The author of this article makes specious claims that can each be refuted.
>Any application that could be done on a blockchain could be better done on a centralized database. Except crime.
That's simply not true. First he doesn't define "better" which is incredibly important when making such a claim. I would agree that centralized databases can do things "more quickly" and "with less overhead" but you'd lose the most important quality of what make cryptocurrencies important: "without permission, consent, or control of anyone else."
Centralized systems can make changes to your data without your knowledge or consent. They can freeze/edit/delete your records without your say. Decentralized systems that use blockchains are immune to this, and for people who prioritize privacy or use of a system without consent from some over-arching 3rd party, they would definitely say blockchain-based systems are "better"
>crypto assets have no claim to be currencies because their deflationary properties and volatility don’t fulfill the theoretical or even practical function of money
This is untrue. There are government-issued currencies that are far more volatile than cryptocurrencies are. There are 3 functions of money: store of value, unit of account, and medium of exchange. Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin fulfill all 3.
>They aren’t commodities because they have no non-circular economic use case.
Again untrue. ENS and Handshake allow registration of domains without a centralized DNS registrar. Helium tokens allow access to a global decentralized sensor/relay network without relying on centralized telecoms. ETH and AKT allow you to code and deploy a program that does not rely on any centralized servers in two different formats. Sentinel (DVPN) lets you pay for and access a decentralized VPN without relying on a centralized party.
Each of these projects - and many many others - have economic use cases that are not circular.
The author has twisted facts to conform to his own predetermined reality.
>Any application that could be done on a blockchain could be better done on a centralized database. Except crime.
That's simply not true. First he doesn't define "better" which is incredibly important when making such a claim. I would agree that centralized databases can do things "more quickly" and "with less overhead" but you'd lose the most important quality of what make cryptocurrencies important: "without permission, consent, or control of anyone else."
Centralized systems can make changes to your data without your knowledge or consent. They can freeze/edit/delete your records without your say. Decentralized systems that use blockchains are immune to this, and for people who prioritize privacy or use of a system without consent from some over-arching 3rd party, they would definitely say blockchain-based systems are "better"
>crypto assets have no claim to be currencies because their deflationary properties and volatility don’t fulfill the theoretical or even practical function of money
This is untrue. There are government-issued currencies that are far more volatile than cryptocurrencies are. There are 3 functions of money: store of value, unit of account, and medium of exchange. Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin fulfill all 3.
>They aren’t commodities because they have no non-circular economic use case.
Again untrue. ENS and Handshake allow registration of domains without a centralized DNS registrar. Helium tokens allow access to a global decentralized sensor/relay network without relying on centralized telecoms. ETH and AKT allow you to code and deploy a program that does not rely on any centralized servers in two different formats. Sentinel (DVPN) lets you pay for and access a decentralized VPN without relying on a centralized party. Each of these projects - and many many others - have economic use cases that are not circular.
The author has twisted facts to conform to his own predetermined reality.