Still don’t get it. “Cryptocurrency” is a technology, not a product. Everything you said could be applied to “the internet” or “stocks” in the abstract: there is plenty of fraud and abuse using both.
But in this specific case, where the currency is tied to voting for how an org will spend its resources, it doesn’t feel much different from shareholders directing corporate operations, with those who’ve invested more having more say.
“Crypto has an ick” is lazy, reductive thinking. Yes, there have been plenty of scams. But deriding a project because it uses tech that has also been used to totally different people for wrongdoing seems to fall i to the proudly ignorant category.
Tell me what’s wrong with this specific use case for this specific project and I’m all ears. Just rolling hour eyes and saying “oh, it uses the internet, sigh” adds nothing and reflects poorly on the poster.
Maybe, because it seems like the same old tool still ill-suited for the job. Surely, there are some situations where opaque anonymous money is not the solution, but recognizable reputation is? Perhaps it’s most situations.
Maybe we should use cryptocurrency to decide court cases? Since you haven’t even defined cryptocurrency, I guess it’s up to everyone else to come up with a solution that even makes sense to put your comment in the best light. Sorry.
But in this specific case, where the currency is tied to voting for how an org will spend its resources, it doesn’t feel much different from shareholders directing corporate operations, with those who’ve invested more having more say.
“Crypto has an ick” is lazy, reductive thinking. Yes, there have been plenty of scams. But deriding a project because it uses tech that has also been used to totally different people for wrongdoing seems to fall i to the proudly ignorant category.
Tell me what’s wrong with this specific use case for this specific project and I’m all ears. Just rolling hour eyes and saying “oh, it uses the internet, sigh” adds nothing and reflects poorly on the poster.