Had the state-backed systems of money and payments been working properly, and had been upgraded to work in the digital age, there would have been no need for crypto in the first place. This is the point that official organs will never admit.
Bitcoin and Blockchain
A few years ago, Bernie Sanders uttered a passing comment that elicited howls of laughter among believers in competitive markets. “You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants," he said. Today, many people are saying the same thing about cryptocurrencies. Why so many? What's the point? Why not one only or, actually, what not just stick with the dollar? The point is that we need a rivalrous process with free entry to discover the better way to do money. And we need this process to run forever.
Nobody should celebrate a system of money and finance in which government controls the on-ramps and off-ramps based on political loyalties. That’s proven to be a very dangerous system. What we need is a censor-proof technology that can make prosperity possible for ever larger swaths of humanity. That’s not “evil”; it’s gloriously good.
We place our trust in financial intermediaries because they have made costly investments over time to engender that trust. Processing payments on a blockchain essentially avoids these costs.
Mass adoption of cryptocurrencies is unlikely to take place unless there is “significant monetary instability” or “government support” (fat chance, at least with bitcoin).
Why do some commentators, all smart and competent economists, investors, and journalists, reach such vastly different conclusions about Bitcoin and blockchain technology?
To maintain a high value in the long run, and thus be used as a currency, Bitcoin's dramatic rise will eventually have to moderate.