The problem with cryptocurrency and all its related technologies lies in the pervasive lack of trust, which seems to have persisted since the dot-com bubble (when many internet companies proved to be unsustainable), the scandal with Facebook (helping Trump win the elections), and the scandal with Twitter (blocking Trump).
Nothing seems to change, and there is still a lack of trust towards technology companies associated with the internet.
Even before Bitcoin was created, it was already being called a means for money laundering, the darknet, and so on. However, it miraculously survived and is now considered an alternative to gold. Despite ongoing attempts to compromise it, such as minting NFTs on it or using it for data storage, Bitcoin thrives but is still rejected by the majority.
In what way can society embrace blockchain and cryptocurrencies?
We have come up with several options, but we are only willing to share three of them with you. If you’re interested in the rest, you’ll have to unsubscribe from our blog forever
National blockchains.
Blockchain technology itself is very convenient, as it allows for decentralized data storage. This can help combat corruption, money laundering, and facilitate information registries.
National blockchains would allow for transactions between different countries without allowing other countries to possess information about the citizens of their country.
Want to buy real estate in country B while being a citizen of country A? No problem, here’s their “NFT” that you can trust.
But are governments interested in this?
Governments are interested in cutting off their population from others: fewer complaints from the population, more opportunities to implement their plans and strategies.
Corporate blockchains.
A hypothetical example would be JPMorgan creating records on the blockchain for its clients and assigning information, status, and ratings to each record. Other organizations could access these records instead of collecting and storing the information themselves, thus avoiding responsibility.
Minority blockchains.
This option would allow blockchains to become a modern and long-lasting technology. Who would dare to block a token used by African Americans for transactions, even if they engage in somewhat illegal activities? No one. Who would dare to block an LGBTQ+ token? No one.
That’s about it.
Vitalik Buterin, are you by any chance gay? Satoshi Nakamoto, are you perhaps a prince from Saudi Arabia?
Nothing seems to change, and there is still a lack of trust towards technology companies associated with the internet.
Even before Bitcoin was created, it was already being called a means for money laundering, the darknet, and so on. However, it miraculously survived and is now considered an alternative to gold. Despite ongoing attempts to compromise it, such as minting NFTs on it or using it for data storage, Bitcoin thrives but is still rejected by the majority.
In what way can society embrace blockchain and cryptocurrencies?
We have come up with several options, but we are only willing to share three of them with you. If you’re interested in the rest, you’ll have to unsubscribe from our blog forever
National blockchains.
Blockchain technology itself is very convenient, as it allows for decentralized data storage. This can help combat corruption, money laundering, and facilitate information registries.
National blockchains would allow for transactions between different countries without allowing other countries to possess information about the citizens of their country.
Want to buy real estate in country B while being a citizen of country A? No problem, here’s their “NFT” that you can trust.
But are governments interested in this?
Governments are interested in cutting off their population from others: fewer complaints from the population, more opportunities to implement their plans and strategies.
Corporate blockchains.
A hypothetical example would be JPMorgan creating records on the blockchain for its clients and assigning information, status, and ratings to each record. Other organizations could access these records instead of collecting and storing the information themselves, thus avoiding responsibility.
Minority blockchains.
This option would allow blockchains to become a modern and long-lasting technology. Who would dare to block a token used by African Americans for transactions, even if they engage in somewhat illegal activities? No one. Who would dare to block an LGBTQ+ token? No one.
That’s about it.
Vitalik Buterin, are you by any chance gay? Satoshi Nakamoto, are you perhaps a prince from Saudi Arabia?