More cynical ranting... you may find useful...
As should be clear from my posts... I am not an opponent of the idea of re-inventing the functions of markets or of money, to improve them... or of disintermediation in markets and in fostering greater utility of money... which is the definition of a free market function, working in removing obstacles to market participation... by tearing down barriers imposed by a "man in the middle." That man now serves no legitimate purpose, but may still sit on, observe, and control all transactions ? The collecting of tolls on every exchange the least of it, but otherwise interfering... by poking noses where they don't belong... while stealing information from other market participants... enabling them to track, monitor, and exploit awareness of others choices as they will... That means, perhaps, others unmasking business opportunities you created at great expense... to allow them to compete with you without bearing the costs of discovery you bore, and without having the capacity to develop the idea that was yours alone, before they "observed" it in the patterns in your transactions... or, perhaps, as a bit of corruption that is nothing more complex than your broker, as an intermediary, ferreting out and front-running your trades...
Intermediaries fill positions of trust... but they cannot be trusted... as banks have become corrupt and destroyed the function of trust in the economy, and with the technology now enabling it, have expanded its reach in the hands of corrupt intermediaries, having arranged the rules to require that failure in trust is not penalized... while any competition based in trust is prevented...
Big brother exists... in the machine... planted there by corruption, to be of, by and for the corruption... the destruction of trust a "feature" rather than a "bug"... ?
That those functions they exploit are not inherently evil, or necessarily destructive of participants opportunities, is not the point... as much as it is the point that by existing at all, more when required and empowered as gatekeepers, the intermediaries can easily become corrupt... and worse... and then abuses of their power and position of trust in self interest will follow, while they fail in fulfilling basic duties as trusted intermediaries, as being transparent to others transactions, rather than taking any interest in them... as learning from them... and using what is learned to advantage the intermediary in self interest, using a customers participation and information... against them...
The technology enables that easily enough... where the intermediaries are lacking in moral fiber sufficient to earn our trust... as we have seen play out already in the financing of the degradation of trust functions in computers, in software, in web functions like social media... where the corruption has been institutionalized and made routine... as it is imposed through force of monopoly... leaving no option but to submit to gain the use of the potential.
That is also "the same" as what occurred in the U.S. economy, when banks responded to first efforts in disintermediation in trading stocks, particularly in the capital raising functions, where control of markets by intermediaries was threatened by implementing crowd-sourcing as direct public offerings... which was a direct work-around to the intermediaries control of capital flows, limiting capital in aggregation and use to those they approved... to prevent competition in the markets, by those who didn't pay the tolls... who would be competing against the beneficiaries of capital restrictions imposed by those intermediaries, the intermediaries using the tolls to control access, take interest, and prevent any competition against their own protected "competitive" entries in the market.
Intermediaries... enabled as toll booths... even less when part of the toll is that they stop you to inspect the content of your briefcase as you pass... are not facilitating "improvements" in commerce ?
When you see the same methods as being employed now in social media, in attempts to monitor and impose limits on others speech... know they can also be monitoring and stealing information, taking or suppressing others ideas that compete with their own... and now seek to link that power of corrupted intermediaries already being abused... to impose them in new venues applying other limits... not just de-platforming those they disagree with... but, soon, de-banking those they dislike, or fear, and/or simply prefer not to compete with... ?
The adoption of the technology... as it is being adopted... a giant leap backwards... that preserves the worst features of the banks corruption... and makes it much, much worse...
The failure of trust... is not resolved by extending the failure into new venues that amplify the impact of the failure...
That will prove as true in money, and more, than it has in other things already...
Disintermediation offers expanded function enabling competition... but a false effort that enables a change of intermediaries... while adding evil as an core app that can't be opted out of... not so much.
I won't plan to do business with any bank or non-bank that monitors my transactions... to sell me advertising it thinks I might benefit from... when that really means they might just as well be collecting my competitive information and details about my business gleaned from monitoring my transactions... and selling them to my competitors... or my enemies.
I did note Cathy Wood advertising the fact that a key benefit of "not disintermediated" digital money masters shes flogging... is that they're going to spy on me... using an AI analysis of my transactions... to "help" me.
I don't think the technology use offers an improvement... if that's the benefit on offer... instead of a greater ability to avoid the banking systems already deficient model of "trust"... and not by making it worse.
Making money that's digitally trustworthy... accomplishes nothing that's useful... if the use of it ensures the evil of the intermediaries persists and only grows more evil over time... as less "inter" and more "mediary" ?
On current trend... the only impact i see that is likely to result... will be banks using other peoples money in fostering future acquisition candidates for the existing banks to plug into their own back-office operations... They're using your money to do their R&D... and only need to change a few rules to take it for free ?
Been there... but didn't let them win that... which took them another 25 years ? Patent expiry... defines a limit to the patience required... only if you give them the idea... ? |
