Can't teach an old dog new tricks. And if you're so high up on your pedestal, it's very hard to come down to where reality is. Central bankers will always be resistant to change or would always put on the act of being resistant for the benefit of whoever it is that they are subservient to. Little do we know, for all the talk that they are doing, these people are already moving behind the scenes to ensure that they get a big slice of the pie should the said pie turn out to be better than expected. Change is hard for those who are caught in the middle of it, but eventually, everyone will fall in line.
There's certainly some truth to that. The other factor is that because fiat is so hopelessly prone to corruption and abuse, central bankers have to be fiscally and legislatively conservative. They don't have the option of embracing anything radical and new. It's not in their nature. They don't have the capability of trusting something which they can't micromanage every aspect of, but they also can't recognise the fact that
no one needs to micromanage it. It works just fine without someone at the steering wheel, which is also precisely the reason why most of us use it. Because of all that, they simply can't adapt to what we're doing.
Not to mention the abject hypocrisy of allowing the banksters to magic-up-out-of-nowhere a $1.2 quadrillion toxic derivatives time-bomb and then accusing us of being "fools". Time will be the judge of who the real fools are, I'm sure.
I absolutely agree that central bankers have to be exceptionally conservative and cautious since fiat money is highly prone to abuse and misuse. Zimbabwean dollar and its pathetic collapse seem to be a classic. But I can't agree it is good that you don't have to micromanage crypto because there is nothing to manage. It may look as good and fine on the face of it but in reality this is an obvious lack of flexibility under whatever name. In other words, crypto is like a sledgehammer when all you need is a screwdriver.
