[2016-11-21]Adam Draper: Bitcoin & Blockchain Will Not Replace Cash, Will..

[WishICanTurnBackTime]

Adam Draper: Bitcoin & Blockchain Will Not Replace Cash, Will Serve as Backend for Dollar

Adam Draper, founder and managing director of virtual reality and Blockchain-focused venture capital firm, Boost VC, recently stated in an interview that he believes Bitcoin and the Blockchain technology will operate as backend technologies behind reserve currencies like the U.S. dollar.
Over the past two years, an increasing number of banks and financial institutions have allocated significant amount of capital and resources into the development and research of the Blockchain technology and Bitcoin. A study released by prominent analyst firm Greenwich Associates, notes that $1 bln is spent annually on the development of Blockchain.
In spite of the hype around Bitcoin and Blockchain’s rapidly increasing user base, market cap and demand, Draper believes that Bitcoin and its underlying technology will merely operate as a backend to reserve currencies, as it fails to replace the U.S. dollar as the global currency.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/adam-draper-bitcoin-blockchain-will-not-replace-cash-will-serve-as-backend-for-dollar

[yayayo]

Draper is invested in ventures whose business model is based on Bitcoin not becoming a major currency. Sad news for him: The real killer app is Bitcoin, the decentralized currency, not private blockchains. The blockchain hype is already dying. It's outright dumb to assume that Bitcoin will be used as a backend for reserve currencies: If bitcoin itself would not be used as a currency it would have no value, hence it could not serve as a secure backend for reserve currencies.

Bitcoin is the end of reserve currencies, because with Bitcoin reserve becomes irrelevant. Bitcoin is (with precision updates) infinitely divisible. With bitcoin, there can't be a shortage of money. At the same time, bitcoin remains a sound currency, that is not subject to arbitrary inflation of its monetary base.This combination will kill fiat money and (central) banks.

All Venture Capital firms that are invested into private blockchain projects can write off their investments with a huge fat ZERO.

ya.ya.yo!

[1Referee]

Bitcoin was never meant to replace fiat, banks, governments and whatever other entities you can think of. This just plays in people's mind, and isn't part of the reality. I am very happy with what Bitcoin is offering me. It offers me a store of value tool, optional currency in times I need it, an investment option, and a way to store money outside the reach of banks and governments.

On the other hand, I am also happily making use of cash money to do my daily shoppings, paying bills, etc. I don't have to make a choice when I can make use of the best that both cash and Bitcoin are offering me. It's interesting, and funny at the same time, that opinions from high level people differ so much. One thing they all seem to have in common, is that whatever they say, it's mostly an extreme example of what they think will happen. Never some sort of easy mid way predictions/statements.

[aigeezer]

Bitcoin was never meant to replace fiat, banks, governments and whatever other entities you can think of.

The phrase "meant to" is slippery, but Satoshi's whitepaper concludes, in part: "We have proposed a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust."

https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Such a system, of necessity, can not rely on fiat, banks, governments or any other trust-based entities. It is an alternative to them, presumably a better alternative but only time will tell. Given two competing alternative systems (trust-based vs. trustless) it is possible, but not essential, that one will eventually replace the other completely. The flaws in trust-based systems are well understood. I'm delighted to see humanity exploring trustless systems, but it's early days yet.

I have no reason to think that the coercive interventions by various "trusted parties" in my own life ever have my best interests at heart, despite their rhetoric. I welcome trustless systems and would gladly use them in preference to trusted systems wherever possible. ymmv, of course.         

[Kprawn]

I am also not of the opinion that Bitcoin would replace Fiat currencies, but ONLY because it needs government to make that decision. We all

know governments will never relinquish their hold on the financial systems and the power to manipulate the economies. So if I am brutally

honest, I have to agree with Adam Draper. We can build expectations all we want, but governments are still in control. The only way to take

that control, would be to use your democratic vote. { In countries where democracy is still the deciding factor, and where elections are fair

and Free } 

[Carlton Banks]

I am also not of the opinion that Bitcoin would replace Fiat currencies, but ONLY because it needs government to make that decision. We all

know governments will never relinquish their hold on the financial systems and the power to manipulate the economies. So if I am brutally

honest, I have to agree with Adam Draper. We can build expectations all we want, but governments are still in control. The only way to take

that control, would be to use your democratic vote. { In countries where democracy is still the deciding factor, and where elections are fair

and Free } 

I frequently ignore the outcome of democratic votes/majority opinion. So it's really a case by case basis whether fiat currencies can be replaced: I've already replaced them as a store of value, and I didn't need a democratic vote to tell me to do it. But go ahead, have fun while other people vote on what you're permitted to do with your life.

[Dahhi]

Since governments wants people to go cashless and people want crypto - I'm thinking they might give people a centralized crypto to spend once fiat fails due to high devaluation.

[aigeezer]

I frequently ignore the outcome of democratic votes/majority opinion. So it's really a case by case basis whether fiat currencies can be replaced: I've already replaced them as a store of value, and I didn't need a democratic vote to tell me to do it. But go ahead, have fun while other people vote on what you're permitted to do with your life.

Indeed. Despite how people behave after an election, participating in one means implicitly agreeing to be bound by the outcome, win or lose. People tend not to notice that democracy is coercive in nature until after their side loses an election. This is sometimes caricatured as "the tyranny of the majority", but in most actual cases it is the tyranny of some power group or other. Lots of disgruntled losers feel the bite after every election in any case. That is the antithesis of freedom, imho.

I stopped voting on any issues years ago, since the choice before me was usually a false dichotomy arranged by persons unknown, untrusted and untrustworthy - a classic pitfall of trust-based systems.

Unlike a previous poster, I do not think that the only way to take control (of one's own life) is to vote within a trust-based system and abide by the arbitrary outcome. Rather I see the only reasonable escape path from such systems is to stop participating in them - and of course to hope that trustless systems will arise to fill the vacuum.

Life goes on.