I'm gonna first of all disagree with the notion that our entire democracy rests on control of the financial system, secondly point out that you seem to make some wild leaps about how decentralized currencies work, and thirdly ask how the hell you're getting the idea that early adopters would need to be "cashed out at a profit many times exceeding inflation"(Participation in the new system is the point of adopting it, how is this unclear).

Finally:

  We, the people, make the rules.

If you truly believe that, you are (and I realize this is not the level of discourse I should strive for on HN) beyond redemption.

I said the financial system must be controlled by our democratic system, not that democracy rests on control of the financial system.

No idea where I'm supposedly making "wild leaps" here. You on the other hand...

And guess where "the hell" I am getting the idea that early adopters would need to be cashed out at a profit many times exceeding inflation: reality. As cashing out at a large profit is exactly what has been happening for over a decade. It is the sole reason for virtually all participants joining the scheme in the first place.

> We, the people, make the rules.

Since when? We merely vote for politicians who promise to enact laws and regulations that are beneficial for us but they almost universally fail to do that, succumbing to self-interests and corruption.

If a government implements authoritarian measures that curb our freedom in an unpopular manner, "we the people" can't do anything about it. In a few years we may or may not vote them out, and the people who replace them may (or may not) do what we, the people, want.

That's a bleak view on the state of democracy.

Whatever your feelings on the topic may be, we will not be giving up government control of the financial system in favor of a blockchain and profits for crypto-bros.

Bleak but realistic, unfortunately. There needs to be a viable alternative as long as our elected representatives have the power to abuse the financial system as a means of authoritarian control, like freezing the bank accounts of protestors.

A truly democratic leadership with stringent limitations on how they can meddle with financial transactions would be preferable, but that's just a dream at this point.

A viable alternative to the financial system is also just a dream.

If we take from the government the ability to freeze bank accounts of protestors, we can't just also remove the ability to freeze the accounts of criminals, enemies, or even terrorists.

It seems like a clear non-starter, yet many proponents of crypto seem to think it would be an obvious improvement.

>If we take from the government the ability to freeze bank accounts of protestors, we can't just also remove the ability to freeze the accounts of criminals

That's really the crux of the issue here: Having to choose one over the other, would you rather some criminals go free, or some innocents be imprisoned?

I suspect anyone's position to this depends heavily on which sides they've been on more on their lives: Victimized by criminals or unjustly punished.

That might be the crux philosophically.

But realistically we're not seriously going to entertain stripping all controls from the financial system because we don't trust the government to do a reasonable job. Perhaps you'll agree that this is a very unlikely thing to happen.

Now my issue here is that many proponents of crypto, among other fallacies, use this exact scenario as a justification for why eg. Bitcoin will go to $1M, and why they should deserve to cash out at a 10x return in the future.

It's not going to happen, and even if it was, there's still no reason for early adopters to profit in what has so far been a zero sum wealth redistribution scheme with negligible value generated.

We are actually completely in agreement that crypto-hustlers and such are entirely full of hooey and nobody deserves any payout whatsoever. I'm only arguing from a point of "government bad" idealism.

>realistically we're not seriously going to entertain stripping all controls from the financial system because we don't trust the government to do a reasonable job

I kind of am. What I'm seeing happen is the opposite: The government stripping more and more agency from the individual because it does not trust its citizens do do a reasonable job(of anything). Every sector freed from the Leviathan, every tiny bit of life that can proceed without being subject to gov't interference is a huge win for me. Again, this is essentially a position born from my seeing what happens when "safety over liberty" goes too far.

>negligible value generated

Depends on what you value. I happen to like drugs and gambling. On the other hand, giving someone who falls for a hustle the ability to get their money back is something that I personally do not value at all.

You might have formulated things a bit unclearly, but I fundamentally agree that money, like everything else, should be under democratic control of the people. Not controlled by some crypto bros that are happy to interfere with the protocol if it suits them (The DAO hack, two 20+ block rollbacks of Bitcoin), but not if massive crime happens on it.

I guess so, although crypto proponents will anyway tell you that you don't understand how crypto works as soon as you say anything negative about their scheme.

I believe what I said is a fairly accurate summary of Proof of work / Proof of stake mechanisms and Core developer's influence on the protocol.