-this is a public scroll: anyone can see this scroll-
the
following
philosophical
essays
were
all
written
before
the
existence
of
chatgpt
and
its
wide
availability
to
the
public
and
had
been
published
on
sites
such
as
facebook
and
has
a
timestamp
on
notewiki
that
long
precedes
chatgpt's
availability.
none
of
the
material
has
been
modified,
edited,
or
supported
in
any
way
form
or
manner,
not
even
by
means
of
inspiration
by
any
thing
that
has
to
do
with
language
model
ai's
and
the
author
sworn
affirms
this.
if
there
was
any
instance
of
a
false
positive
of
a
likely
or
indeterminacy,
it
is
probably
because
chatgpt
was
trained
in
inclusion
of
these
essays
as
a
dataset.
there
will
be
better
ways
developed
for
to
document
this,
to
defend
the
authenticity
of
texts,
but
ultimately
these
essays
were
long
written
before
the
availability
of
chatgpt.
the
previous
paper
was
on
the
idea
of
smart
coin
system
that
can
self
adjust
to
market
variables
to
maintain
price
value
even
in
circumstances
of
general
inflation.
since
then
the
author
has
ventured
further
into
the
cryptocurrent
economy
even
started
a
few
cryptocurrencies
and
programmed
smart
contracts
of
his
own
and
have
a
deeper
and
more
holistic
understanding
of
the
industrial
progression
known
as
blockchain
and
its
counterparts.
the
previous
critique
resides
in
several
factorials
first
of
all
being
the
nature
of
blockchained
currencies
and
their
idea
of
cryptographic
anonymity
in
respect
to
the
idea
of
a
consensus
driven
community
enforced
accounting
ledger.
the
critique
was
leveraged
on
the
paradoxical
nature
of
the
idea
privacy
which
is
the
first
and
prime
reason
for
any
issuance
of
cryptographic
use
is
actually
being
serviced
on
something
communitarian
and
publicly
accessible.
the
end
result
actually
is
a
very
public
transactional
interface
that
can
easily
traced
via
chain
explorers
leading
to
the
conclusion
that
the
cryptography
only
truly
functionally
services
one
attribution,
immutability.
hardcoding
of
information
using
a
publicly
distributed
consensus
pool
is
not
unlike
mass
published
posts
on
twitter
that
one
can
not
take
back
given
that
it
is
sent
to
every
receiving
node
and
also
kept
digitally
copied
by
their
own
immutable
version.
thus
blockchain
is
exactly
what
the
word
entails
every
block
is
chained,
immutable,
unbreakable
and
bond
to
the
record
book.
i
can
not
imagine
anyone
in
their
right
mind
will
drug
deal
with
this
money.
how
any
of
it
can
be
untraceable
still
baffles
me
and
perhaps
i
have
not
dived
deep
enough
into
those
who
made
away
with
six
hundred
million
dollars
in
the
polychain
network,
but
i
can
not
imagine
them
being
able
to
cash
out
without
some
kind
of
linkage,
the
very
confounding
variable
that
was
listed
in
sakamoto’s
mysterium
paper.
linkage
that
is,
any
kind
of
blockchain
transaction
in
order
to
have
real
world
value
will
have
to
meet
some
kind
of
digital
exchange
that
is
willing
to
take
the
batch
amount
and
transact
it
into
real
world
money
and
given
the
immutable
money
trail,
that
point
of
transference
is
where
the
fed
sharks
await
each
with
their
teeth
of
ferocion.
given
that
you
stole
some
bitcoin,
you
will
probably
never
be
able
to
cash
it
out,
and
even
if
you
did,
they
will
easily
find
you
and
hunt
you
down
much
easier
if
you
were
holding
on
to
hard
cold
cash.
those
who
thought
cryptocurrencies
was
a
easy
way
to
blackmarket
money
must
have
been
foolish
criminals
and
of
course
those
who
participate
in
criminality
or
is
just
a
privacy
advocate
who
has
supreme
motivations
of
preserving
the
anonymity
of
accounts
will
argue
that
who
in
their
right
mind
will
participate
in
the
blockchain
economy.
the
question
i
pose
is
who
in
their
right
mind
wont?
blockchain
might
go
back
to
the
very
roots
of
human
civilizations
way
back
to
the
time
when
societies
were
much
smaller
and
primitive
where
it
was
literally
impossible
to
disguise
and
hide
wealth.
much
of
what
was
earned
was
communitarian
in
nature,
evenly
distributed
and
accounted
for
in
what
was
known
as
a
community
potlatch.
of
course
such
methods
became
grossly
inefficient
given
that
societies
grew
in
size,
organisational
complexity,
and
with
the
division
of
labor,
evolving
caste
systems,
and
the
uneven
distribution
of
knowledge,
pyramid
centric
societies
became
the
normative
as
most
humans
are
kept
in
the
dark
about
the
operations
of
wealth
and
their
distribution.
minting
coins
was
something
that
was
done
by
the
emperor
and
the
priest
class,
and
with
it
came
the
operations
of
legions,
slaves,
factories
then
the
greater
holism
of
what
we
title
industry.
thus
discretion
of
wealth,
the
hiding
and
hoarding
of
it
was
a
political
centrism
that
concentrated
power
and
also
hid
it
away.
many
people
have
commented
on
the
nixon’s
detachment
of
dollar
from
gold,
but
the
true
nature
of
it
was
that
now
accounting
was
completely
done
by
the
forces
of
power
rather
than
any
kind
of
mathematical
or
macroeconomic
analysis.
there
was
no
basis
to
supply,
there
was
no
justification
to
demand,
the
dollar
detachment
was
a
print
at
will
machine
and
with
it
came
absolute
power
to
distribute
value
which
in
return
gave
absolute
power.
so
of
course
with
this
combination
of
distribution
of
power
at
absolute
capacity
came
the
necessity
of
discretion
and
the
detachment
of
power
relations
from
any
form
of
publicly
accountable
politics.
discretion
of
wealth
became
a
trend
and
the
idea
that
society
can
be
equitable,
equivalent,
and
potlatched
became
almost
a
statement
of
madness
equivalent
to
the
primitive
notions
of
tribal
man.
this
is
not
a
marxist
argument
nor
a
mills
argument
nor
even
a
discussion
of
laissez
faire
capitalism.
the
idea
that
value
can
be
accounted
for
publicly
at
mass
and
bulk
by
the
billions
and
trillions
was
just
simply
technologically
impossible.
but
in
fact
it
has
been
possible,
central
banks
and
major
banks
do
it
all
the
time.
they
do
this
in
discretion
in
private,
but
imagine
if
all
of
the
private
money
all
of
a
sudden
gets
transferred
to
publicly
visible
accounts
where
everyone
can
trace
and
re
establish
the
routes
of
transaction
and
all
of
it
because
of
the
allure
of
value,
this
is
the
very
nature
of
the
immutable
blockchain.
the
discussion
then
returns
to
the
follow,
who
in
their
right
mind
will
not
blockchain?
blockchain
is
a
wealth
multiplying
machine.
still
nascent,
fresh
from
its
eventual
footing,
the
idea
of
a
programmatically
generating
value
and
safely
distributing
it
is
still
a
relatively
new
technical
challenge
not
to
mention
computer
scientists
and
mathematicians
are
not
economists
or
rational
microeconomics
hedge
fund
managers.
they’re
better
at
reading
code
writing
it
then
to
game
themselves
well
in
economies
of
scale
and
paradigm
with
the
ruthless
players
within
the
econometrics
grid,
but
like
automatons
in
every
industry
time
will
help
them
understand
the
routes
that
they
drive
and
they
will
get
better
and
better
at
avoiding
the
potholes
the
curves
and
the
many
tantamount
obstacles
that
throw
off
their
pillars
of
value
and
for
every
incidence
where
technology
lacked
there
is
also
the
millions
and
now
reaching
tens
and
hundreds
of
millions
of
communities
that
are
holding
on
to
the
idea
of
clean
money
in
a
pure
notion
of
belief.
the
idea
of
a
mechanistic
value
distribution
machine
and
its
open
source
communities
completely
relinquishes
the
idea
that
any
human
hands
can
easily
bend
the
will
of
supply
or
reset
the
rates
of
interest
and
with
ever
iteration
every
new
blockchain
system,
the
programmers
and
their
artificially
sentient
programs
will
only
get
better
at
this
game
of
economic
chess.
thus
the
author
would
argue
blockchain
like
wikipedia
like
the
internet
as
an
entity
itself
is
unavoidable.
institutions
organisations
that
are
just
waking
up
to
its
true
nature
will
have
to
adapt
and
with
this
adaptation
will
come
an
eventual
societal
change
unprecedented
in
the
idea
of
economics
since
the
time
hunter
gatherer
societies
took
the
leap
to
become
agricultural
farmers
and
from
farming
to
industry.
for
the
same
reasons
that
programs
are
open
source
might
be
the
same
reason
ledgers
of
highest
value
become
public:
the
operators
of
trust
conventional
ideas
of
banking
and
transaction
entails
the
idea
of
third
party
discretion.
transference
of
funds
between
two
privately
held
persons
is
to
prevent
any
possibility
that
at
third
party
will
be
able
to
get
accessibility
and
viewership.
our
modernistic
understandings
is
that
this
is
the
generalised
norm,
one
can
not
imagine
a
world
where
there
was
not
discretion
on
the
issue
of
accounts.
thus
the
practice
of
publicly
distributed
accounting
and
wealth
is
almost
akin
to
what
the
writer
wrote
previous
having
sexual
intercourse
in
public.
this
however
is
perhaps
due
to
the
tangential
evolution
of
economy
in
relation
to
the
rest
of
what
is
known
as
the
commons
in
the
discourse
of
human
sociological
arrangement.
we
would
not
be
able
to
imagine
trials
not
having
a
jury
or
votes
not
being
publicly
accounted
and
now
knowledge
not
wikipedia
like
accessible
so
why
not
the
dynamics
of
wealth,
its
true
documentation,
transference,
and
also
its
practice.
if
blockchain
was
to
grow,
its
very
limitations
will
be
the
boundaries
of
private
wealth,
thus
it
seems
blockchain
currencies
and
their
mechanisms
of
wealth
yielding
is
also
a
disintegration
of
privately
held
power.
note:-
the
exchange
as
a
mediator
of
privation
there
now
exists
separate
forms
of
the
blockchain
economy.
one
of
decentralise
systems
where
little
is
held
in
privation
and
the
other
the
buy
and
selling
intermediary
known
as
the
privately
held
exchange
that
takes
the
user
one
step
removed
from
the
actual
process
of
actually
participating
in
the
blockchain,
but
even
this
could
be
easily
trackable
traceable
given
the
public
nature
of
blockchain
distribution.
an
example
of
this
participation
is
that
one
buys
bitcoin
from
an
exchange
that
does
stock
trading
as
well
such
as
webull,
but
one
does
not
really
hold
a
bitcoin
wallet
and
instead
has
merely
contributed
to
the
exchange
holding
a
wallet.
the
exchange
then
sells
the
bitcoin
under
one’s
orders
acting
as
fiduciary
rather
than
actual.
the
transfer
of
money
to
the
fiduciary
to
the
purchase
is
anonymised
and
withheld
under
third
party
privation
rules.
thus
the
exchange
serves
as
a
buffer
for
the
transaction
being
able
to
be
traced
back
to
any
specific
individual.
even
at
mass
bulks
the
exchange
in
this
sense
protects
the
anonymity
of
the
purchaser
and
seller.
however,
this
is
system
is
not
governmentally
foul
proved.
any
money
laundered
will
have
to
be
facilitated
through
this
exchange
and
if
the
money
was
used
for
drug
dealing
purposes
it
will
still
trace
back
to
the
exchange
who
will
have
to
disclose
the
private
identities
of
their
clientele.
the
fiduciary
mechanism
might
be
only
way
to
weaken
the
blockchain
link
of
public
accountability
and
traceable
cash
flow.
the
traditional
operators
of
trust
traditional
systems
of
trust
revolve
around
the
idea
of
the
third
party
to
facilitate
the
transference
and
provision
of
funds.
thus
the
bank
acted
as
a
facilitator
and
protector
of
wealth.
the
idea
of
depositing
gold
in
receptance
of
a
lien
is
to
one
protect
the
accessibility
of
the
heavy
metals
to
prevent
theft
and
also
to
provision
a
certain
amount
of
discretion
in
the
ownership
and
amount.
a
publicly
accountable
ledger
prevents
any
kind
of
bad
accounting
on
the
part
of
the
bank
but
it
takes
away
from
the
notion
of
complete
and
total
discretion
in
the
discernment
of
ownership
and
amount.
making
said
value
adjustments
accessible
to
all
of
member
public
might
have
several
possible
results-
the
idea
that
individuals
might
be
targeted
for
their
holdings
once
known.
thus
traditional
trust
operators
facilitate
a
kind
of
protection
to
individuals
of
ownership.
the
very
nature
of
blockchain
thus
seems
antithetical
to
the
idea
that
wealth
needs
to
be
discreeted,
protected,
and
privately
held.
which
returns
back
to
our
previous
question
-
why
would
one
participate
in
the
blockchain
economy.
idealogical
notions
plays
a
big
part
in
those
who
have
true
understanding
of
the
blockchain
economy,
one
must
not
be
shunning
the
notions
of
accessibility
and
public
knowledge.
another
factor
might
be
the
participants
do
not
have
much
to
begin
with
or
the
monetary
amount
is
low
relative
to
the
percentage
of
their
actual
ownership,
but
there
are
much
better
established
reasons
to
participate
and
the
centrality
of
the
notion
is
decentralised
finance
itself.
decentralised
finance
is
exactly
as
what
it
entails,
centralisation
is
discretion,
guarded
wealth,
and
with
protection
comes
bureaucracy.
an
example
is
to
imagine
a
pipeline
that
carries
water
that
travels
in
a
straight
line
going
from
point
a
to
point
b
directly
versus
a
pipeline
that
is
constructed
in
such
a
way
that
there
are
multiple
directions
and
vectors
of
travel
before
it
can
reach
its
destination
and
at
each
point
a
gatekeeper
who
has
sworn
an
oath
to
defend
its
distribution.
without
such
accessibility
factors,
there
are
no
limitations
to
where
value
can
traverse
given
the
nature
of
financial
decentralization.
this
interoperability
and
ability
to
traverse
beyond
bureaucratic
limitations
and
limitations
by
systematic
design
coupled
with
the
accelerated
growth
of
digital
technology
and
computing
prowess
makes
digital
currency
especially
dynamic
its
way
to
traverse
and
travel
and
be
traded
in
multivarious
fashions
versus
traditional
notions
of
wealth
whether
it
be
physical
gold
or
paper
currency.
if
provisioned
right,
interoperable
assets
can
obtain
value
much
faster
and
aggregate
yields
much
quicker
than
traditional
forms
methods
and
aways
of
distribution.
the
byzantine
generals
problem
has
been
the
prime
design
mechanism
behind
the
idea
of
blockchain.
the
idea
of
communitarian
accounting
is
also
the
fair
equivalent
distribution
of
information.
the
idea
is
that
transference
of
wealth
can
be
done
so
without
a
counterparty
intermediary.
trustless
systems
thus
sends
the
same
set
of
records
to
all
participants
and
non
participants.
accessibility
of
wealth
is
also
accessibility
of
value
where
capital
flows
and
awareness
of
this
information
is
also
an
allowance
on
the
knowledge
of
the
valuable
chain.
because
of
the
general
accessibility
of
blockchained
information,
chains
can
quickly
surmount
in
value
once
discovered
that
there
is
wealth
transferred
there.
Abstract:
the
proposal
is
the
creation
of
a
smart
money
system
that
self
adjusts
rates
of
inflation
including
automated
token
burns
and
reward
for
mining
based
upon
upward
and
downward
trends
in
market.current
altcoin
forks
are
terribly
redundant,
developers
argue
and
bruise
like
fight
club
participants
over
whether
supply
should
be
21
million
or
10
billion,
insane
market
capitalisation
has
created
economies
of
intangibility,
commentators
are
screaming
overvaluation
and
yet
development
behaves
as
if
the
code
is
commandment
worthy-
changing
only
variables
rather
than
to
behave
like
intelligent
algorithms.
despite
advances
in
machine
learning
and
the
ability
for
70%
of
goldman
trades
to
be
automated
-
fact
check
-
nothing
much
has
changed
since
satoshi
nakamoto.
proof
of
work
is
held
as
a
holy
commandment
written
in
stone
despite
the
fact
that
it
takes
gargantuan
computing
power.
given
that
discreet
mathematics
and
encryption
techniques
span
at
the
very
least
three
millennias,
methods
of
which
go
beyond
simple
nonce
hashing
and
can
fit
entire
city
blocks,
the
crypto
crowd
seemed
to
have
figured
out
everything
except
the
math
and
the
code.
obsession
seems
to
be
with
the
longer
the
chain
the
more
valid
the
proof
assumptions
that
collaborative
nodes
will
outcompete
any
intruding
chain
relegating
one
cpu
per
vote,
instead
of
repeated
spending
we
will
just
out
compute
and
out
use
resources.
all
of
the
which
factors
into
the
further
considerations
that
are
in
place
when
discussing
a
not
so
smart
money
system.
that
aside
the
praise
is
all
for
sakamoto,
perhaps
this
will
drive
him
out
of
hiding,
to
write
in
reply
that
cash
design
is
not
the
holy
bible.
the
holy
bible
is
not
cash
design.
that
being
said,
the
focus
of
this
paper
is
not
to
solve
every
problem
and
take
into
consideration
the
writer
has
not
addressed
the
virtual
machine
networks
ethereum
included.
however,
as
noticed,
the
supply
and
price
match
reward
issue
seems
to
be
tremendous
there
too.
supply
and
mining
rewards
need
to
be
fluctuating
variables
adjustable
by
a
general
observance
variable
of
coinmarketcap.
easily
done
if
we
just
got
out
of
stuper.
given
three
networks
now
dictate
bitcoin
species
operations,
one
further
network
might
allow
exchanges
to
feed
in
their
pricing
data.
that
data
in
re
feeds
right
to
the
dictation
of
supply
and
reward
as
variables
that
change.
trustless
systems
and
non
reversability
trustless
systems
want
to
do
away
with
the
third
party
mediator,
but
instead
of
doing
away
with
the
third
party
mediator
proof
of
work
actually
makes
everyone
in
the
world
a
third
party
mediator.
keep
in
mind
this
is
not
trial
by
jury,
it’s
your
old
game
boy
and
that
computer
with
limited
graphics
capability
that
has
been
taken
out
of
the
execution
grounds
of
wall-e
trash
disposal
to
win
a
second
chance
at
life.
big
time
hedge
fund
managers
are
now
chasing
the
computer
you
owned
ten
years
ago
so
they
can
now
participate
in
meticulous
nonce
art
math
none
of
which
they
do,
except
to
part
and
partition
into
the
process
of
battery
generation
choking
up
entire
ecosystems
of
electric
power.
imagine
hydrodaming
nevada
an
already
arid
ground
and
servicing
all
of
the
possible
electricity
to
power
your
gameboy
from
ten
years
ago,
that
is
the
essence
of
proof
of
work.
we
solved
proof
of
work
millenias
ago.
it’s
called
using
passwords.
by
verifying
an
existing
database
we
make
sure
it’s
something
unique.
keep
in
mind,
none
of
this
actually
protects
your
identity,
except
to
make
your
entire
transaction
public.
so
whats
the
point
of
encryption
to
begin
with?
sure
arguments
will
go
public
private
keys
work
like
github
-
but
github
does
all
of
this
without
proof
of
work
.
that
being
said
,
pseudorandom
generating
algorithms
can
create
nonce
values
without
such
gargantuan
computability.
is
it
really
necessary
to
have
one
cpu
per
vote?
this
of
course
is
not
a
paper
that
is
trying
to
solve
this
encryption
dilemma
-
but
it
posits
a
greater
question
-
are
current
system
designs
more
akin
to
cryptographic
math
art
or
economic
efficiency?
that
beings
said,
consensus
driven
blockchain
databases
no
matter
how
inefficient
are
admirable;
instead
of
trustless
as
the
coin
slogan
here
-
it
should
be
deemed
trust
worthy
-
or
full
of
trust.
despite
all
of
the
hastle
to
verify
a
few
lines
of
shakespeare
pass
phrases
being
the
key
ins
for
wallets
that
can’t
travel
anywhere
except
on
your
device,
the
belief
is
that
the
older
the
technology,
the
more
archaic
the
design,
the
more
the
hastle,
the
safer
you
will
be.
assumptions
aside
we
must
return
to
page
one
public
and
private
keys
can
exist
independent
of
a
blockchain
database.
the
blockchain
exists
entirely
to
make
sex
public.
so
opposite
of
the
general
sheeple
assumptions
that
blockchain
is
here
to
restore
your
black
market,
blockchain
is
actually
the
kingdom
of
heaven.
the
kingdom
of
heaven
blockchain
is
ideological
technology.
it
is
not
primed
for
efficiency.
it
does
not
protect
anything.
the
goal
is
verifiability.
transparency
which
is
something
that
financial
services
had
avoided
since
the
beginning
of
the
idea
of
banks.
thus
the
goal
of
blockchain
is
entirely
ideological
and
entirely
art.
it
is
fair
to
say
that
nakamoto
and
the
cult
of
blockchain
might
be
obsessed
with
jesus
christ.
their
goal
is
not
to
create
zero
trace
mechanisms
but
to
create
financial
transparency.
thus
the
nonce
art
does
not
exist
for
encryption
purposes,
but
to
necessitate
the
publicity
of
sex.
an
action
done
much
better
by
super
computers
now
goes
peer
to
peer
but
this
peer
to
peer
operation
serves
only
to
make
transactions
public.
thus
it
is
a
communitarian
accounting
practice
not
a
necessity
for
security.
public
and
private
key
generation
for
transactions
can
be
done
entirely
on
singular
transactions
between
transferee
and
server.
the
goal
of
a
public
database
kept
by
all
peoples
is
that
the
database
can
be
kept
by
all
peoples.
the
encryption
thus
is
not
to
encrypt
your
data,
but
to
make
it
accessible.
that
being
said
-
transparency
is
where
value
comes
from.
imagine
pure
gold
dug
out
of
the
ground,
and
everyone
confirms
its
shininess.
that
is
blockchain.
you
will
never
pay
for
weapons
in
blockchain,
you
will
never
pay
for
sex
in
blockchain,
you
will
never
pay
for
drugs
in
blockchain,
but
you
will
be
part
of
the
chain
because
it’s
valuable,
and
transparently
valuable.
very
much
like
wikipedia.
all
the
fancy
footwork
including
the
gameboy
is
to
con
you
into
making
sex
public.
take
this
into
consideration
-
this
paper
is
about
designing
a
more
efficient
blockchain
system.
not
everyone
will
be
comfortable
with
the
reality
that
blockchained
money
will
present
and
will
prefer
the
existence
of
discretion.
everything
from
your
insurance
to
your
mortgage
things
that
are
not
black
marketed
yet
preferentially
discreet
will
avoid
chained
reveals
for
purposes
of
discretion.
so
from
a
pure
market
sense,
blockchain
will
never
truly
replace
cash
or
even
centralized
banking
institutions
who
protects
the
privacy
of
clientele.
your
third
part
mediating
loan
shark
is
also
best
protector
of
transactions.
blockchain
is
wonderful
idealised
holder
of
value
and
will
never
chase
away
discretion.
if
blockchain
becomes
private
it
will
no
longer
be
blockchain.
blockchain
ultimately
is
verifiable
communitarian
accounting
and
the
rewards
of
mining
are
purely
participatory.
it
is
a
game
of
incentives
not
an
ultimatum
for
efficiency
or
privacy.
if
you
read
nakamoto’s
paper
with
this
in
mind,
everything
now
makes
sense,
and
behind
the
whitepaper
of
so
called
assumed
technical
ingenuity
is
a
very
nuanced
man
of
faith.
the
economics
that
went
beyond
nakamoto
imagine
the
first
person
who
forged
the
diamond
ring
or
gold
necklace
to
jade
bracelets,
they
would
had
never
imagined
that
their
nuance
art
will
become
such
tremendous
captivators
of
value.
people
choose
blockchain
transactions
not
because
they
need
blockchain,
but
because
blockchains
hold
tremendous
value.
thus
participation
in
blockchain
economics
is
entirely
motivated
by
the
desire
to
hold
something
of
value.
the
problem
with
the
existing
technology
is
that
it
is
worse
at
valuation
.
acknowledging
that
blockchain
has
nearly
replaced
the
value
of
gold,
we
must
go
back
to
the
code
if
to
maintain
its
momentum.
dogecoin
and
the
inflationary
remediation
the
best
description
of
the
dogecoin
phenomenon
is
not
far
and
ways
from
the
idea
of
quantitative
easing;
however,
this
run
away
pump
and
dump
is
neither
the
end
all
be
all
for
the
economy.
the
blockchain
can
be
saved.
given
this
is
computer
science,
not
economics
,
code
is
not
printing
press,
it
can
be
rewritten
if
it
lacks
sound.
thankfully
bitcoin
is
deflationary
not
inflationary;
however,
you
could
have
designed
the
same
contraption
without
a
line
of
computer
science.
we
have
clocks
and
watches
that
self
detonate
like
afghani
suicide
bombers
and
they
require
very
little
computer
code.
the
fact
that
dogecoin
founder
literally
uncapped
his
supply
sounds
very
much
like
a
suicide
bomber
who
self
detonated.
despite
that
fact,
we
can
not
forget
that
when
something
is
valuable
like
a
picasso
or
a
duchamp
it
does
not
need
to
be
efficiently
understood.
that
being
said
-
every
line
of
code
ever
written
can
be
worked
upon
-
and
some
art
is
just
pricess
-
bitcoin
*
.
so
how
do
we
fix
a
promising
holder
of
value
from
excess
and
destruction?
obeying
the
natural
laws
of
economics
no
currency
system
given
that
it
is
economic
in
nature
can
escape
the
pull
of
supply
and
demand;
however,
no
supply
and
demand
is
ever
fixed
in
stone.
no
currency
should
be
doomed
to
the
path
of
inevitable
self
destruction
due
to
its
inability
to
adjust
to
forces
of
market.
anything
fixed
in
stone
is
not
a
currency,
it
is
a
commodity,
thus
bitcoin
being
a
commodity
is
not
a
currency.
to
view
crypto
currencies
in
its
current
form
as
an
alternate
currency
might
not
be
the
correct
approach
to
understanding
its
market
pull
or
its
social
function.
in
a
realistic
market
environment,
crypto
in
its
current
form
is
an
asset
class
on
par
with
gold
and
diamond;
but
ultimately,
encryption
art.
but
any
form
of
metal
that
has
unlimited
supply
of
is
ultimately
worth
nothing.
not
even
mud
on
the
ground
has
an
unlimited
supply.
so
in
the
economic
sense
of
things
-
anything
that
has
unlimited
supply
and
is
a
commodity
as
abundant
as
imagination
will
be
doomed
to
be
worth
nothing.
so
there
must
exist
controls
to
the
supply
variables
in
juxtaposition
to
mining
in
order
for
a
crypto
asset
to
survive
in
the
economy.
smart
coins
are
value
maximizers
the
operation
of
the
smartcoin
can
be
exemplified
with
modifications
to
existing
bitcoin
source.
current
altcoin
operations
focus
primarily
on
changing
nPowTargetTimespan
in
terms
of
block
generation
and
10
minutes
times
60
seconds
when
it
comes
to
verification
of
block
in
nPowTargetSpacing.
usually
altcoin
developers
focus
on
altering
-
consensus.nSubsidyHalvingInterval
equating
it
more
or
less
210000.
that
means
for
every
210000
blocks
generated
mining
reward
will
half
as
given
the
deflationary
nature
of
bitcoin.
the
writer
proposes
that
instead
of
setting
fixed
constants
for
the
value
of
these
variables,
they
need
to
relate
to
a
general
set
of
values
called
coinmarketcap
which
details
price,
capitalization,
in
realistic
minute
by
minute
second
by
second
variations.
this
in
return
feeds
back
to
the
supply
generation
and
block
subsidy.
ultimately
the
goal
is
maximization
of
value.
supply
can
be
controlled
less
by
tokenburn
and
more
by
mining
reward
and
max
supply
number
up
or
down.
other
attributions
might
take
note
as
we
study
market
variables
more.
the
fundamental
difference
in
this
system
versus
the
existing
one
is
the
market
feedback.
market
feedback
as
a
system
of
variables
that
is
to
say
market
feedback
are
created
as
programmable
objects
with
function
and
variation.
data
from
various
exchanges
and
brokerages
including
general
data
like
historical
information
from
reuters
can
be
fed
as
variating
instances
variables
such
to
influence
supply
and
block
reward
for
mining.
thus
smart
coins
can
auto-adjust
their
own
supply
and
ultimately
their
own
value
in
a
differentiating
market
without
the
worry
of
speculative
attacks
or
fixed
income
for
miners
or
inflexibility
of
supply.
when
your
money
is
alive
to
properly
understand
smart
coin
is
to
understand
that
economics
as
a
game
theory
econometrics
system
with
winners
and
losers
compete
as
firms
producers
consumers
but
also
as
commodities
and
currencies.
the
players
were
primarily
hedge
funds,
brokerages,
investment
firms,
and
central
banks
leveraged
by
human
players.
now
machine
based
trading
have
dominated
a
large
part
of
the
market
-
since
traders
can
be
sentient
and
reflexive
why
not
cash
itself.
if
money
is
still
alive
is
it
still
money
philosophical
questions
aside
and
religious
sentiments
to
the
prime
it
is
our
duty
to
avoid
the
beast
like
economic
fundamentals
that
have
wrought
much
of
human
civilization
in
the
past
century
so
looking
forwards,
what
does
a
sentient
economic
system
look
like.
a
currency
that
can
self
adjust
in
market
forces
to
maintain
its
own
value
might
be
the
first
step
to
a
greater
system
of
awareness
including
a
currency
that
can
invest
itself,
trade
itself,
or
even
decide
who
or
what
to
sponsor.
do
we
still
need
miners
if
we
just
learned
more
encryption
?
as
sakamoto
whitepapered
one
cpu
per
vote.
thus
the
obsession
is
democratic
not
monetary.
it
is
consensus
driven
not
economic.
even
if
you
did
nothing,
just
being
a
participant
grants
you
an
allowance,
so
why
mine?
why
need
such
large
volumes
of
resources?
why
not
divide
simply
into
participants
and
passive
consumers.
the
action
between
monetary
generation
and
reward
can
be
anything
other
than
donation
of
archaic
computer
resources
for
encryption.
this
will
be
further
explored.
when
writing
about
the
metaverse
we
must
first
take
into
account
that
the
metaverse
is
a
descriptive
terminology
used
to
describe
something
that
in
its
nature
might
not
be
equivalent
to
what
is
entailed
in
the
words
meta
as
in
metaphysical
and
verse
as
in
universe.
what
is
now
described
in
economics
and
business
distinctions
as
the
next
internet
or
web
3.0
might
not
be
best
described
as
the
metaphysical
universe.
before
we
can
expand
to
such
elucidations
we
should
also
review
the
very
idea
and
essence
of
the
internet.
the
relational
essence
here
will
bring
into
greater
and
better
understanding
when
we
discuss
the
philosophical
premises
of
the
metaverse.
web2.0
or
what
is
currently
known
as
the
social
web
is
a
reciprocation
system
of
messages
feedbacks
comments
and
viral
loops.
it
services
a
system
of
transactional
edifice
known
as
point
of
sale
click
and
purchase
and
has
expanded
to
greater
content
delivery
such
as
videos
as
segmentations
and
the
proliferation
of
mass
media
content.
distributed
segmented
video
content
has
decentralised
the
traditional
notions
of
television
as
a
centralised
programmable
system
of
content
distribution.
this
disintegration
and
dissemination
of
information
without
a
centralised
programmable
authority
has
governed
much
of
the
economy
and
edifice
of
web2.0.
the
combination
of
distributed
video
content,
combined
with
sound,
and
literary
value
has
created
what
we
know
of
as
dynamic
web
interfaces
versus
your
standard
tradition
web
1.0
web
page.
this
content
however,
lacks
an
ownership
structure.
thus
media
content,
images,
sounds
music,
and
video
clippings
are
easily
bootleg
able
and
distributed
without
any
economic
incentive
other
than
a
social
interchangeable
virality.
with
the
advance
of
smart
contracts,
an
alternative
distribution
structure
arises
where
the
content
is
still
accessible
but
given
a
form
of
digital
licensing
which
then
can
be
sold
and
commercially
disseminated,
distributed
on
the
blockchain
without
affecting
the
distribution
structure
and
its
free
for
all
premise
in
web
2.0.
this
licensing
component
to
digital
technology
lends
itself
to
a
new
form
of
economic
that
gives
content
owners
a
chance
to
distribute
content
with
the
idea
of
distributive
licensing
as
a
monetisation
route
versus
pure
form
bait
click
based
advertising.
since
transactions
of
which
are
purely
digital,
digital
licensing
can
be
interchanged
without
affecting
the
actual
metaphysical
item
of
distribution.
this
commercialisation
of
the
metaphysical
item,
is
where
the
idea
of
web
3.0
or
the
metaverse
comes
from.
anything
that
lends
itself
into
the
grounds
of
a
universe
in
the
sense
of
economy
must
be
built
on
the
idea
of
physicality
from
social
sense.
this
is
perhaps
the
beginning
of
our
exploration
of
what
physicality
is
and
how
it
lends
itself
to
a
tangible
universe.
what
lends
reality
reality
is
the
real
world
consequences
of
its
interactions.
one
can
die
in
the
real
world
whereas
in
the
virtual
world
or
video
games
what
can
die
repeatedly
and
still
maintain
states
of
consciousness.
without
entering
the
after
life
argument
and
continuity
of
existence,
we
simply
premise
from
the
fact
that
what
lends
a
metaverse
reality
is
an
issue
of
physical
consequence
beyonds
simply
a
real
world
sensory
experience.
presence
has
been
the
greatest
argument
for
the
adoption
of
virtual
reality
headsets,
but
something
else
has
been
largely
ignored
which
gives
tangibility
and
is
true
traction
to
the
proliferation
of
metaphysical
reality,
and
that
is
the
societal
social
consequence.
physical
consequence
v
social
consequence
societal
consequence
has
to
do
with
the
legislative
premises
of
the
real
world.
in
the
real
world
if
were
to
affect
bodily
harm
or
injury
to
a
person
it
will
lend
you
severe
legal
and
punitive
consequences.
such
predicaments
and
consequentialism
is
absent
in
the
virtual
world
and
much
of
the
web
2.0’s
discussions
has
been
what
is
defined
and
encompasses
a
harm
whether
it
be
speech
or
action.
thus
we
often
look
aside
from
virtual
harm
until
it
lends
real
world
consequences,
but
is
exactly
this
tangibility
where
the
metaverse
begins.
contrary
to
the
belief
that
what
lends
reality
is
simply
a
simulated
experience,
more
importantly,
is
the
legalistic
consequentialism
that
premises
the
societal
edifice
of
virtual
interactions
that
lends
themselves
into
a
metaphysical
reality.
thus
blockchain
acting
as
an
interchangeable
distributed
accounting
system
gives
physical
immutability
to
virtual
items
thus
allowing
for
a
transactional
edifice
that
physicalises
the
interaction
very
much
as
it
does
in
the
real
world.
this
physicalisation
is
also
interoperable
and
can
be
integrated
into
any
form
of
distributed
web
technology.
the
essence
of
immutable
physicalisation,
interoperation,
is
the
real
world
credence
that
lends
the
metaverse
its
societal
consequentialism.
immutability
and
the
idea
of
ownership.
when
ownership
becomes
immutable
it
creates
the
foundational
premise
of
virtual
items
having
a
form
of
physicality.
physical
in
the
sense
that
our
interaction
with
it
has
a
real
world
economic
value.
an
argument
can
be
made
that
the
same
set
of
virtual
items
can
be
accounted
for
a
singular
database
such
as
it
does
in
linden
world.
but
for
web
3.0,
it’s
exactly
this
interoperability
of
ownership
that
can
allow
the
same
item
to
be
read
revisited
and
viewed
as
in
the
solidity
programmable
terminology
that
makes
it
tangible.
the
same
virtual
item
no
matter
what
form
it
be
presented
in
exists
in
all
mediums
of
presentation.
thus
presentation
is
not
what
gives
the
metaphysical
object
physicality.
the
same
set
of
information
as
an
encrypted
string
whether
two
dimensional
three
dimensional
or
simply
a
string
of
information
has
physicality
because
its
interoperable
and
immutable
as
it
is
created
encrypted
distributed
in
a
byzantine
general’s
kind
of
way
to
all
existing
nodes
of
content
reception,
and
once
hard
coded
exists
on
all
databases
in
the
network.
this
is
a
form
of
indestructable
physicalization
that
gives
metaversical
objects
a
dna
like
existence
in
the
physical
world.
physicality
as
information
presentation
is
merely
presentation
when
people
make
identity
arguments
in
relation
to
the
metaverse,
it
is
also
because
the
presentation
is
not
the
physical
item.
that
is
to
say,
any
person
inhabiting
a
virtual
presentation
can
present
themselves
in
any
shape
form
or
manner,
but
the
same
can
be
said
about
items
and
objects.
thus
presentation
as
a
simulated
experience
is
often
the
argument
for
and
against
a
metaverse,
but
actually
that
is
the
least
of
what
makes
a
metaverse
a
metaverse.
metaphysical
content
physicalised
has
little
to
do
with
the
dynamics
of
its
presentation
but
with
the
hardcoding
of
its
information
in
the
physical
world
in
a
indestructible
kind
of
way.
presentation
diversification
is
what
gives
the
metaverse
its
pull
and
novel
introduction
as
information
whether
based
on
real
world
or
conceived
objects
can
now
be
presented
in
a
substitution
kind
of
way
in
whereas
types
of
distribution
content
whether
it
be
three
dimensional
avatars
or
dynamic
two
dimensional
information.
*an
interoperable
singular
database
with
equal
accessibility
might
be
able
to
do
the
same
level
of
interoperability
as
a
distributed
database
however
such
an
item
will
not
necessary
be
immutable
as
one
person
can
overwrite
its
existence
rather
than
what
is
done
in
the
mining
verification
processes
of
a
distributed
database.
without
separate
confirmations,
anything
that
exists
in
a
singular
database
can
at
any
time
be
destroyed
or
subjected
to
change.*
the
subject
matter
being
discussed
at
hand
is
in
regards
to
the
future
of
financial
services
in
regards
to
the
structural
considerations
of
capitalist
societies.
that
is
to
say,
instead
of
discussing
fintech
as
merely
a
form
of
technology
and
the
digital
platform
for
at
which
physical
financial
systems
of
the
past
have
transferred
their
transactional
edifice
to
and
from
due
to
the
advance
of
the
internet
2.0,
creating
dynamic
feedback
platforms
that
have
greatly
increased
the
efficiency
and
volume
of
transactions,
this
is
also
to
discuss
fintech
as
also
a
novel
plausible
site
of
reformation
and
innovation
due
to
its
very
structural
novelty,
that
is
to
say,
fintech
is
not
exactly
merely
making
things
more
efficient,
but
because
it
is
a
novel
paradigm,
it
offers
technological
potentiates
that
will
alter
the
very
essence
of
traditional
forms
of
structural
banking.
one
such
component
of
course
is
the
idea
of
the
defi
or
decentralized
finance
which
in
recent
past
investment
cycles
have
involved
the
creation
of
cryptocurrencies
and
their
use
in
progenating
new
forms
of
assets
including
market
dynamics
such
as
staking,
liquidity
mining,
what
is
generalised
into
a
terminology
of
yield
farming.
such
measures
of
using
dual
or
multi
assets
to
accumulate
value
prompting
interest
percentages
at
high
yield
volumes
by
using
the
differentiation
of
values
of
speculation
assets
and
smart
contract
technology
have
premised
new
possibilities
for
consumer
and
service
based
banking
dynamics
unseen
of
before.
asset
creation
first
prompted
by
gold
depositing
to
formulate
notes
of
lien
are
now
prompted
by
the
possibility
of
staking
a
metaphysical
asset
for
example
axies
from
the
game
axie
infinity
for
cake
from
pancake
swap.
digital
assets
are
not
unlike
traditional
forms
of
scarcity
based
commodities
that
shaped
the
pillars
of
traditional
banking
economies
of
the
past.
the
cost
of
creating
such
digital
commodities
however
is
as
token
based
technology
however
is
not
in
any
sense
difficult;
however,
what
makes
original
chains
rather
than
smart
contract
tokens
scarce
in
their
rarity
attribute
is
they
are
dependent
on
proof
of
work
mining
processes;
whereas
tokens
have
value
if
any
are
dependent
a
regulated
supply,
their
memetic
community,
non
fungible
token-licensing
for
digital
art
works,
and
their
metaversical
potential.
to
understand
this
we
must
first
answer
the
very
nature
of
currency
itself.
currency
or
money
derives
from
the
traditional
iou
or
promissory
note
based
on
the
depositing
of
goods
and
services
most
commonly
used
gold.
thus
money
is
a
derivative
of
a
commodities
exchange
market
that
is
based
on
the
physicality
of
rare
earths
and
dictated
by
their
transactional
price
efficacy
in
open
market
operations.
the
idea
of
fintech
and
the
digitisation
of
the
dollar
and
other
respective
currencies
is
to
one
step
remove
the
idea
of
physical
assets.
print
paper
which
dictated
value
in
the
past
is
now
transferred
into
a
digital
form
that
of
which
has
no
basis
on
any
physical
state
or
physical
activity
at
all.
the
very
idea
of
digital
dollar
runs
afoul
with
any
libertarian
ethos
in
the
idea
of
physicalisation
of
value,
because
now
all
existing
dollar
based
assets
are
merely
digits
within
someone’s
database
and
not
actually
pieces
of
physical
assets
one
can
hold
in
hand.
this
very
concern
is
also
an
exemplary
designator
of
why
financial
technology
being
a
transmedium
transposition
of
value
is
not
simply
a
continuity
of
a
type
of
services,
but
the
transformation
of
a
commodity
namely
paper
money
into
a
digitised
medium
one
of
which
runs
into
many
conflicting
parallels
of
value,
trust,
and
the
very
notion
of
ownership.
to
truly
understand
this
we
must
divide
value
and
currency
into
several
types
and
forms.
the
first
being
the
used
of
rare
earth
commodities
such
as
gold
or
commodities
such
as
cigarettes
in
prison
environments.
one
definitive
attribution
designates
such
categoricals,
the
notion
of
rarity.
if
these
items
were
not
rare
or
limited
in
supply
they
will
not
be
good
designations
of
value,
but
if
they
were
too
rare
then
they
do
not
provide
ease
of
access,
use,
and
transaction.
thus
the
first
form
of
currency
to
be
defined
is
rare
materials.
this
can
come
in
the
form
of
cigarettes,
types
of
stones,
and
eventually
minerals
such
as
gold.
their
inability
to
be
easily
found
in
a
given
environment
gives
them
a
rarity
attribution
that
can
be
facilitated
with
transactional
value.
*commodities
are
given
value
by
the
confounding
variable
of
environmental
restrictions
that
restricts
their
supply*
example
north
korea
confronted
with
international
sanctions
might
find
certain
commodities
under
restrictions
to
be
highly
prized
commodities.
in
relation
to
also
the
idea
of
a
black
market,
a
market
that
facilitates
the
transaction
of
goods
and
services
that
are
sanctioned
within
a
certain
environment.
rarity
or
restrictions
on
supply
can
not
be
independent
of
this
very
confounding
environmental
factor.
the
second
form
of
currency
is
not
rare
but
government
controlled
and
sanctioned
currency.
the
value
and
use
of
such
currency
comes
from
a
legal
mandate
to
print
and
the
production
of
which
if
counterfeit
comes
with
gross
legal
penalties.
one
must
have
a
legal
right
to
reproduce
paper
money
which
comes
from
a
governmental
sanction.
in
the
traditional
past,
such
monetary
notes
are
created
via
gold
depositories
that
in
return
produces
a
monetary
lien
to
pair
value
the
commodity
item.
the
monetary
lien
is
a
promise
to
pay
which
hold
legal
penalties
if
the
note
was
to
mature
without
the
return
of
the
goods
or
services,
or
if
at
any
point
of
redemption
at
what
is
considered
the
first
notion
of
a
bank,
a
generalised
safe
keeping
place
where
commodities
can
be
staked
in
return
for
a
legal
promissory.
thus
returning
the
central
point
of
our
discussion
-
social
physicalization
-
in
both
of
these
attributions
what
provides
value
to
both
rare
commodities
in
a
closed
restricted
sanctioned
ecosystem
and
the
legalised
notes
of
redemption
versus
the
very
absence
of
physicality,
a
mere
number
digital
accounting
of
physical
items.
money
is
proof
of
work
marxist
notions
tend
to
reduce
the
idea
of
monetary
value
to
that
of
labor
and
as
capital
as
proof
of
labor
and
any
other
dynamics
within
the
market
as
merely
market
manipulations
that
extolls
from
the
true
value
of
work.
thus
work
used
in
this
sense
is
more
readily
translated
into
labor
rather
than
the
idea
of
a
decentralised
computing
network
with
each
cpu
searching
for
a
nonce
value
that
can
be
used
to
encrypt
a
sequence
of
transactions.
however,
the
equivalence
measure
here
is
value
is
first
and
foremost
predicated
on
participation.
absent
participation
thus
absent
social
consensus.
consensus
mechanisms
social
in
their
nature
dictate
market
value.
fuselage
of
community
in
the
form
of
a
memetic
culture
if
not
by
the
dictation
of
a
government
is
what
solidifies
the
physicalisation
of
value.
absent
physicalisation,
the
cementation
of
value,
absent
the
reality
of
the
currency
in
any
meaningful
sense.
thus
returning
back
to
the
centrality
of
the
discussion
analysis
that
to
say
labor
is
what
dictates
true
value
is
a
gross
simplification
and
can
not
be
used
fully
to
understand
the
commodities
market,
the
digital
commodities
market,
or
currency
markets
in
general.
bitcoin
needs
its
nft
currencies
are
paired
valued
and
in
algorithmic
programmatic
terminology
of
the
crypto
ecosystem
the
idea
of
a
liquidity
pool
is
the
pair
value
of
the
underlying
chain
currency
for
example
ethereum
or
solana
with
the
use
tokens
which
often
times
in
restricted
in
supply
by
formulated
via
smart
contract.
the
liquidity
pool
or
pair
value
is
what
gives
any
commodity
or
currency
its
value.
for
the
dollar
it
is
the
global
basket
of
goods
that
is
being
traded
in
dollars
including
opec
denominations
of
oil,
agricultural
products
from
the
united
states,
and
any
other
given
exports
of
goods
and
services.
this
wide
range
dynamic
of
use
cases
is
what
creates
the
liquidity
pool
for
the
dollar.
anything
within
the
national
borders
of
the
united
states
is
by
force
mandated
to
use
the
dollar,
thus
creating
the
dollar
demand
cycle.
absent
of
any
mandate
of
transaction,
digital
commodities
such
as
bitcoin
which
are
not
governmentally
mandated
currencies,
but
can
fulfil
rarity
commodity
categorisation
is
quote
on
quote
juxtaposed
to
an
‘inflationary
dollar’.
ownership
of
such
bitcoin
items
is
not
unlike
ownership
of
art,
or
a
communally
agreed
upon
rare
earth
mineral;
however,
if
not
dictated
by
environmental
restrictions,
a
memetic
consensus,
then
participatory
of
which
is
purely
by
notions
of
choice.
in
this
sense,
bitcoin
and
its
real
market
dictates
is
a
desirable
collectible,
the
collection
of
which
is
a
proof
of
ownership
of
a
transactional
string.
thus
give
that
it
is
desirable
collectible,
bitcoin
not
unlike
a
fractionalized
nft.
one
bored
ape
painting
if
split
into
twenty
one
million
tokens
as
done
with
fractionalized
non
fungible
tokens
can
dictate
its
equivalent
market
dynamics
in
bitcoin.
the
mining
operations
are
incentives
and
participation
basis
for
bitcoin
and
is
not
utilitarian
in
any
significant
sense.
thus
returning
to
our
title
of
section,
what
does
bitcoin
look
like
in
the
metaverse?
being
a
collectible
its
desirability
will
be
highly
dependent
on
its
design
value
in
a
participatory
world
such
as
a
video
game
and
its
assumed
memetic
attributions
in
a
cultural
community
of
bitcoin
enthusiasts.
none
of
this
however
can
make
bitcoin
equivalent
in
competitive
valour
as
the
governmentally
mandated
legal
lien.
can
bitcoin
achieve
rare
earth
mineral
status
will
be
highly
dependent
on
the
culture
of
facilitation.
arguments
of
ownership
had
been
made
in
regards
to
bitcoin
and
its
communitarian
accounting
method,
as
proof
of
work
generating
an
equivalently
distributed
ledger
hard
codes
ownership
versus
a
single
print
digit
database
in
the
federal
reserve.
digitization
of
financial
assets
as
a
resolve
for
poverty
where
microfinancing
and
peer
to
peer
lending
have
failed
in
the
past
is
the
incompleteness
of
information
to
see
poverty
as
a
one
sided
paradigm
where
poverty
comes
from
merely
the
absence
of
capital.
however,
it
has
been
demonstrated
that
poverty
can
also
come
from
poor
financial
choices,
the
absence
of
economic
literacy,
and
which
even
if
provisioned
capital,
will
quickly
lose
it
because
of
the
lack
of
understanding
of
the
dynamics
of
capital
and
market
forces.
thus
fintech
solutions
that
seek
social
remediation
can
not
be
a
one
sided
dynamic
that
merely
addresses
the
issue
of
accessibility
but
also
focus
on
capital
management.
this
same
dynamics
and
principles
can
be
addressed
towards
why
crypto
markets
face
failure
despite
innovations
such
as
yield
farming.
the
existence
of
speculation
and
to
a
large
part
its
uncontrollable
dominance
over
all
good
intentions
of
the
digital
markets
whether
in
the
form
of
peer
to
peer
banking
or
yield
based
digital
asset
innovations
is
that
human
beings
ultimately
make
uninformed
or
irrational
market
decisions
based
on
false
signalling
thus
leading
to
the
loss
of
their
market
position
and
asset
ownership.
thus
if
financial
technology
is
to
address
the
issue
of
poverty,
it
not
only
has
to
address
the
issue
of
access,
but
also
the
issue
of
restrictions.
however,
if
the
discussion
was
to
shift
the
nature
of
restrictions,
it
might
take
away
from
the
very
notion
of
choice
and
incentive
which
dictates
the
behavioural
mechanisms
of
a
free
market
economy
and
the
participant
of
the
free
market
economy.
to
truly
address
the
issue
of
gambling
in
lending
and
crypto
markets
might
lead
to
the
sanction
of
gambling
altogether
at
a
personal
and
industrial
perspective,
but
this
very
restriction
will
also
cut
into
the
fundamental
ideology
of
freedom
of
choice
of
market
and
might
reduce
the
incentives
of
participations.
digitalisation
of
financial
assets
might
increase
access
but
it
also
increases
the
potential
of
loss.
that
is
to
say,
increasing
access
to
the
assets
of
others
also
increases
access
to
your
assets.
restriction
dynamics
will
play
a
large
part
of
mediation
to
grossly
reduce
the
speculative
risks
that
carries
in
market,
and
perhaps
this
will
lead
to
creation
of
a
whole
new
categories
of
savings
accounts,
investment
vehicles
that
are
crypto
or
digital
in
nature
that
have
certain
restrictions
of
selling
and
certain
restrictions
of
buying
and
certain
time
based
limitations
of
accruing
and
retention
of
value
thus
maintaining
market
equilibrium
even
in
adverse
environments
such
as
a
bear
cycle.