I think I understand the concept. I just don't like it. We have seen what happens, if not immediately then at least over time, when we trust others to store our wealth in exchange for the convenience of trading as well as a sense of security. The tradeoff has been a loss of privacy and outright theft of our acquired assets.

Convenience, like anything else we want in life, comes with a price. With any monetary system the primary price of the convenience those systems offer are risk of loss of capital and risk of loss of privacy. The degree of risk can be reduced depending on the system used but as far as I know all monetary systems designed with convenience in mind are accompanied by both these types of risks.

Personally, I'm not at all excited about crypto. I view it, as do many other Austrian economists with greater understanding than me, as another fake form of fiat with zero intrinsic value. Sure, people have acquired wealth with crypto in the same way people acquired wealth in the dot.com era and other speculative "investments" but getting lucky on a gamble does not automatically equate to the thing being gambled on having any actual value.

It seems to me that the more complex the system, the greater the opportunity for corruption. If people think it is bad now in terms of having the freedom to act in privacy with our paper dollars and their solution to the problem of privacy is to transfer their wealth to an electronic only currency, all I can say is they haven't really thought it through. Same is true, I think, for people who believe that an electronic currency will somehow be immune to corruption and outright theft from powerful entities. It just simply won't.