So rather than systems with oversight, faces, and names attached to them, you would prefer an entirely programmatic system where all transactions are final and irreversible which is not beholden to any intervention? There’s an old adage about how all programmers hate technology or something like that and I worry that we are flying too close to the sun here with the crypto hubris.

> all programmers hate technology

The latest wave of "investors" aren't programmers.

But yeah, the trust issue illustrated by your comment speaks volumes. I just wish people didn't think our problems were as easy as "sprinkle a little tech on it."

> So rather than systems with oversight, faces, and names attached to them, you would prefer an entirely programmatic system where all transactions are final and irreversible which is not beholden to any intervention?

Yes, correct.

What good is a system, if it only benefits a few? And levers are used at the wrong time, benefits only a few people?

Antarctica will be happy to have you. /s

But seriously, functional governments are what hold society together. We can't have a system without levers.

Functional societies existed long before central banking and costless money creation

Straw man.

Those societies also existed alongside slavery and tons of other bad shit. So how does that change the value of a functional government?

Central banking caused the end of slavery? now that's a hot take

Have you heard of blood diamonds? I bet ETH solves that problem with a ledger /s

It's interesting that the Kimberley Process intended to prevent conflict diamonds is a chain of warranties, one of the criticisms thereto was that there was little proof that the previous warranty ever existed.

So even though you're being sarcastic, you might be on to something there :) (I'm not suggesting this is possible, just idle musings)