We have reached the "severed fingers and abductions" stage of crypto revolution

Traceability vs Anonymity

• Disagreement over whether stealing crypto is “dumb” because of public ledgers:
  • One side: public blockchains are globally visible, searchable forever, and easier to analyze than siloed bank data spread across jurisdictions.
  • Other side: lack of mandatory identity (no KYC), speed, cross‑border ease, mixers, privacy coins, and off‑market swaps make crypto harder to tie to real people than bank wires.
• Some argue borders actually make banks less traceable (jurisdictional friction), while crypto’s borderlessness and single ledger simplify analysis.
• Skepticism that law enforcement actually recovers much, except when state or corporate interests are at stake; North Korea is cited as apparently doing well with crypto thefts.

Physical Risk, Kidnapping, and Ransom

• Several note that fully self‑custodied wealth is only as safe as your body and your opsec:
  • Irreversible, instant transfers make kidnap‑for‑ransom more attractive; once payment is confirmed on‑chain, kidnappers have no incentive to free victims.
  • Publicly flaunting balances or wealth (especially on social media) greatly increases risk.
• Comparisons to holding gold: you’d normally lock it in a bank vault; some recommend storing encrypted keys in multiple safety deposit boxes.
• Others respond that even traditional accounts are vulnerable under coercion, and banks don’t fully solve kidnapping risk, though withdrawal frictions help.

Regulation, Traditional Finance, and “Speedrunning History”

• Many see crypto as rapidly replaying centuries of financial abuses, then rediscovering why regulation, KYC, and deposit insurance exist.
• Some predict crypto will inevitably be regulated like fiat: taxes, sanctions enforcement, identity checks; the features that make it “special” will be eroded.
• Others argue crypto will outpace and eventually overtake traditional finance, which they consider deeply flawed; critics counter it will just converge to the same place.
• Structural issues remain: scaling (Bitcoin’s low TPS), difficulty offering credit to anonymous users, and dependence on centralized exchanges and stablecoins.

Energy, Ethics, and Social Value

• Early adopters describe becoming skeptics due to:
  • Energy waste, scams, memes, and money laundering.
  • Sense that many smart people are chasing speculative gains instead of socially useful work.
• Defenders question whether banking’s total energy cost is actually lower and point out that traditional systems also enable laundering and fraud.
• Others say crypto promised to be better than fiat; “being as bad as banks” is not a defense.

Decentralization, Libertarianism, and Society

• Debate over whether decentralization meaningfully benefits society:
  • Pro side: access to global markets and dollar‑denominated income for people in high‑inflation or poorly banked countries; fewer intermediaries and lower remittance friction (often via stablecoins).
  • Skeptic side: real‑world benefits beyond speculation and crime are limited; lack of protection and recourse harms ordinary users.
• Broader ideological clash:
  • Some argue trustless, minimally regulated systems drift toward feudalism and that semi‑trusted democratic institutions are preferable.
  • Libertarian responses dismiss heavy government as oppression and value censorship‑resistant, anonymous money even with higher risks.

Stablecoins and Cross‑Border Payments

• Practitioners in traditional payments say many firms are exploring stablecoins as rails for difficult remittance corridors where correspondent banking is slow, expensive, and poorly connected.
• Claimed benefits: a shared global ledger, 24/7 settlement, simpler connectivity for small banks.
• Critics argue:
  • The real constraints are regulation, KYC/AML, and politics, not ledgers.
  • Similar multi‑party nets could be built without blockchains; if banks trust each other, public chains add little.
  • Market evidence (e.g., existing non‑crypto remittance services) suggests stablecoins haven’t yet demonstrated clear, large‑scale advantages.

Money, Politics, and Limits of Crypto Power

• One commenter emphasizes money as a state‑anchored social construct:
  • If crypto seriously threatened monetary sovereignty, states would either ban it or absorb it via parity and taxation.
  • Crypto’s failure to become a widespread medium of exchange is seen as evidence it lacks sufficient social momentum.
• View that crypto now functions largely as a speculative asset class rather than an alternative currency.

Privacy, Crime, and Tradeoffs

• Strong split over anonymous coins:
  • Advocates: anonymity is like encryption or cash—vital for people in abusive situations or repressive states and a core civil liberty.
  • Opponents: anonymity makes it easier for criminals to both wash funds and victimize crypto holders with little recourse, particularly in violent extortion scenarios.
• Recurrent theme: every privacy gain for honest users also aids bad actors; the thread disagrees over whether the net social balance is positive or negative.