There is a problem arising.
With the quest for green candles, i.e. bigger numbers, people are applauding the hijacking of cryptocurrency. As shown, Bitcoin was the first to go. Michael Saylor, a longtime proponent has been stacking satoshis for a number of years. However, he is being dwarfed by larger institutions.
This is nothing new for fixed money.
What we are witnessing is a continued move away from Satoshi's vision. While it might not have been perfect, the overriding pursuit of decentralization should not be forgotten.
Bitcoin emerged out of the Great Financial Crisis. It occurred when major banks were receiving a bailout as a result of their actions. Of course, this resulted in the collapse of the global economy, the loss of fortunes, and skyrocketing unemployment.
Satoshi sought to lay the foundation for an alternate system, one that did not have the bankers (and Wall Street) at the center of all matters.
I wonder what he/she/they would think about major Wall Street institutions being the custodians of Bitcoin.
Image generated by Ideogram
Web 3.0 Disruption
Are we here to disrupt the existing financial system or simply hand everything over to them?
This is something that each individual has to consider deeply. While many discuss the idea of decentralization, are they really committed to it. The answer, like always, does not reside in what people say. Rather, their actions tell it all.
That isn't to say we should ignore TradFi completely. To be honest, we do have a balancing act of requiring some of their resources. The notoriety that crypto gets from the ETF discussion is beneficial. Venture capitalists are controlling entities. However, their funding is crucial for getting applications off the ground.
We have to be careful of overstepping. The danger here is giving the entire baby to TradFi, killing Web 3.0 before it gets started.
Crypto was designed to disrupt the existing financial system, not to integrate into it.
It would seem this is a concept lost on many.
The Next Battleground
Larry Fink is all over the next battleground.
While many focus upon their favor coin or token, and how to get it to pump, Fink is looking to have Blackrock hijack the next multi-trillion opportunity. The tokenization of real world assets does not get enough discussion within crypto. Instead, it seems that many are simply willing to cede this to Wall Street.
Tokenization comes down to ownership. That is what Web 3.0 is all about.
The challenge with the tokenization of securities under a Fink plan, it is nothing more than a ruse. It entails putting thing such as stock or bonds on a blockchain. However, under his vision, this would still flow through institutions like his.
In other words, he remains the gatekeeper.
Many will remember the images of people carrying boxes out of major banks after being let go due to the meltdown. The collapse of Lehman Brothers sent shockwaves through the world. Many lost their life savings due to the actions of the bankers.
In return, for the mess they created, they got a bailout.
Tokenization is a pathway to making sure your assets are returned. When the likes of Fink are in control, it is up to him whether that happens or not. One could say these entities are regulated, hence there is protection. How did that work out the last time?
Centralization
The goal of Wall Street is to create a ledger of assets. It is something they control and access is authorized by them. This is really a mechanism that protects the banks from each other while also reducing their costs of operation.
What it does not do is protect individuals from Wall Street. It also allows the extraction to continue. The present financial system is one where these institutions have a structure of extraction through their control of the asset and infrastructure tied to them.
Actually, this is the same argument I spent much of the last year making. This is no different than what is taking place with artificial intelligence and AI. We see billions showing up each day to feed the same beast. Web 2.0 entities that maintain the databases we require access to.
Ultimately, that is what we are talking about.
Data is data, whether it is associated with a unit of value or some social engagement. Our financial system is really just "numbers on a screen", the same as social media. The value comes from the ability to control and manipulate said data.
The question always reverts back to who controls it. In a server-client system, the answer becomes obvious. If you are not following, simply ask yourself why someone like Larry Fink is involved.
Real world assets will be tokenized. This is going to happen at some point. The only question is will it be part of another system of extraction created by the largest financial institutions or not?
People need to decide whether they want more centralization in their lives, something that has not tended to work out great for the average person or do they prefer something different.
If it is the latter, we need to embrace that fact that decentralization is something people have to fight for. It is not simply granted.