Yep I have the exact same problem. The fund in the unfilled orders are frozen under the "reserved asset".

Trying to bring in morality into investment in a free market can be a dangerous way of thinking.

That being said, Bitcoin millionaires or billionaires might have information advantage that could be considered "unfair". Not everyone had the choice to be tech-savvy or being educated sufficiently to understand Bitcoin since its inception. Thus the creation of wealth due to Bitcoin is certainly not egalitarian, it is biased toward a specific demographic, or group of people sharing certain characteristics.

Even though everything about Bitcoin is public information, not everyone can access them freely, for example, non english-speakers, people with no internet access, or people with no not enough human capital to understand the source code. These create information rent for Bitcoin's early adopters which is not too dissimilar to the economic rent collected by "insiders" in big institutions.

Whether this is good or bad depends on your view of the world. But there are certainly "fairer" way of issuing or introducing a cryptocurrency.

The whole crypto market is highly speculative and most of the ICOs may already be overvalued. Most of them will fail eventually, and this is exacerbated by the adverse selection due to lack of regulation. So patience might not be the best virtue in this market. Further, you have shiny new projects coming out every week, which challenges future profit prospects of existing projects.

I am not saying that patient is not important. It only works if it is with low risk that the long run trend is upward. This is not true for the crypto world since the outlook is uncertain by nature. The uncertainty is fundamental in that you cannot evaluate the risk like you do for the stock market.

In long term, Yes. The smart economy can do everything bank does but cheaper. In a frictionless world (the one we are moving to), economic efficiency dictates social organizations.

In short term, No. Why would anyone want to eliminate all the banks in this world? There are huge number of ordinary people all over the world employed in the banking sector doing honest works to make a living.

This transition process will be and should be a gradual one.

These are unfair and incorrect views of the Keynesian economics.

Keynes pioneered the study of the economy as an aggregate. It also introduces the idea of disequilibrium and price stickiness, which are occurring themes if you conduct any serious macroeconomic analysis. He also introduced behavioral elements in his formal analysis e.g. money demand equation and term "Animal Spirit". He would have incorporated expectation but the mathematics at his time was not advanced enough to handle that.

The policy prescriptions from Keynes's theory are natural implications of his theory, which remains revolutionary even to this day. The great depression in the late 20s dealt a huge blow to the Austrian school as well as western capitalism in general. It beckoned a response outside the box and Keynes' demand management really was the answer until the 70s. You have to remember that even liberals in the west placed a lot of hope on Communism during the great depression, the vibe was certainly very different from now.

While it is unfortunate that Keynesian economic theories have been politicized to benefit the state power, it is also nature that for a long period of human history big states and institutions exist. The Austrian school was too ahead in its time and the technology was not there until more than a hundred years later. The free market is still an imperfect institution (as correctly realized by Keynes) that is not really free and transparent, central authority is needed to enforce property rights.

So contrary to what you have said, it is Keynesian economics that was radical to the traditional Austrian school. Hell, it is even radical in this day as the neo-liberalism (a politicized descendant of the Austrian School) took over the world from the 90s that led to the tremendous growth of wealth and income inequality.

Yes I think it will have long lasting wealth redistribution effect.

Two driving forces:

1) cryptocurrencies and digitized assets have much smaller transaction cost; high transaction cost leads to big organizations and hence a concentration of power to take advantage of economies of scale in order to lower the transaction cost; big organization leads to culture and norms that help solve the free rider problem, hence the exclusivity and secrecy; lowering the transaction cost removes incentives to form big organizations and ensures wider access to these assets.

2) the cost of issuing a new cryptocurrency will approach zero; this has profound implications as concentration of holding will become self-destructive for the currency; majority of the network can move freely to new cryptocurrency with a more even distribution, which benefits the majority at zero cost, hence wiping out the network value of the old.

This means that redistribution will take place in a natural way because the strength and value of a network depends on the numbers. However, property rights will also be more clearly defined and more liquidly traded in the token economy so wealth in terms of property rights will not be redistributed, but rather more fairly valued.