I get asked a lot about what I think about cryptocurrency. Itās a hard question to answer, nobody really knows what it is exactly. Itās different things to different people, and itās not helping that itās at least somewhat complicated to understand the underlying technology.
Part of why these discussions are hard to have is that thereās many ways of looking at cryptocurrency. You have financial analysts and governments looking at it as a regulatory nightmare with no oversight, and you have hardcore programmers looking at it philosophically as a tool against oversight.
Roughly, cryptocurrency can be split into two parts: the core underlying technology (in this case, blockchain), and what people are building with that technology (the cryptocurrencies themselves). Before we get into any of that though, I have to discuss the idea of trust and control.
Fundamentally, a lot of society works on trust. You ātrustā people to not just randomly attack you on the street. You ātrustā that restaurants will have adequate sanitary practices and not serve bad food. You also ātrustā that if the bank says you have $100 in your account, and that you can go and withdraw $100, and that they wonāt make any accounting errors. You ātrustā that when you pay netflix a subscription fee that theyāll let you login and watch their content.
In these scenarios, you can safely have that trust. Itās in Netflixs best interest to not screw you over, because otherwise people would get mad and theyād make less money. Itās the banks best interest to honor your amount, otherwise nobody would ever trust them with their money again. If the restaurant is unsanitary, they get closed down. If people attack you randomly on the street, they get into legal trouble.
Problems could potentially appear when all the trust is with a single party. Take Google, who has a phenomenal amount of personal information about just about everyone. Everyone trusts Google to not be evil, and for the most part, Google doesnāt want to be evil either, as that would be terrible press. Itās not hard to see that they could be, and that very fact gives them a lot of power and control.
Back to blockchain. Blockchain, at its core, is a way to create trust where there is none. Thatās really it, thatās what it does differently. Any number of people could not trust each other, but if they all used blockchain, theyād all have trust that what is on the blockchain is true and not tampered or altered. Blockchain uses a number of clever tricks in game theory and cryptography to make this happen, but fundamentally thatās the result. A system where nobody has to trust anybody, where everybody acts greedily in their best interest, and yet everyone can safely agree on whatās what. Thereās no need for a central authority that everyone just has to implicitly trust.
Blockchain technology is often called āa slow distributed databaseā, and while thatās true, itās just half of the truth. There are plenty of distributed databases out there, all of them plenty faster than the blockchain, but they all rely on trusting a central authority.
This brings us to crypto that people know, the cryptocurrencies/tokens/digital assets themselves. Itās just an accounting system built on top of blockchain. Any financial transaction today is mediated by the bank, which means both parties have to trust the bank to be correct/accurate/execute the transaction properly. Because cryptos are built on the blockchain, thereās no need for such a central authority of trust, and so no need for a bank. For any given cryptocurrency transaction, you can trust that it is correct.
At this point, you might be thinking āI mean sure, but, like, banks are pretty trustworthy?ā. Youād be correct. Most banks in developed countries can be trusted, because the whole financial system is built on trusting banks. If you canāt trust banks, weāve got far larger issues than your TFSA holdings. For all their greed, banks work very well at what they do.
If I were asked about what I think cryptocurrency is good for today, I wouldnāt have a single legit use-case. Crypto is slow and expensive because it has to assume that nobody can be trusted, and I havenāt heard of a situation where the extra trust is worth the extra costs. Trust emerges naturally in any sort of iterated prisoner's dilemma situation, and the genius of many large systems (democracy, capitalism) is that theyāre based entirely on that exact type of situation. Trust is already there, thereās not much need for more of it. When Nassim Taleb talks about āskin in the gameā, heās saying you can trust entities with skin in the game exactly because the system is designed to reject those that you canāt trust.
Given that the core premise of blockchain is trust, and that trust already exists in abundance in todayās society (we actually just keep getting more of it), then why is blockchain still here over 10 years later? Well, they still have a bit of an edge in some ways.
Fundamentally, the technology is cool. Computer science geeks, game theorist nerds, and code junkies all love the ideas that are present in such a system. Blockchain occupies a space that intersects cryptography, game theory, distributed systems, and fiscal policy. Itās new, itās cool, and most importantly I donāt have to leave my computer chair to learn and interact with it. Despite being here for over a decade there is still plenty left to figure out; there are dozens of interesting blockchain experiments being created and iterated on as you read this.
You canāt talk about cryptocurrency without discussing its illicit uses. The crypto space is a financial playground free from government oversight. It took banks and governments hundreds of years to figure out how to implement and maintain a stable financial system, removing all the illegal pyramid schemes and fraud setups as they were figured out. Just about every type of financial fraud scheme ever created has been implemented on the blockchain, and without any type of government oversight it runs rampant. Pyramid schemes, pump-and-dump schemes, itās all there. The space is fraught with scams, a lot of them successful. Thereās plenty of gullible people looking to get rich quick, and plenty of of snake-oil salesman to cater to them.
Lastly, crypto today can be viewed as programmable money. There are hoards of developers out there who love and build on this idea. Fractional ownership of assets, peer to peer lending, prediction markets, and even collectable cats. Fundamentally the banks could have entered the 21rst century and provided programmable hooks for people to build on, but they didnāt, they continue to not do so, and that leaves a gap in the market that crypto happens to satisfy.
So where does that leave us? I think of crypto as being very much in its infancy. Itās still in its āresearch and developmentā phase. Iām confident that people will keep researching, building, and improving the underlying technology.
I also donāt expect it to disappear anytime soon. Itās useful to many people, even if only for illicit reasons. It was also designed at the core to be extremely difficult to remove; any governing authority that tried to prevent motivated people from using the technology would be facing a nearly impossible task.
Iād say the space as it is right now is akin to a third grade recess with no supervising teacher. You got your bullies, your sandcastle builders, and your average Joeās just tryna have a good time. Itās mostly chaotic, and nobody knows what theyāre doing, but if you wait a decade or so theyāll grow up and hopefully contribute to society and finally start paying taxes.
Cryptocurrency gives you trust where none exists. Hardcore blockchain enthusiasts talk of a world of government collapse, an every-person-for-themselves culture, and a society maintained and built on the blockchain and itās distributed trust. Until such a time that such a high level of trust canāt be built from relationships or other forces, cryptocurrencies face an uphill battle. Until then, itāll always be there, improving, growing, and waiting.