> Crypto is "cult by design" in much the way all greater-fool scams are.
If you study the history of bitcoin (or were around and paying attention), it wasn't at all designed as a cult or a scam. So this is factually wrong. However I think it's true of a lot of the later coins.
> I dont think anyone has ever yet explained how this is meant to function as a currency.
People have, like a zillion times, including on this forum. If it matters to you (it shouldn't), even professional economists fall into different camps on the nature of money. If you can't see that there is a real and genuine argument on both sides, you aren't trying.
> One reason they're terrible is they transfer power over the economic system to early-stakers, as they have all the wealth
This is a worst-case view of the situation, but many would say that even this worse case is better than giving "democratic" institutions unlimited power to print money. So again, there is a genuine argument on both sides.
> So crypto people, sitting on a lot of coins, who urge adoption arent trying to "free" the economy, they're trying to own it.
And there are also crypto people who are true believers, even if they do have a lot of coin. In fact, the people who got into bitcoin early but weren't true believers couldn't believe how much money they made when they sold out at $30. The distribution of true believers vs. get-rich-quick people in bitcoin is grossly different from what you imagine and portray.
> any corporation which accepts bitcoins is thereby recognising an essentially feudal type of economic power.
You're really conflating economics and government. For example, in the US, Bill Gates doesn't have the same kind of power as the two political parties, who control armies of soldiers and domestic enforcers. When I say "kind," I mean that literally; it's not that Bill Gates has less power; it's that he has a different kind of power. Bitcoin transforms some of the kind of power wielded by government actors into the kind of power wielded by Bill Gates.
If you study the history of bitcoin (or were around and paying attention), it wasn't at all designed as a cult or a scam. So this is factually wrong. However I think it's true of a lot of the later coins.
> I dont think anyone has ever yet explained how this is meant to function as a currency.
People have, like a zillion times, including on this forum. If it matters to you (it shouldn't), even professional economists fall into different camps on the nature of money. If you can't see that there is a real and genuine argument on both sides, you aren't trying.
> One reason they're terrible is they transfer power over the economic system to early-stakers, as they have all the wealth
This is a worst-case view of the situation, but many would say that even this worse case is better than giving "democratic" institutions unlimited power to print money. So again, there is a genuine argument on both sides.
> So crypto people, sitting on a lot of coins, who urge adoption arent trying to "free" the economy, they're trying to own it.
And there are also crypto people who are true believers, even if they do have a lot of coin. In fact, the people who got into bitcoin early but weren't true believers couldn't believe how much money they made when they sold out at $30. The distribution of true believers vs. get-rich-quick people in bitcoin is grossly different from what you imagine and portray.
> any corporation which accepts bitcoins is thereby recognising an essentially feudal type of economic power.
You're really conflating economics and government. For example, in the US, Bill Gates doesn't have the same kind of power as the two political parties, who control armies of soldiers and domestic enforcers. When I say "kind," I mean that literally; it's not that Bill Gates has less power; it's that he has a different kind of power. Bitcoin transforms some of the kind of power wielded by government actors into the kind of power wielded by Bill Gates.