Jan 30, 2023·edited Jan 30, 2023Liked by Erik Torenberg
this is why I (and some of my very close friends) stick to Balaji's suggestion: 50% Bitcoin, 50% Ethereum in your main fund, and maybe a tiny bit of some other coins that you build things on and use such as bnb, sol, uni, comp, etc. Stablecoins are also incredibly useful if you are living in developing countries and don't give a s*** about "fighting the states," "ultra super doper perfect sound money," etc. I'd say hold and use whatever helps you in your life.
Interesting ... I think both have major flaws and major strengths.
I'd place myself closer to tech crypto, and I think their critique of money crypto as too limited (but nevertheless true) is sound.
However, where I'd disagree with tech crypto is their problem analysis of web 2.0.
Web 2.0 is by most standards a competitive market. It could be better, but it's overall pretty good compared to the rest of the economy.
Where I do see the overlap is that the financial and legal rails of tradfi are a problem. These rails are more than money, they are also rules & regulations for holding equity, intermediaries, contracts etc.
It's not only cross-border payments that are a problem. but all sorts of cross-border contracts.
The bigger and more important market than money is not the web, it's the governance services currently provided by banks, regulators, lawyers and monopolistic governments.
I like about money crypto that it has a more accurate albeit limited analysis of the strengths for crypto uses cases. I like about tech crypto that it wants to think bigger.
It just seems to me tech crypto is not yet thinking of the right things. Metaverse, art NFTs etc. seem unimportant use cases to me relative to e.g. decentralised science like VitaDAO.
VitaDAO or jurisdictional players like The Catawba Digital Economic Zone (https://catawbadigital.zone/) that can truly accept crypto-wallets & tokens as property and allow for flexible firm governance rules, are IMO good examples of how to truly think bigger.
Balaji seems to me to most closely represent my view on this, even though the Network State sounds needlessly abstract and isn't talking about existing charter cities like Prospera.
Prospera has already come extremely far in building better legal guardrails for decentralised governance, it's amazing to me how few people know about it: https://prospera.hn/
this is why I (and some of my very close friends) stick to Balaji's suggestion: 50% Bitcoin, 50% Ethereum in your main fund, and maybe a tiny bit of some other coins that you build things on and use such as bnb, sol, uni, comp, etc. Stablecoins are also incredibly useful if you are living in developing countries and don't give a s*** about "fighting the states," "ultra super doper perfect sound money," etc. I'd say hold and use whatever helps you in your life.
Interesting ... I think both have major flaws and major strengths.
I'd place myself closer to tech crypto, and I think their critique of money crypto as too limited (but nevertheless true) is sound.
However, where I'd disagree with tech crypto is their problem analysis of web 2.0.
Web 2.0 is by most standards a competitive market. It could be better, but it's overall pretty good compared to the rest of the economy.
Where I do see the overlap is that the financial and legal rails of tradfi are a problem. These rails are more than money, they are also rules & regulations for holding equity, intermediaries, contracts etc.
It's not only cross-border payments that are a problem. but all sorts of cross-border contracts.
The bigger and more important market than money is not the web, it's the governance services currently provided by banks, regulators, lawyers and monopolistic governments.
I like about money crypto that it has a more accurate albeit limited analysis of the strengths for crypto uses cases. I like about tech crypto that it wants to think bigger.
It just seems to me tech crypto is not yet thinking of the right things. Metaverse, art NFTs etc. seem unimportant use cases to me relative to e.g. decentralised science like VitaDAO.
VitaDAO or jurisdictional players like The Catawba Digital Economic Zone (https://catawbadigital.zone/) that can truly accept crypto-wallets & tokens as property and allow for flexible firm governance rules, are IMO good examples of how to truly think bigger.
Balaji seems to me to most closely represent my view on this, even though the Network State sounds needlessly abstract and isn't talking about existing charter cities like Prospera.
Prospera has already come extremely far in building better legal guardrails for decentralised governance, it's amazing to me how few people know about it: https://prospera.hn/
Money crypto is living on a fantasy world if they think crypto is going to lead to sound money.
Money crypto: Bitcoin will result in sensible currency policy
Real people: ooh, let's buy crypto with dogs on it because Elon Musk tweeted about it