[deepsummer]

I think a couple of years ago there was a real window of opportunity for crypto. People could have invented crypto versions of real-life things like insurances and mortgages.

But that never really happened, because everybody was busy getting rich with shitcoins and ape NFTs. Which seemed easier than building up complex organization on a crypto foundation. Along the way they destroyed all trust and goodwill that Bitcoin had created. Maybe, in a few years, there will be another opportunity, but right now it will be hard to convince anyone to invest money in a crypto business.

[acdha]

> People could have invented crypto versions of real-life things like insurances and mortgages.

> But that never really happened, because everybody was busy getting rich with shitcoins and ape NFTs.

I think the failure of the former lead to the latter. The first decade had people trying to build things which were potentially useful to normal people, but the utter failure to produce a competitive solution to anything lead to everyone invested in cryptocurrency following increasingly risky endeavors because they knew that they were not going to survive, much less get rich, competing with the safer and more efficient financial sector.

My litmus test for has been PayPal: they’ve screwed so many people over the years, and their fees are enough that a viable alternative is going to get interest from a lot of people. I’ve bought a fair amount of stuff online over the time cryptocurrencies have existed, from individuals up to huge companies and NOBODY has ever encouraged cryptocurrency or, in all but a handful of cases even accepted it (I think I did buy something from NewEgg during the period where they accepted Bitcoin but instantly sold it). Given the cost of credit card and PayPal transaction fees, that’s just complete failure because there is absolutely a huge market receptive to shaving points off of their overhead rates and not dealing with a company which not uncommonly creates major problems for sellers.

[JackC]

> People could have invented crypto versions of real-life things like insurances and mortgages.

Crypto makes large technical sacrifices for the sake of being harder to regulate. I don't think that's a desirable quality for insurance and mortgages.

[palmotea]

> People could have invented crypto versions of real-life things like insurances and mortgages.

Was there every any demand for such things? Those products presume people would use cryptocurrency as money for real economic activity, which turned out to be very, very rare (and wild swings in value caused by speculation would make that very foolish).

The core problem with cryptocurrency seems to be an that it's an elegant technology that is not appreciably better (and in many ways much worse) than the technology it sought to replace (fiat currency). So there's sort of no point to it, but the technical elegance made too many software engineers go bonkers and fail to see it for what it really was.

Also, it turns out the obsessions of very online libertarians aren't widely shared in the general population. So things designed to cater to those obsessions don't actually work as designed. They don't understand their "customers" for their vision.

[belZaah]

Oh, but it is “better” in one very crucial way: it enables global transactions, that are difficult to trace yet accessible. Without crypto, we would not have the scourge of ransomware

[jqpabc123]

Along the way they destroyed all trust and goodwill that Bitcoin had created.

Trust derives from stability which can only be established over time.

Any "stability" crypto has/had comes from ties to fiat (see "stable coins") --- they very thing it is intended to replace.

In other words, the fact that crypto markets revolve around "stable coins" is a testament to fiat and proof of crypto's inadequacy as a currency.