It’s not “without using fiat”: cryptocurrencies are pure fiat currencies but with very weak backing — people need sovereign currencies to pay taxes, pay or get paid for government functions, and participate in large preexisting economies. Nobody has to use cryptocurrency for those reasons and the variable, usually high, fees discourage use — especially in the case of Bitcoin where the economic model incentivizes hoarding.

Speculators can generate a lot of noise but it also creates a toxic atmosphere where anyone spending feels like they’re the sucker for not holding it instead. That’s how after a decade there are a tiny number of non-Bitcoin businesses which would notice if Bitcoin disappeared tomorrow.

> cryptocurrencies are pure fiat currencies

I thought even Bitcoin maximalists have given up on this nonsense by now? Fiat money is legal tender backed by the taxation power of a nation state and ultimately, the monopoly on violence. This is why I always write crypto"currency" -- even naming so, crypto shills have pulled an ingenious move pretending their scam is a currency which it utterly is not.

The standard definition of a fiat currency is that it’s not backed by some kind of asset and thus has only the value given by social convention. The most widespread examples are backed by sovereign states and thus have the weight you describe but there have been private ones as well.

This is why I described it as a very weak one because it doesn’t even have the commitment of a bank behind it and the extremely highly operating costs means there’s a real long-term risk of not being able to find a buyer.