You are making a straw man argument. I am not an idealist.
Every asset (housing, stocks, gold, etc) has cycles and bear markets so again you are making a non argument.
You deny being an idealist, then make a moral judgment that only a ideological purist would make!
The reality is that fractional reserve banking is like economic steroids: economies that utilize it outgrow and outcompete those that do not. Of course there are downsides, but overall the pros would seem to outweigh the cons.
My point was not really to defend fractional reserve banking per se (it is a flawed system, as I readily admitted) but to emphasize the futility of adhering to any sort of utopian ideology, economic or political. The reality is that whatever "perfect" system you can dream up will eventually be abused and exploited by the individuals who achieve preeminent power in said system (as the people who rise to the top of any competitive hierarchy are disproportionately psychopathic). In others words, the problem is not really the design of a given system, the problem is human nature itself, and the evil within men's hearts that drives them lie, cheat, steal and kill in service of their greed and ambition.
Another straw man argument. Of course every system is open to a degree of abuse but some systems are more vulnerable than others. When the world was on a classical gold standard wars were less frequent and shorter, governments were smaller and deficits were smaller. A bitcoin standard system would not be perfect and there would be ways of abusing it but it would have less vulnerabilities than a fiat system. Nobody is talking about a utopia but if we can get some kind of incremental improvement on what we have now that is a win.
You do this frequently. Latch on to a point that's not really related to what the topic of conversation is, and then link some other idea with it. Pointing out that banks are less than ideal, if not criminal, makes one an "extremist libertarian"? In what world?
No it's not. That's in fact the entire issue, because it has implications on what people do with, and how they relate to, money. Arguably the most important topic in life because it affects the average man's behavior so much.
We're just talking about money, not some overarching "system."
Yes. I find it bizarre that scorpion constantly touts fiat systems, which are inherently immoral. Say what you want about BTC, and we have a lot, but it is fundamentally honest and moral (as money) due to its design and trustless, permissionless features.
I admittedly don't understand any aspect of this except as a trade and/or connections to other people, such as "friends of the administration". No other coin is actually money, and all of them have ICOs with founders already pre-mining. Since BTC has won, all of the other coins are just distractions, or at best, businesses that could sell some technology to others for a fee. The problem with even that is that you can just copy all other projects on the base layer of payment (BTC). Since I don't play alts, ultimately I have no risk and no real opinion. I'd rather just leverage BTC at certain trading times, like now with MSTR.
I'm just going to give you my humble opinion, I was an XRP holder, I bought at 0.21 cents in 2020, and sold most of it in 2021 because of the fundamentals, the lawsuit, and the obnoxious XRP army community (worse than the bitcoin maxis), and it is pretty shady too, the way they dump on their holders and their dealings with central institutions. I prefer XLM which is the alternative for the same narrative of ''bridging banks and tradfi financial system with crypto'' and it has more upside potential.
All of this still circles back to BTC, as the real money. Anything else is just a version of CBDC. You can already send value (BTC) to people across the world for minimal amounts, certainly better than the banking system, and quickly (within hours it the transaction is confirmed). The issue then is how to handle the transaction by governments, which is something being considered right now. But that will be considered and centralized if some other coin is used, but they don't even need that coin as I've said, they can just start using "JP Morgan coin". I see absolutely NO use for XRP, beyond its beginning as another alt scam.
You could certainly send BTC to people instead, although it is slower and more computationally expensive. BTC works better as digital gold than as currency.
I agree with this. Even if you are a BTC maxi, which I have never called myself, but I have described myself as closer to "maxi" than not, something I think Saylor for the most part is. I say that because he's a maxi type with a practicality and understanding of the world, not what I would call an overly idealistic view, such as what Ammous maintains.
Why is it a "good chance"? I don't see it, and seriously, it's not because I have anything in particular against XRP. Wouldn't you just use stablecoins instead? And by definition, all of these are just digital fiat of a more advanced (and scary) form.
I saw some reports saying the Trump administration was getting ready to prop up XRP. Don't have it on hand now but I got the feeling it's going to get broader institutional support soon. And as for your other question, sure you could use stablecoins. But it's really what "they" do that determines the price and volume. You won't make any money investing in stablecoins.
I've seen similar reports. From some insiders that I know, I still think it sounds like a trade to me, meaning it won't last but it can go another 15-20% if lucky.
