Asklemmy

I’m unsure of what a finite planet is referencing? Is op suggesting that economic limits are constrained to finite resources? This doesn’t take into account renewables, human creativity and a whole list of other things. If we create a matrix like environment where the limits can be expanded and create new products in that new environment we can still use fiat.

The issue is those closer to the money printer get the biggest rewards (according to the US Fed's description of their stakeholders) so as they increase their supply of currency they can accumulate more goods, outpacing the rest of the classes which have to suffer through inflation, which debases their money, keeps wages low and goods prices increase

In an evenly distributed and fully observable currency supply which can rise and lower as needed, there is no inherent issue with fiat currencies as long as the issuing party is reputable and wages increase at the same pace (up or down) with all prices

You sound like a decent social-democrat to me

Communism: A classless, moneyless society, based on the principle of "to each according to their needs, from each according to their ability".

It's a question of the most stable thing to use to mediate value for exchange of goods and services, right? Fiat currency is just the choice of "the state" as a stabilizing force. Certainly it's better than trusting the scarcity of rare metals, but eventually "just trust the state" will become a problem, and we'll need to think about rebasing currencies. In theory, computational complexity isn't a bad choice, but nobody has come up with a solution that actually functions well as a currency.

But I agree, the finite planet has nothing to do with any failings of fiat currencies, and only makes sense as a failing of the "number must go up" mentality endemic to capitalism.

That's a bummer, I was hoping they were built better. Are they at least fun to drive?

The issue here is according to the Fed, the stakeholders get a 6% return, which is supposed to outpace inflation. So if the ones closest to the money printer get more every year, while the rest lose money due to inflation eating it, it doesn't matter if it could theoretically work, it leads to an accumulation to the class system at the top while the lower classes must continually work forever since their savings are worth less every year

That's a good question, because as a scam it has worked wonderfully.

Not OP, but as someone who was at one point excited by the potential of crypto, the ecosystem has moved more and more towards what it claimed to stand against initially

It's supposed to be decentralized, but things like mining pools have lead to heavy amounts of centralization in block production. If we look at Bitcoin, for an example, we see that over 51% of block production is controlled by just two mining pools. That's not limited to just Proof of Work mining either. Proof of stake sees centralization in staking pools as well. That's only just looking at one aspect of the network

It has also not really been seen as a currency. People's view of it as an "investment" which have the opposite qualities you really want to see. People are encouraged to hold it and never let go, meaning they won't want to spend it which is adverse to its use as a currency. This has also lead to it being incorporated and dominated by the very financial systems it was initially supposed to move away from

I don't want to type out an essay, but I could keep going on in other ways that's not really lived up to its promises.

Also traps, lots of traps - something fancy like blowpipes shooting darts when an intruder steps on the wrong stone of a floor puzzle, maybe even a large an perfectly spherical stone that rolls towards intruders if the weight of your chest is altered.

There's a series of documentaries about such things were a professor of Archeology - a Dr. Jones, if I'm not mistaken - illustrates their workings.

Good advice, thank you for sharing