195
Texas House introduces bill to establish a strategic bitcoin reserve (www.cnbc.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
55 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

According to what I understand of what's being proposed here, no taxpayer money would go to purchase any Bitcoin whatsoever. It would all be people paying their taxes in Bitcoin and such. Not actually the purchase of Bitcoin by the state. I do think that we have totally different views on crypto, though, because the right I see it protecting is our right to capital that cannot be seized and controlled by the government. Yes, that enables some bad things. But on a whole, I believe it helps society. If you need to leave an oppressive situation, you can. If your government causes inflation to ruin the value of your money, you can protect your wealth with crypto because they have no control over it. I totally agree that most crypto is indeed a scam. There's no argument for me on that. My argument is that there are legitimate projects doing legitimate things and those should not be thrown out with the bathwater like the baby.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I like your measured view of crypto. I still am not convinced by your argument, mainly because I do not believe in capital as something to be protected, but I do think that regular people having the means to act apart from government oversight is good.

    My issue is still that it doesn't level the playing field. The benefits of privacy and decentralization for the wealthy outclass what benefits the rest of us get from the same thing. It's just another way for the rich to get richer, while the poor stay poor.

    While good things are done with it, my opinion is that it's still a net negative.

    Either way, have a lovely day. Hopefully I didn't come off too harsh.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    But regular people from countries which are sanctioned by countries do benefit from it, yet their benefit is still not worth it? I understand being critical and wary and vigilant, but to outright deny its usefulness for people with little options outside of official government sanctioned forms of economic power? You've deemed their plight and cause as outweighed and tainted by the wealthy who they have zero control over.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you wrote, but that's not how sanctions work. It's the people within their own country who are hurt by their country's sanctions, not sanctions from other countries. This leads to domestic companies buying less exports, which is supposed to lead to more domestic production (or hurt the other country's economy), but regular people aren't typically buying exports direct from the producers. That's not a problem Bitcoin can solve, unless import companies start using it or regular people start importing themselves.

    However, it's still the wealthy who most benefit from crypto. It's the wealthy who make the barrier to entry higher, and it's the wealthy who can very easily manipulate the value of this value-less currency (just look what they can do with the stock market, and that's regulated).

    It's not that I'm against the plight of the downtrodden, I just don't see how crypto actually helps them; like I said, it's another "American Dream," a promise of wealth that will never materialize for most, because the wealthy have rigged the system.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent