• SeptugenarianSenate@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    to me it feels like the subtle difference between a representative democracy and a direct democracy. Representative tends to be more common as those in power are more willing to transition to systems in which they could reasonably hope to keep most of their power, whereas I see the crypto selling point being that the end-users would have some voting rights towards the setting of inflationary rates (different mechanisms for adjustment than fiat, I am sure [seriously not an expert on crypto or fiat {or what I think involves an understanding of “modern monetary theory”}]), versus non-government financial platforms such as bank owners (federal reserve) printing the money in order to effect inflation rates.

    • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Any sort of proof of stake or weighting of power is game-able and abuse-able. Even 1 person gets 1 vote just results in a black market of people exchanging theirs for some other thing of value. It always comes down to a division between those who “have” and those who don’t. Even simply having more power through length of time invested creates power dynamics.

      That doesn’t mean that things can’t get better or we shouldn’t try, but it does mean that it’s something that can’t just be waved away with magic phrases.