Listening to a recent episode of the Solarpunk Presents podcast reminded me the importance of consistently calling out cryptocurrency as a wasteful scam. The podcast hosts fail to do that, and because bad actors will continue to try to push crypto, we must condemn it with equal persistence.
Solarpunks must be skeptical of anyone saying it’s important to buy something, like a Tesla, or buy in, with cryptocurrency. Capitalists want nothing more than to co-opt radical movements, neutralizing them, to sell products.
People shilling crypto will tell you it decentralizes power. So that’s a lie, but solarpunks who believe it may be fooled into investing in this Ponzi scheme that burns more energy than some countries. Crypto will centralize power in billionaires, increasing their wealth and decreasing their accountability. That’s why Space Karen Elon Musk pushes crypto. The freer the market, the faster it devolves to monopoly. Rather than decentralizing anything, crypto would steer us toward a Bladerunner dystopia with its all-powerful Tyrell corporation.
Promoting crypto on a solarpunk podcast would be unforgivable. That’s not quite what happens on S5E1 “Let’s Talk Tech.” The hosts seem to understand crypto has no part in a solarpunk future or its prefigurative present. But they don’t come out and say that, adopting a tone of impartiality. At best, I would call this disingenuous. And it reeks of the both-sides-ism that corporate media used to paralyze climate action discourse for decades.
Crypto is not “appropriate tech,” and discussing it without any clarity is inappropriate.
Update for episode 5.3: In a case of hyper hypocrisy, they caution against accepting superficial solutions---things that appear utopian but really reinforce inequality and accelerate the climate crisis---while doing exactly that by talking up cryptocurrency.
I don't see where this post did that, though? It criticises crypto for failing to solve the problems it claims to solve and for adding additional problems on top, not for trying to address things that aren't problems
It’s just the vibes i get after seeing the 30th mini essay with the same exact content as this, in which nobody ever actually acknowledges any of those problems as being real nor ever proposes a better idea. I guess it literally doesn’t try to convince me they aren’t real problems, but you sure can’t conclude from anything the author has written that they think they are real problems.
I'm pretty sure that nobody describes something as "a Bladerunner dystopia with its all-powerful Tyrell corporation" in a positive way
I’m a little confused by your response. What gave you the impression that I thought there was anything positive about what the author wrote?
I'm responding to the part of your comment that says "you sure can’t conclude from anything the author has written that they think they are real problems." I mean that the author describes the extreme centralisation of power in currency in that manner; crypto is criticised for accelerating us towards that, but it's clear that OP regards that situation as bad regardless of whether or not we end up in it via crypto. Sorry if my own comment was unclear.
Actually if you just take what they’re saying at face value and don’t make any assumptions or inferences about what they must believe, all you can conclude is that they don’t believe that we’re currently under the control of a Tyrell-esque corporation, and that it’s going to be cryptocurrency that gets us there. But personally I think that’s highly naïve and I do think we’re currently living in a global financial system which might as well be controlled by the Tyrell corporation
They don't have to believe that we're currently living in such a situation to believe that it would be bad whether crypto put us in it or not. I think you're making more assumptions about their beliefs than you're stating, here.
Personally I agree that we're not in a position as extreme as that at the moment, because the ultimate powers over currencies are governments rather than corporations. Now, how much of a difference that makes absolutely depends on how democratically accountable the given government is to the populace, but for corporations it's always zero accountability to anyone but shareholders, so there is definitely room for difference. And, of course, just because things can technically be worse doesn't mean there are no problems with how things currently are.
I never said how they felt about the current situation. I literally said I can’t conclude from their words. and you can’t as evidenced by the fact that you’re telling me all of the possibilities right now.
And I honestly think this is an extremely naïve thing to believe.
And lastly I’m not gonna engage with literally anything that takes for granted the idea that I support cryptocurrency because it isn’t true, so let me just make it really clear: I do not support cryptocurrency
I think that the references to billionaires and capitalism as negatives and the simple fact that they posted it to a solarpunk community make how OP feels pretty clear, but I don't think we're going to find much common ground here
I'm confused about where that last paragraph came from? The only thing I've said about you is that I think you're making more assumptions about OP than you are letting on
I don’t understand why I wrote that either looking back at your comment. I apologize for it.
as for a common ground: I feel like you’re saying these things because you think that I believe that this person doesn’t feel that way. The truth is I would be surprised if they didn’t feel that way, for all of the reasons you’re saying. I’m literally just saying that nothing they write establishes with 100% certainty how they feel about the global financial system. Like you literally can only conclude that if you’re willing to make assumptions about what it must mean to post this in solarpunk, what it must mean to be critical of billionaires etc.
And you also need to consider that not everyone even understands all of those things. people come here from all sorts of corners of this little fediverse, you need to consider how they’ll perceive this too if you actually want to steer people away from it. Would they be wrong for failing to connect all those dots if they were never exposed to them before?
Your last sentence
Excuse me, but they were describing a problem they perceived with cryptocurrency not with the current financial system. And all I’m saying is I’m extremely tired of criticisms of cryptocurrency without a very least acknowledging the problems with the global financial system that drew people to it in the first place, and making it very clear that they are indeed problems that we need to address, and that it’s gonna take a lot more than just complaining.
Well I think that's a very limiting way to have a conversation. You are now placing an expectation on everyone to spend time to make their posts about topic A longer so it can include topic B. That makes it less likely people will engage because post length is a big factor in attention.
Secondly, many of the people excited by crypto, and nearly everybody engaging in solarpunk discourse, recognize the problems with the current system. So OP addressing people who have been led into thinking crypto will solve XYZ is a good thing. Those people know we need change, they just got excited about the wrong change, OP trying to steer them in the right direction is a good thing.
it’s a shame that you can’t share how something makes you feel alienated without people inferring that it must mean you disagree with the essence of what the person is saying. It’s even more of a shame because all of us sharing this feeling of alienation should only service making the messaging better in the future.
I don't believe that you were speaking as clearly as you thought you were. Happens to everyone. When I get caught up being misunderstood, I try to look at what I've said and see if there was a better way to have said it.