People are waking up to all of the things I listed above and no cataclysmic event is happening. Don't get me wrong, people are dying, but its not an "apocalypse" in the sense of destruction but an apocalypse in its original meaning: to uncover, to disclose, to reveal. We are experiencing the apocalypse right now. It is a revelation, not destruction.
Whether or not the economic apocalypse occurs as a cataclysm or a revelation is determined by what it takes for people to see the reality of the current system. If it takes a destruction, then that's what it will take. If it takes just the information getting out, then that also will be an economic apocalypse, i.e. a revelation.
When people see the real issue, they will demand change. The changes are already in the works. GME is creating an asset backed crypto. I believe that is the obvious path out of this mess. It takes all the benefits of Btc and backs it with an asset. It's value then isn't based on the amount of faith that backs it, but the real value of the asset. This creates a stable economy, especially if many of our real assets are put into crypto form, with an infrastructure to trade between the crypto asset and the real asset. This is done almost trivially with the entire stock market at this point. It's also done trivially with precious metals. All of the infrastructure for both of those are in place, or mostly in place. For other assets, similar systems could be set up, for a true barter system.
This means no one can "horde all the gold" and ruin the economy. Because even if there is an intermediary for exchange upon which the economy is based, with crypto barter, it doesn't matter if someone has it all, because the rest of the system transitions trivially to immediate trade of other assets. All that's required is a marketplace large enough to find people that want the trades (barter) that you want that would bypass the intermediary.
With a truly motivated world understanding the real problem, we could have it all fixed (or fixed enough) within a week or two.
Can you tell me more about asset backed crypto’s? Like what kind of assets are we talking about? Stocks? Real Estate? I’d really like to hear how crypto could be backed by a property.
Well, stocks are easy. Stocks can be linked to crypto and traded directly and securely. With non fungable tokens (NFTs), ownership is 100% directly in the hands of the owner, all done without a middleman/broker/bank/etc.. A "Stock market" would then just be some forum or place of listing where someone wants to trade, say, some amount of GM stock for some amount of Ford stock, or for some other physical or cyber asset, even art can be on NFT (in fact art and collectibles are perfectly suited to NFTs).
For precious metals (or any other physical asset) there would need to be an infrastructure (possible public owned?) that would store physical assets and issue a crypto tied to a specific amount of that stored physical asset. If someone wanted to withdraw that physical asset, the crypto would be destroyed (or its link destroyed) and the physical asset would be handed out to the previous owner of the crypto. That works great for PMs since the infrastructure is mostly already there in the form of Banks (which as we know them now will be completely defunct).
This can be done for any asset for which a trading and storing infrastructure can be created. In a way, that type of infrastructure exists in the form of Amazon, with its distribution centers all over the place. Something similar could be done for many assets, even temporary ones (grains e.g.). Not sure about the viability of that, but its at least theoretically possible.
As for real estate? Not sure. I mean you can tie anything to an NFT. And NFT is like a crypto but it has a unique identifier. So the owner of an NFT that is tied to a specific asset like real estate is the owner of that property. Transfer would be as simple as transferring the NFT. You could trade your GM stock for a piece of property for example by trading the GM NFTs for the real estate NFT. All stored digitally, transferred instantly, no middle man. No banks getting a cut. No government spying on the transaction (maybe). Ownership is undeniable as the owner of the NFT.
How secure is it? I'm not sure, but I know that's a big part of it. I need to do some more research into the technology itself, but it holds great promise as an infrastructure.
As for security, I suspect NFT’s would be as secure as anything currently on the blockchain. No?
I would think so. I didn't mean to imply NFT's as a weak point, but blockchain technology in general as potentially less secure than people think. For example, decentralization, which is the heart and soul of blockchain tech is only a valid defense if there isn't tech to de-decentralize a network. It would be naïve to think such tech doesn't exist. The Patriot Act made such tech legal ffs.
I have not done a deep dive into the tech though, so I really don't have any of my own legitimate concerns. I have read articles that suggest it is less secure than people think. The stated secure features of the systems seem to me to be vulnerable to superpowers (governments et al). In truth all tech is insecure, at least until quantum (entangled) authentication is a fundamental part of the infrastructure, and even then, who knows?
Kinesis is one of a few that exist so far, they have a gold-backed token and a silver-backed one and you can take physical delivery if you have the prerequisite minimum number of tokens.
People are waking up to all of the things I listed above and no cataclysmic event is happening. Don't get me wrong, people are dying, but its not an "apocalypse" in the sense of destruction but an apocalypse in its original meaning: to uncover, to disclose, to reveal. We are experiencing the apocalypse right now. It is a revelation, not destruction.
Whether or not the economic apocalypse occurs as a cataclysm or a revelation is determined by what it takes for people to see the reality of the current system. If it takes a destruction, then that's what it will take. If it takes just the information getting out, then that also will be an economic apocalypse, i.e. a revelation.
When people see the real issue, they will demand change. The changes are already in the works. GME is creating an asset backed crypto. I believe that is the obvious path out of this mess. It takes all the benefits of Btc and backs it with an asset. It's value then isn't based on the amount of faith that backs it, but the real value of the asset. This creates a stable economy, especially if many of our real assets are put into crypto form, with an infrastructure to trade between the crypto asset and the real asset. This is done almost trivially with the entire stock market at this point. It's also done trivially with precious metals. All of the infrastructure for both of those are in place, or mostly in place. For other assets, similar systems could be set up, for a true barter system.
This means no one can "horde all the gold" and ruin the economy. Because even if there is an intermediary for exchange upon which the economy is based, with crypto barter, it doesn't matter if someone has it all, because the rest of the system transitions trivially to immediate trade of other assets. All that's required is a marketplace large enough to find people that want the trades (barter) that you want that would bypass the intermediary.
With a truly motivated world understanding the real problem, we could have it all fixed (or fixed enough) within a week or two.
Can you tell me more about asset backed crypto’s? Like what kind of assets are we talking about? Stocks? Real Estate? I’d really like to hear how crypto could be backed by a property.
Well, stocks are easy. Stocks can be linked to crypto and traded directly and securely. With non fungable tokens (NFTs), ownership is 100% directly in the hands of the owner, all done without a middleman/broker/bank/etc.. A "Stock market" would then just be some forum or place of listing where someone wants to trade, say, some amount of GM stock for some amount of Ford stock, or for some other physical or cyber asset, even art can be on NFT (in fact art and collectibles are perfectly suited to NFTs).
For precious metals (or any other physical asset) there would need to be an infrastructure (possible public owned?) that would store physical assets and issue a crypto tied to a specific amount of that stored physical asset. If someone wanted to withdraw that physical asset, the crypto would be destroyed (or its link destroyed) and the physical asset would be handed out to the previous owner of the crypto. That works great for PMs since the infrastructure is mostly already there in the form of Banks (which as we know them now will be completely defunct).
This can be done for any asset for which a trading and storing infrastructure can be created. In a way, that type of infrastructure exists in the form of Amazon, with its distribution centers all over the place. Something similar could be done for many assets, even temporary ones (grains e.g.). Not sure about the viability of that, but its at least theoretically possible.
As for real estate? Not sure. I mean you can tie anything to an NFT. And NFT is like a crypto but it has a unique identifier. So the owner of an NFT that is tied to a specific asset like real estate is the owner of that property. Transfer would be as simple as transferring the NFT. You could trade your GM stock for a piece of property for example by trading the GM NFTs for the real estate NFT. All stored digitally, transferred instantly, no middle man. No banks getting a cut. No government spying on the transaction (maybe). Ownership is undeniable as the owner of the NFT.
How secure is it? I'm not sure, but I know that's a big part of it. I need to do some more research into the technology itself, but it holds great promise as an infrastructure.
Are you saying my collection of rare Pepe memes might be worth more than Bitcoin? Excellent!
In all seriousness, it does sound like NFT’s are the key (along with a market place). I need to do some more research on NFT’s.
As for security, I suspect NFT’s would be as secure as anything currently on the blockchain. No?
I would think so. I didn't mean to imply NFT's as a weak point, but blockchain technology in general as potentially less secure than people think. For example, decentralization, which is the heart and soul of blockchain tech is only a valid defense if there isn't tech to de-decentralize a network. It would be naïve to think such tech doesn't exist. The Patriot Act made such tech legal ffs.
I have not done a deep dive into the tech though, so I really don't have any of my own legitimate concerns. I have read articles that suggest it is less secure than people think. The stated secure features of the systems seem to me to be vulnerable to superpowers (governments et al). In truth all tech is insecure, at least until quantum (entangled) authentication is a fundamental part of the infrastructure, and even then, who knows?
Kinesis is one of a few that exist so far, they have a gold-backed token and a silver-backed one and you can take physical delivery if you have the prerequisite minimum number of tokens.
It's a start, it has potential, but the infrastructure isn't there yet.