Other forms of property ownership are much more fragile, and require a much more sophisticated legal system.
With a regular currency, the government can print more money and at least have a chance for things going back to normal once the currency has a chance to go back up in value. But with a currency that's not controlled, you won't get payed in worthless money (inflation), you just won't get payed at all! And instead of getting back your lost value if the currency rises in power, you'll have to hope the contract will be honored at a later date, or massively overload the legal system.
Bad actors are ostracized while good actors build followings, leading to reputation acting as an effective mechanism to find good actors to trade with, and incentivize people to become good actors.
In any case, when people are free to choose between government-recognized currency and non-governmental digital currency, they will choose the one that best suits each circumstance, leading to greater overall utility.
Cryptocurrency offers a much more accessible alternative to global payment systems to the people living in these countries.
Bitcoin solves none of these problems. Sure, it allows you to at least assume this risk, which your country otherwise doesn't, so it's not nothing. But it's at best a band-aid.
It also doesn't protect you in any way from your employer not paying your salary on time, from being wrongfully terminated, from not being able to get a loan, from business partners not paying their debts because they can't sell their own products etc. These are usually the problems that a non-functioning state and non-functioning economy face.
Cryptocurrencies can be used in person too.
With respect to eCommerce, EBay worked extremely well simply because of reviews. Not because of laws. And yes, people came to trust eBay, which was due to its faithful fulfilment of its obligations as a platform steward, not due to regulatory requirements imposed on it.
Imo, there's nothing better to secure your assets better than some form of monopoly on the law, or a monopoly on violence, or even better a combination of the two. This is also why billionaire classes simply consider crypto a wealth store asset and not a secure store of assets.
But leaders pay a political price for instituting draconian enforcement measures, while their country pays an economic price, which makes them less likely. It's one thing to send armed agents to storm the homes of executives of a large private bank to shake down the bank. It's another to do it against end-users at a scale where it becomes effective.
You may be right about the most secure form of property. Many don't have access to jurisdictions that can offer people in their income class that kind of security of property. For them, I think in some situations cryptocurrency can be a very secure form of property comparatively speaking. Cryptocurrency can be thought of as a poor man's offshore bank account, literally speaking.
Actually I didn't mean monopoly on the law and monopoly of violence that way. I meant that billionaires invest a lot of cash into politics and personal security (legal and otherwise) for good reason. It would be very hard for a politician to go head to head against a billionaire donor, since he would just donate to the other guy the next time. Similarly, they get to influence a lot of things including who might head the city's police force or what policies to implement on a regional or national level. It's the same thing everywhere, whether you're in the Indian or Pakistani badlands, the heart of the EU or smack in the middle of NYC or SF.
I agree with crypto being the poor man's offshore, but a poor man wouldn't need an offshore. Not to mention, the barrier to open an offshore account is much less than the cost of BTC right now.
Yes true.
>>I agree with crypto being the poor man's offshore, but a poor man wouldn't need an offshore. Not to mention, the barrier to open an offshore account is much less than the cost of BTC right now.
Offshore bank accounts are very costly and difficult to get. They are also not that secure, considering how many have given up on financial privacy in the face of the warrantless-financial-mass-surveillance aka AML push by the dominant political powers, and leaks like the Panama Papers.
I don't think the political price is as high as you think, and armed agents don't have to storm the homes of end-users at scale. All they have to do is storm enough homes discourage people by making it clear the risk is real, and everyone internalizes the rules.
If cryptocurrency is contraband, it's the worse kind of contraband because it advertises that you use it to the authorities through easily monitored channels (since you have to connect to identifiable internet services to use it).
I suspect the scale of enforcement needed to discourage widespread usage would be very large, and incur political and economic costs that are prohibitive. That's corroborated by the fact that the USD circulates widely in countries suffering high inflation, despite it being in the best interest of the elite of these countries for people to only use the national currency.
>>If cryptocurrency is contraband, it's the worse kind of contraband because it advertises that you use it to the authorities through easily monitored channels (since you have to connect to identifiable internet services to use it).
Only if public access to strong encryption is prohibited, and there are economic costs associated with a country doing that.
What you mean to say: people will reinvent laws and governance.
Governments run themselves but until recently, economies didn't. Now that there are two memes (besides violence) that are each independently capable of mediating coersion on a global scale, we can play them against each other and select for the one we like best.
The value of these markets is itself decided through a free market.
Given a sufficient level of digitization, it's not hard to imagine how many kind of real world markets could be backed by Bitcoin-like systems.