What state? Because it cannot be any european state. It can’t be any state in the Americas. It can’t be most asian countries. It absolutely cannot be Australia.
There is no state that is both already uncaptured by capital and palatable enough to avoid sanctions in the west. Since that’s the actual only reason sanctions exist, to punish those not currently fully captured by capital holders.
So it cannot be state backed.
Can it be insured without a state? Maybe, but then whoever insures it sets the rules for it. This is the problem with the Federal Reserve owning USD versus the US government. Can it be physically backed without a state? No.
If this magically came into existence in a state and was even slightly effective, that state would magically be developing nuclear weapons the next day and invaded. Just a reminder Gaddafi was doing what you’re proposing… and global capital was so mad he was allegedly anally penetrated by machetes while the entirety of the country was effectively destroyed.
Any solution that gains traction developed by a state would get that state eliminated.
And any solution not made by a state will either be a scam, be monopolized by capital as its an asset and someone will be willing to sell it, or will simply not catch on since businesses would find no incentive to use it in large enough numbers to function. You’d need half of a country’s economy, at minimum, to switch to that new currency for people to effectively circulate it. Which is why bitcoin never took off as a currency. Which is why no crypto will ever really be used as a currency outside spot transactions. Your employees need to be able to pay their taxes with it. Which in any country means the government approves of it, which means its not a threat to them, which for 150 countries means it is not in any way a threat to capital and can be fully controlled by it.
It’s a good solution for global socialism. And socialist countries wanting to make that transition away from the last vestiges of capitalism might find utility in a state-issued digital currency… as long as capitalism does not exist anywhere at any point at that time. Because it just takes one economy where you can buy this digital currency like any other commodity in exchange for USD or other currency that can buy goods; just one to ruin everything.
No, there’s just no point in painting a burning car or swapping the door hinges during a house fire or putting lipstick on a pig post slaughter.
You have to fix the core of the problem before you start worrying about the minor details that cannot meaningfully exist without the initial problem being solved. Creating this currency would not solve any problems whatsoever with the current state of the world. It would not improve anything.
You know how I know that? Bitcoin was the thing you are describing. How’d that work out? The same way literally any digital currency will work out while the concept of capital is allowed to exist. It will be bought, hoarded, and narrowly metered out in the absolute best case scenario. And all possible frameworks that could possibly avoid that fate are just the concept of socialism dressed up in increasingly silly and decreasingly useful abstractions.
If you want to have a nice sailboat you don’t start with the deck trimming. You don’t even start with the sails. You start building the framework of the hull and then possibly get to the finer parts later, when what you have won’t just be dunked in the ocean because you think you don’t need the entire rest of the boat to have a boat.
Jesus you’re pedantic, and incorrect. Bitcoin is stateless, that is not what I described.
Gaddafi got killed not because of a digital currency, but because he tried to sell oil for gold instead of dollars. That’s a different fight one about reserve currency status, not payment rail infrastructure. Let’s not confuse the two.
But you’re right about the core problem: any state that seriously threatens capital’s control over money will be destroyed or sanctioned. So what do we do? Wait for global socialism? That’s not happening this decade.
Don’t aim for the whole currency. Aim for the rails first.
A digital euro as currently proposed is trash, full surveillance, no anonymity, state as Visa 2.0. But a different digital currency, one with mandatory judicial oversight for freezes, low-value anonymity, and multiple non-corporate validators is not “lipstick on a pig.” It’s a fire escape.
Your “burning house” analogy works against you. If the house is on fire, you don’t say “no point installing a fire escape until we rebuild the whole house.” You install the fire escape now to save the people inside, then rebuild.
Bitcoin failed because it had no state backing, no insurance, no physical anchor, and no judicial oversight. I’m describing the opposite. Don’t throw out surgery because leeches didn’t work.
What state? Because it cannot be any european state. It can’t be any state in the Americas. It can’t be most asian countries. It absolutely cannot be Australia.
There is no state that is both already uncaptured by capital and palatable enough to avoid sanctions in the west. Since that’s the actual only reason sanctions exist, to punish those not currently fully captured by capital holders.
So it cannot be state backed.
Can it be insured without a state? Maybe, but then whoever insures it sets the rules for it. This is the problem with the Federal Reserve owning USD versus the US government. Can it be physically backed without a state? No.
If this magically came into existence in a state and was even slightly effective, that state would magically be developing nuclear weapons the next day and invaded. Just a reminder Gaddafi was doing what you’re proposing… and global capital was so mad he was allegedly anally penetrated by machetes while the entirety of the country was effectively destroyed.
Any solution that gains traction developed by a state would get that state eliminated.
And any solution not made by a state will either be a scam, be monopolized by capital as its an asset and someone will be willing to sell it, or will simply not catch on since businesses would find no incentive to use it in large enough numbers to function. You’d need half of a country’s economy, at minimum, to switch to that new currency for people to effectively circulate it. Which is why bitcoin never took off as a currency. Which is why no crypto will ever really be used as a currency outside spot transactions. Your employees need to be able to pay their taxes with it. Which in any country means the government approves of it, which means its not a threat to them, which for 150 countries means it is not in any way a threat to capital and can be fully controlled by it.
It’s a good solution for global socialism. And socialist countries wanting to make that transition away from the last vestiges of capitalism might find utility in a state-issued digital currency… as long as capitalism does not exist anywhere at any point at that time. Because it just takes one economy where you can buy this digital currency like any other commodity in exchange for USD or other currency that can buy goods; just one to ruin everything.
You did it again, by this logic there’s not point improving anything until we fix the universe
No, there’s just no point in painting a burning car or swapping the door hinges during a house fire or putting lipstick on a pig post slaughter.
You have to fix the core of the problem before you start worrying about the minor details that cannot meaningfully exist without the initial problem being solved. Creating this currency would not solve any problems whatsoever with the current state of the world. It would not improve anything.
You know how I know that? Bitcoin was the thing you are describing. How’d that work out? The same way literally any digital currency will work out while the concept of capital is allowed to exist. It will be bought, hoarded, and narrowly metered out in the absolute best case scenario. And all possible frameworks that could possibly avoid that fate are just the concept of socialism dressed up in increasingly silly and decreasingly useful abstractions.
If you want to have a nice sailboat you don’t start with the deck trimming. You don’t even start with the sails. You start building the framework of the hull and then possibly get to the finer parts later, when what you have won’t just be dunked in the ocean because you think you don’t need the entire rest of the boat to have a boat.
Jesus you’re pedantic, and incorrect. Bitcoin is stateless, that is not what I described.
Gaddafi got killed not because of a digital currency, but because he tried to sell oil for gold instead of dollars. That’s a different fight one about reserve currency status, not payment rail infrastructure. Let’s not confuse the two.
But you’re right about the core problem: any state that seriously threatens capital’s control over money will be destroyed or sanctioned. So what do we do? Wait for global socialism? That’s not happening this decade.
Don’t aim for the whole currency. Aim for the rails first.
A digital euro as currently proposed is trash, full surveillance, no anonymity, state as Visa 2.0. But a different digital currency, one with mandatory judicial oversight for freezes, low-value anonymity, and multiple non-corporate validators is not “lipstick on a pig.” It’s a fire escape.
Your “burning house” analogy works against you. If the house is on fire, you don’t say “no point installing a fire escape until we rebuild the whole house.” You install the fire escape now to save the people inside, then rebuild.
Bitcoin failed because it had no state backing, no insurance, no physical anchor, and no judicial oversight. I’m describing the opposite. Don’t throw out surgery because leeches didn’t work.