Try steelmanning it. Their argument is that crypto is as worthless as an investment with Bernie Madoff. Therefore, the Netherlands should exit early so its citizens aren’t left holding the bag.

That’s their claim to argue against.

It's basically if you've ever read about MMM[1] and thought: Why didn't the government do anything? That's the kind of thought process they are likely in.

Of course in my opinion Madoff & MMM are fundamentally different than cryptocurrencies[2] because there isn't someone at the top who can hide what is happening or issue new coins. Arguably what is happening with Tether might be similar, but that's a very specific thing that you try to target with government intervention instead of blanket banning.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMM_(Ponzi_scheme_company)

[2]: to be clear there are ponzi/madoff schemes in crypto, plenty actually, but if you weight by retail exposure to them they are not that common

Steelmanning. Nice, learned something. I like it.

I think their argument is that cryptocurrencies not just (PoW) but (PoS) too are just a meme with no social benefit (unlike the stock market), yet people put large amounts of money on them and it will end in tears.

I mean, this type of thinking was applied to the early internet as well. “No one will ever buy anything over the internet, people want stores!”

The same lack of imagination is leading to most of these takes.

Except the fundamentals of the Internet were sound and scalable: near instant global communication and commerce. Cyroptocoin fundamentals don't offer much (any?) value over digitized fiat systems once externalities are considered.

> Cyroptocoin fundamentals don't offer much (any?) value over digitized fiat systems once externalities are considered.

If I'm not mistaken, Bitcoin whitepaper was originally about easy P2P payments. Bitcoin has not full-filled this vision yet, but the cryptosphere as a whole is working on this (if you ignore the hype and speculation).

Visa/Mastercard, PayPal, banks can block or prohibit any kind of transactions if they wish so.

Look up stories of sex workers, OnlyFans creators etc about being banned from using these traditional payments systems.

Also look up fees that some banks charge for remittances - those range from 1.5 to 12% of the amount [1], depending where you're sending it. This does not include the cost of getting a bank account and a debit/credit card in those countries. Receiving a SWIFT transfer may be an issue if you don't have the necessary documents that explain why you have received the money.

PayPal actually does not even support most of the worlds countries. If you're writing a book you want to sell online, but Paypal doesn't support your country - you will NOT be able to get the money out of the publishing platform (gumroad [2], if you need an example). People are excluded from the creator economy.

Banks in developing countries use legal workarounds to get more fees from merchants using their systems or pay terminals. Merchants often have no choice but to raise prices, accept cash only or use some other kinds of P2P solutions.

And don't get me started on the absolutely insane inheritance taxes in some countries - the state is effectively robbing people (and their descendants) after their death.

[1] https://remittanceprices.worldbank.org/en

[2] https://help.gumroad.com/article/223-payoneer-and-gumroad

That's a good point about banks fleecing people for remittances. Still, that's a political problem which doesn't outweigh the downsides of DeFi today, IMO. Maybe you're correct that other coins will find a sweet spot. But I suspect the politics cannot be bypassed forever, no matter what the medium of exchange.

> And don't get me started on the absolutely insane inheritance taxes in some countries - the state is effectively robbing people (and their descendants) after their death.

There is a balance here too. When the wealthy can shop for tax and wealth havens until (almost) nothing is ever returned, they essentially rob the communities that supported and made them rich in the first place.

Perhaps they still remember the Tulip Mania that started there

Do you consider the fact that some people get really hurt by bubbles?

But, like, the reason they lose money is because they invest what they can't stand to lose. If you want to solve that problem, then pass a law that banks should stop transactions to investment platforms if the person has less than an average monthly income's worth of money on their account (to be clear, I'm not in favor of that, just that this would solve the issue you're seeing without the guesswork of timing a bubble). Telling the whole world "btw this bubble might burst" isn't going to protect your citizens better than anyone else, especially not the gambling types that get hurt by these sorts of events.

Yeah, there is no good solution. But there is something that stinks about all this and ought to be addressed. I believe something like BTC aid incompatible with anything close to a real time market. It should be large block trades only. The supply of this thing is digitally constrained. The owners are unknown. How do we know this think isn’t in a perpetual pump-and-dump cycle? This is what it looks like.

Governments should step in. If the only way to buy it is to commit to holding it for a while or to buy it in large blocks then maybe we wouldn’t get the kind of market we have today. One that is hurting lots of people.