already said, I don't think "technology" is enough to become money anyway. If its only technology, why can't it be replaced? Why can't a government just rip your company scrip and make it issued by government instead?
The fact that Bitcoin is a money that emerged out of community as a social construct, is part of why crypto simply can not "compete" or even have similarities to Bitcoin.
reply
yup, it is a zero sum game
reply
Shitcoins will never fully go away. They're easy to create and very profitable for the creator. Some entities will have the necessary network effects to create a market for their shitcoins, at least for a period of time. Let's say Apple wanted to release new iPhones with $5 of AppleCoin, that would be a successful shitcoin, at least for a time. A threat to bitcoin? Absolutely not. But a functioning shitcoin project nevertheless. I predict these dynamics will exist well into the future.
reply
Launching a shitcoin would be reputation suicide for a company in a position like Apple
If Bitcoin does its thing, shitcoins will continue to get more and more lame, less and less relevant, to the point where they die of slow suffocation, without much attention at all
Unfortunately they'll probably stick around in the near future, but long term I think we'll look back at shitcoins as a mere evolutionary kink
reply
Isn't Apple essentially censoring Damus for using an alternative payment network? A couple of years ago they wanted to scan phones for CSAM - made a lot of people angry about the privacy violation, but Apple's reputation is somehow intact.
In the long run, maybe these decisions are self-defeating, but there are plenty of companies that are able to successfully kick the can down the road for years. New entities will arise that have some sort of strong network effect and thus the power to mint their own currency.
reply
I agree with the broad strokes but I don't see why it's necessarily true that other PoW chains are doomed. Some, sure. The assertion here:
Other PoW coins fall into the same boat because they simply can't gain enough market share from Bitcoin and can't guarantee BTC's perfect tokenomics.
I don't see how this is necessarily true. I could see different PoW chains co-existing. What am I missing? I mean I get why BTC prices are consistently outperforming stuff like LTC, but what makes the tokenomics "perfect" and all this inevitable?
reply
It’s a combo of bitcoin’s fixed supply, issuance schedule and the trustless nature of it
Other PoW coins may be able to replicate the tokenomics, but it’s too late to achieve the trustless nature of bitcoin — that’s a one-time discovery.
reply
It's VirtuaGirl vs the real thing.
Proof of Pu$$
reply