Many aspects of the current crypto ecosystem will go to zero as they should and no one in this thread has disagreed with that.
What really baffles me especially in light of all that’s happened in the last decade and change is where proponents of what I will loosely call traditional finance get so much confidence in the abilities of the “lords of finance” (still a great read) over an emergent system that has already shown a good deal of resilience.
And if you disagree with what I wrote, please respond with an argument and not a vague comment.
Especially explain to me why you think any end user would choose crypto in its current state for anything more than speculation over a centralised, regulated digital alternative that absorbs and provides all the benefits of crypto with none of the inherent risk?
For many the whole point of all this is decentralisation -- apolitical digital bearer instruments if you will -- precisely because centralised alternatives do not work for them for one reason or another. The reasons have been recapitulated many times, not sure how productive that conversation will be. The difference of opinion is on how plausible. For me the shortlist is censorship and seizure resistance, and predictable policy (open source code that in the case of Bitcoin anyway requires overwhelming consensus to change, at least on fundamental items like supply)
What do you guys know that the BoE are missing?
'Bank of England Deputy Governor Jon Cunliffe sees a possibility for crypto meltdown survivors to become the future technology companies, rivaling Amazon.com Incand eBay Inc,'
'He emphasized "huge applications and potential within the financial sector" for crypto technology despite the current scenario and expected crypto technology and finance to continue amid odds.'