Fintech dystopia

Stablecoins, the USD, and Regulation

• Some argue stablecoins (USDC, Tether, etc.) strengthen the dollar by creating demand for USD and Treasuries; GENIUS/CLARITY Acts are cited as bringing needed standards and limiting yield to avoid “shadow banks.”
• Others accept the “parasite” framing: coins are largely backed by Treasuries, so a redemption run could force bond fire-sales, spike rates, and transmit instability back into the core system.
• Debate over use: critics say stablecoins are just plumbing for speculation; defenders say they’re primarily used outside the US as a de facto dollar account where local systems are corrupt, capital-controlled, or sanctioned.
• Concerns that a US CBDC would crowd out private stablecoins and be tightly censored; stablecoins meanwhile let people skirt government-imposed financial controls.

Crypto’s Actual Use Cases vs Hype

• Many commenters say crypto’s main real-world uses today are scams, gambling, money laundering, and “human misery trafficking,” with a thin layer of valid use (remittances, saving in weak-currency countries, buying gray-market goods).
• Pro-crypto voices highlight: cross-border payments in Africa, survival for sanctioned or de-banked individuals, and savings mobility (carrying wealth across borders, avoiding confiscation).
• Comparisons to early Internet: some say meaningful applications may still emerge; others reject the “use cases later” defense given ~15+ years of intense hype and little non-speculative mainstream value.

Technical Explanations and Misconceptions

• Several try to explain blockchains in plain terms (append-only shared ledger, consensus, double-spend) and distinguish base tech (interesting) from financial products (often predatory).
• Traditional finance people push back on naive narratives (banks don’t truck cash to settle transfers; electronic settlement, SWIFT, hawala, and other mechanisms long predate crypto).
• Key point from skeptics: crypto mostly reimplements centuries-old financial concepts with worse UX, less protection, and lots of new failure modes.

Fintech, Regulation, and Grift

• One strand blames regulation and licensing for stifling genuine innovation; others respond that most harm comes from greed and under‑regulation, not from rules.
• Synapse/Yotta collapse is cited as an example of “bank-shaped” fintech that dodged the spirit of FDIC, leaving customers exposed.
• Several see fintech and crypto as essentially “Uber for finance”: exploiting regulatory gray zones, adding intermediaries, and enabling finger‑pointing when things go wrong.

Custody, Risk, and Everyday Usability

• “Not your keys, not your coin” is widely acknowledged: secure self‑custody is hard (loss, theft, hardware compromise), exchanges can vanish, and there are many “footguns.”
• Hardware wallets and air‑gapped setups are discussed but seen as stressful and beyond what average users will manage.

Global and Political Context

• Multiple commenters call the article US‑centric; in many countries, people can and do move between cash and crypto P2P without banks, especially under sanctions or capital controls.
• Broader pessimism surfaces: tech chasing hype, democratic reform seen as too slow, and a sense that financial “innovation” mostly refines value extraction rather than improving real wellbeing.