No No No No No, lol. That's all wrong lol.i don't know how to highlight what you say but i'll just put it in quotation marks lol.

"Name any economic system that had staying power and was able to scale without being profitable. This is the entire problem with capitalism and macro economic growth. Things that don't pay for themselves have to be subsidized from another source."

This is a ridiculous statement and let me tell you why. So you're saying i'm assuming you're from the united states or some western country because most such countries can only see economics this way. So you're saying that you walk around with the let's say us dollar in your pocket looking for it to be profitable?

Do you need it to be profitable or do you need it to be stable? So basically what you guys trying to do and this is weird thing about it. You saying that okay i go start this computer internet blockchain website gaming whatever. The markets determines it's more profitable than the let's again use the dollar.

So the assumption is that it gains strenght against the dollar and because of that it is more desirable and valuable than the dollar. All this entire idea is predicated on a false strange weird idea and not one i believe that father's of blockchain's like satoshi intended. He couldn't have intended anything like what ethereum has done and i think vitalik smart kid but in a long drawn out thought process i think even he'd have to agree with my conclusions here which are:

So you start these gaming internet businesses and the blockchain ledger says i own this whatever because i own the crypto. okay fine so if i owned a share in a business i'd maybe get a stock certificate in the standard economy and i'd use this certificate to prove i own shares in company xyz. Now lets say company xyz declares you don't own anything in our business. Okay then i go well i'm taking you to court. you say take me to court and you go you and what army? i say myself and the us army. So you say bring it on i'm not honoring anything and the final step the us army shows up on your doorsteps with guns to enforce my stock certificate. thats not going to happen ever on the blockchain unless we agree and enough people agree and everybody agrees that this whatever you call value and money is worth what we say. i know this long and drawn out but maybe i need to do this to make this point for everyone reading.

so you got this unenforcable ledger basically. Satoship talked about a currency because controlling money and controlling your own money is the easiest way to solve the problem. Nobody is going to enforce your rights if you own gaming company xyz on the blockchain. however merchants may by default indirectly enforce it by taking your currency. State and municipalities may indirectly enforce it by accepting your bitcoin or crypto x to pay your taxes or pay utilities etc.,

What you all are focusing on to me is like a fun casino game that may as well be a loyalty reward token or something. I'm not saying it's not fun but it's kinda dumb i think in the end. Now some arguments are that they could combine into one big economic if you will ecosystem? Maybe .. maybe not but in any event i have to agree with the bitcoin maximalist idea of a sound money being more effective than this i would say nonimportant approach.

An although i'm not a bitcoin maximalist their arguments about putting all this stupid stuff on teh blockchain makes sense. Which is why bitcoin doesn't put anything on their chain or care .. or the maximalist community doesn't care if you ask them because they think its stupid. So i understand now why they think it's stupid. I would'nt say its stupid i'd just say its the least most important part of teh effectiveness and use of the chain. those are my thoughts on it. i'm not going to slam communities or what i think are dumb ideas to create businesses on blockchains. i think we create businesses just fine. I think the only issue is we need actual control of our money. now you may say and i'll say this in conclusion. Maybe on hive or steem or whatever some may say well we build all this infrastructure and businesses and that gets enough value and circulation and this that and the other. okay maybe but then again bitcoin is still number one it's not doing any of that nor is doge coin and all of them doing a million times better than you all. So i dont know how effective that argument is but again you can try it. i think the focus should have stayed on like a stable coin built around such infrastructure but none of your mechanisms can achieve a stable coin because you simply don't have the demand you got like now i believe 1.8 million users which is nothing in like 5 years or so. listen i'm like the chinese i read my books from the end.

Do what you all think is best i just gave a thought out opinion . maybe you all make it to 2 million users in a few more years idk.

Posted Using LeoFinance ^Beta