[ludamad]

Again, mostly not wrong but a bit annoying. I enjoy money that works with a programmable remote procedure call system (what I refer to as aesthetic, as sure, I can't call this super useful in real economic terms) and I'm quite willing to take a loss. Not sure what you're adding to what hasn't already been said; you effectively ignored my post.

[nmfisher]

If everyone was like you, then noone would care if crypto "loses" against fiat currency, because 1 BTC still equals 1 BTC.

Honestly, if that were the case (as it used to be, back in the early days), I would have zero problem with crypto. The tech isn't the problem per se, it's all the greedy leeches who are looking for a get-rich-quick-scheme.

[erosenbe0]

That's a valid take individually but collectively it become invalid once widespread barter began and institional action bega. I don't see Chase offering Topps and Donruss in 401k plans, let alone Rolex and Omega packs. And criminal actors aren't asking to be paid with an amalgamation of granddaddy grade Colt 1911s and Spanish coins.

[ludamad]

Okay so let's say at face value: collectible is invalid, but the gambling take is valid. How does that explain 401k plans any better? Surely some aspect of both the gambling value and the perceived future appeal (what I call aesthetic) plays into this? Or what do you categorize crypto as, if not those two things? (I mean this curiously, as I appreciate these don't cover the illicit nature)