The question is whether any of the cryptocurrency companies are actually able to deliver that. Traditional MLMs always claimed to be doing something noble like being healthier or democratizing real-estate, too, and the cryptocurrency pitches notably revolve around people selling things which they know cannot solve the stated problem but promise that they’ll figure out how to built a viable system after you buy in and make them rich first.

I wouldn’t be surprised to find that if given the choice any given crypto company would gladly become “the man” they would seem to be fighting against.

I feel like an awful lot of the market could be summed up as “Wouldn’t it be great if <ordinary activity> had microtransactions like a pay-to-win mobile game?”

99% of all crypto companies are scams looking pump the price and sell their premine.

Bitcoin is the only crypto that matters.

and there is no Bitcoin "company"

And Chia.

Nah, another shitcoin that is run as a startup with a large premine.

I love how crypto is somehow morally superior bcs "technology". Somehow crypto enthusiasts can explain away the opportunist cesspool that surrounds crypto as isolated anomalies, while making corruption a characteristic exclusive to existing institutions.

Who said anything about morally superior?

There is no morals in regard to the technology. The tech itself has no morals, it is the people that use the tech for good or evil.

Not really, "evil" bankers are held accountable by the judiciary and regulators. If anything crypto-currencies hamper the ability of those authorities to hold them accountable, so they make things worse in that respect, not better.

> ..."evil" bankers are held accountable by the judiciary and regulators

...by the judiciary and regulators only so far as the (imperfect) legislation of the day allows.

You are forgetting the unelected central bankers who knowing refer to inflation as "transitory" when they know, and we know, it isn't.

You are forgetting the guys who decide to print 40% more US Dollars in 18 months without giving the electorate an opportunity to weigh in on this drastic decision.

These central bankers are the so-called "evil bankers" -- the Wall St types just want to make money and while that might be greedy, at least they're honest about it.

> You are forgetting the unelected central bankers who knowing refer to inflation as "transitory" when they know, and we know, it isn't.

This is not true, that bankers refer to inflation as something "transitory" as you put it. Maybe they talk like that about current inflation rates but certainly not about inflation itself.

Managing the money supply according to a democratic mandate doesn't constitute "evil", sorry. I thought this was a serious discussion.

Note the word "so-called". And note the use of quotes citing the OP.

This is a very serious discussion.

On a side note, where is that "democratic mandate" of which you speak? Been looking for a while and can't seem to find it.

You can't find the mandate?

https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section2a.htm