The main problem I see is that traditional financial structures exist because they can allocate to the human labor capital pool to get things done. In a nutshell, if the need for a human to work is denied (dystopian) or goes away (utopian) then the use case for money and tradfi goes away. Bitcoin exists as an opposing force to tradfi structures. If tradfi structure goes away because human labor as capital disappears, then the need for BTC as well and any other chain disappears. Bottom line, the meaning of money will change in a utopian outcome. Work will be optional which means money will be to. If money is optional then so is bitcoin. Thoughts?

I'm available now for a 1-1 convo.-!! You can connect with me via simpleX Chat with the invitation link below

SimpleX Chat - Contact

one word: usury 200 years of it is enough. the real use of tradfi is robbing people. the rest is just the honey for the trap.

Not necessarily. The meaning of work could also change. From: working to survive as is the case now for most people. To: ‘working’ to explore the depths of the oceans, interstellar travel, giant leaps forward in science & technology- driven out of the sheer curiosity which may be unleashed once we pivot from a broken money to a better money.

also, get your "technological unemployment" nonsense off my lawn, along with the AI replacing humans narrative. mechanised looms didn't lead to free rugs, yet these morons called luddites thought they had a right to smash up other people's property. since then dozens, actualy probably thousands, of jobs have vanished due to the efficiency of automation and technological efficiency gains, and those people found other ways to make a living. life's tough, get a helmet. nobody needs usury, except for people who want to rob without being recognised as a robber. taxation is extortion, and government statutes have no weight under common law or equity, except if you work for the government, no matter what the policeman says. the fiat currency regime with endless debasement of the money is the reason why people who are displaced by innovation can't weather the retraining time to change their means of employment. you could try to ban some new innovation using political means, but 20 years later nobody is going to remember your name without laughing at how stupid you are. go read Henry Hazlitt's essay on economics, or if you really want to understand how markets work and what Satoshi had in mind when he invented bitcoin, read Ludwig von Mises Human Action. all of the narratives they push in the mainstream media about economics are lies. a large number of the fields of science are full of people writing fake papers to protect corporations from liability, for the people their products kill.

Hey perv

I believe that human action means we will always create value, and specialise, plus trade So the need for money will always be there to perform its 3 key features Store of value Medium of exchange Unit of account The technological cycle will not create a scenario in which the human spirit of endeavour goes away What inspires us might change What is considered success might change But the utopian and dystopian you mentioned are very unlikely in my view

Totally with you on the Luddite angle. Literally proven that that isn’t true ie tech replaces human employment to a net negative I don’t believe that a new Bitcoin-esque innovation is needed I think we will create the future we actually want, so yes there will be a mission to co-opt and control, but the average person doesn’t benefit enough for that, and a “intransigent minority” will be enough to ensure it doesn’t happen

i think the emergent behaviours of bitcoin fans relates to the mexican standoff character of the conflict between miners, between miners and users, and between users and corporate/government adopters. but that latter group have figured out what keeps it looking like an inflation hedge, and are leveraging this to take control of it and turn it into a de facto but supposedly not fiat currency. the game theory is very clear. there is no real fundamentals to bitcoin, just high friction to cooption, that persistent action could overcome. bitcoin mining is pretty much a closed business, because of sha256, which i think is antithetical to the rest of the philosophy it was intended for. bitcoin's role as a bridge to fiat kept the market dominance, but with BTCs and stablecoins the situation changes a lot. most shitcoiners just directly cash out to stables and then redeem them. USG adoption will be bullish for NGU, but not for freedom tech. they don't adopt anything that isn't in their favor, or able to be slanted that way. none of the degens or suits believe in real economic laws, only the laws of power and violence and usury. most shitcoins were not built to really solve the actual problems that make bitcoin vulnerable. maybe some legitimately believe that but most of them in the back of their mind it's NGU, and really, behind all the slogans, most bitcoiners are here for NGU. a smaller segment are here for mises monetary theory, but USG adoption means the end of that, no matter how good it is for NGU.

Thanks for your input. Out of curiosity, have you heard/seen any of the commentary from Emad Mostaque, formerly of Stability AI? He has written a book called The Last Economy and is heading up the Intelligent Internet. It’s an interesting effort to offer a solution via AI to the upcoming economic paradigm shift as he sees it. It’s an interesting take on what is potentially coming from someone involved in creating and shaping AI. Book in link (free)

The Last Economy

The Last Economy

A Third Path for the Intelligence Age

Mises proved that socialist command economies cannot remain economically stable because of mismatches between actual needs and the dictates of the bureaucracy. Hayek pointed to the information problem, which is that the information and decisionmaking of a central command economy can never acquire enough information, in order to fit production to actual needs. i don't think that more networks and more data makes any difference. because outside of the essential conflict between a ruling class of decisionmakers and a massive population of those who would be subject to it, has to do with ideological differences. so, on top of the lack economic calculation, the lac kof sufficient information to do it, there is the problem that a central lever of power is going to be coopted, if not fraudulently established, by someone whose preferences exclude a large swathe of the population, thus creating inherent geopolitical instability on top of the first two problems. there is no "new economic paradigm" this is always just a revamp of the propaganda campaign from global communists and third-way socialist democrats, to persuade people to accept becoming non-deciding slaves. between these three factors, any proposals that use the architecture of central command cannot do anything but fail, once the donors in the actual mostly free markets stop propping up the inevitable failures of their command economies. viz soviet union. bulgaria, romania, belarus, latvia. and now, the EU is trying to do this, as well, and the USA is going for the right wing version of socialism, with the sweet deals between people like thiel, musk, altman, and the rest of them, to institute that surveillance system that they think will solve the information problem. it's not going to work. the age of socialism is coming to an end, whether you like it or not. there has in fact been a 150 years or so long project to try and institute global socialism, and over 150 million people have been slaughtered to do this. and probably way more than that in the soft war like we saw with 9-11 and covid.

Thanks for sharing all of this It’s very prudent to be concerned about many of the things you touch on But I’m not so negative

I agree that the Austrians have a lens on the world which is very helpful, especially as an alternative to socialism

I’ve not read about this no Let me take a look and thanks for sharing

So do you think that the legacy thinking of the Austrians will trump/overcome any economic disruption caused by AGI & ASI?

I am currently reading it. If you do read it I would love to chat to you about any thoughts you have regarding Mostaque’s opinions and efforts.

@GJM I did a quick grok analysis

Grok

Grok is a free AI assistant designed by xAI to maximize truth and objectivity. Grok offers real-time search, image generation, trend analysis, and ...

Very interesting, as I am always open to learning new things Initial reaction is that this is why I value the Austrian School of Economics study that I’ve done, as a foundation for understanding all economics It’s very practical, and focuses on the individual Yes AI is a big technology shift, yes it will create benefits and dis-benefits, but in the Austrian lens we all act according to our “self-interest”, of which factors like scarcity are actually crucial drivers to human action So the idea of AI to write policy, or AI to create some kind of abundant future without economic action, is not the way to look at it Rather, what does AI enable the individual to do. What can they now create? How is there life better? Again, to look to the Austrian School, they promote the idea of free markets, so more regulation is not the aim, but rather the opposite, get government small, out of the way, and allow people to crack on (human action actually complements each other via specialised trade) Have you done much Austrian Econ research? I’ve done lots of reading around it, but some contemporary and good reads where Knut Svanholm “Praxaeology” and Saifedean “Pronciples of Econ” 🙏🏻

Yes I absolutely do Human action is relevant regardless of the technology (tools) available

Ah! Ok! Interesting. My research to date is leading me to the conclusion that there will be a transition to “Post Labor Economics” system which is yet to be defined. I am not seeing any convincing arguments from the Austrian economic camp that logically confronts the unknowns of both AGI & ASI. Human action has been consistent through history as we know it but is not clear to me how it shapes economics through a technological singularity event. Interesting times! 😄

Time will tell!

the idea that everyone can have everything they want because there is smart robots is ridiculous that doesn't solve the food production problem... how do you make sure you grow enough? still basics. the kurzweil singularity nonsense is obvious nonsense if you just think about it. what you don't understand is that the AGI robot overlords take over nonsense is that no robot does things of its own accord. someone has to set its prime directive. a robot has no needs, therefore it cannot be a market participant because it does not feel pain and has no motivation to act. even if you artificially add pain to its experience, it's not going to make it the same as a human. what makes us human, and need markets, is pain. go fucking read Human Action and come back to me. in the meantime i don't have time for going over well worn bullshit from socialists who literally think that it's robbery to charge a price.

Interesting thoughts! Not sure how to interpret the emotion behind your response but it comes across as frustrated and or annoyed. There are definitely narratives being pushed by the doomers, the “nothing really changes” crowd and the utopians. I am not qualified enough to make a call on which of those future play out, but so far, as mentioned earlier, I am planning my life around a change in the way economics gets done. All of my thought experiments point to fundamental change. 🤷‍♂️ Thanks for your input, it’s good to have discussions like this, even though they can be quite difficult in this format. Out of curiosity, do you mind sharing what country you are based in and your age? I am 59 and I live in New Zealand. 😀