Cryptno: the moral failings of cryptocurrencies and allied tech

I do not agree. We all know diamonds are not rare in reality, we know they are quite abundant actually; nonetheless, they hold a socially constructed power over some people, therefore they are almost (through marketing and various other methods) perceived to be “rare” or carry a value that doesn’t truly represent their “worth.”

I think most people know that money isn’t “real”, and it certainly isn’t finite—since let’s be real, they just add some zeroes on a computer somewhere, since there is no relation to any actual object or material good, like gold of the past.

I think Bhante’s talk was laser focused, and full of good information. The comparison of it to other objects or materials (like money, investment in general, etc) isn’t really necessary to further the discussion of the opinions he presented, which I believe to be facts.

Also, as Bhante mentioned, he hasn’t handled money in a long time. He is not in the position of having to handle money, and reconcile that (in general) with investments or crypto etc.

1 Like

Diamonds are rare in terms of their limited accessibility to those who can afford them as per their market price. Arguments about abundance in nature seems to over look the practicality of the market rationale. We can argue that Mars has water, but it is not accessible to the ordinary human. As for what constitutes original vs fake diamond, this is to be determined by an expert in the field, which constitutes an authority (similar to counterfeit money).

Same thing can be said about central banks and money in the form of bank notes. Their ability to print money is limitless, and yet, they create scarcity out of abundance. The inventors of cryptos did it the other way around, they began with finite number of Bitcoins, but made the process of mining progressively more difficult which Bhante mentioned in the video.

Maybe monastics do not handle money for good reasons, cryptos or otherwise.

1 Like

Exactly. So, I assume now we agree on most of what I said, and what you said, maybe just our terminology was different.

Again, exactly.

I think one of the issues Bhante touches on is that money is something we must work for (most of us) and any “get rich fast” or “get rich for minimal work” schemes are kind of out there as falsehoods and b.s. at this point (he doesn’t talk about the get rich quick stuff in this regard, just to be clear). But crypto on the other hand, has sunk its teeth in, as a replacement of sorts for get rich schemes. Crypto instills hope in an individual that they too, can get on the crypto rocket train early regarding whatever next DOGE or whatever-have-you-coin is the new thing. That they don’t need to work or do anything, they just trade and make life easy for themselves. All of my close friends who trade are always under the impression they are ahead of the game, that they know something before others do. I tell them “come on now …” but they still believe. Some of them are poker players too, who have read books and taken online courses on how to play poker better, even though there is a true “luck of the draw” element to the game that is irrefutable. EDIT: I should add that after 5-10 years for some of these friends, none of them have done more than broken even, so essentially trading is a video game for them.

In my opinion a human being needs work. Not necessarily all this useless stuff us do, but true work. Where we are impacted by our environment, and we make an impact on it, where we find purpose. Mostly all digital undertakings are devoid of this intrinsic necessity, yet 72-80% of young kids in the USA want to be “influencers” on social media platforms when polled in high school instead of doing something of some benefit to society. But, then again, maybe their options are limited, and the amazon warehouse isn’t that appealing.

3 Likes

DN15:9.1: So it is, Ānanda, that feeling is a cause of craving. Craving is a cause of seeking. Seeking is a cause of gaining material possessions. Gaining material possessions is a cause of assessing. Assessing is a cause of desire and lust. Desire and lust is a cause of attachment. Attachment is a cause of ownership. Ownership is a cause of stinginess. Stinginess is a cause of safeguarding.

Cryptocurrencies are designed for safeguarding. Which means that crypto leads to:

DN15:9.2: Owing to safeguarding, many bad, unskillful things come to be: taking up the rod and the sword, quarrels, arguments, and disputes, accusations, divisive speech, and lies.

Although nominally designed to “share fairly”, cryptocurrencies really are just ledgers that assert ownership. Crypto lets us scream “THIS IS MINE!” to each other. :thinking:

In contrast, note that we can give away as many hugs as we wish and never run out.

Crypto, by its very design, will never be able represent limitless love, compassion, rejoicing or equanimity.

AN3.63:8.5: I meditate spreading a heart full of love to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, I spread a heart full of love to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.

Crypto is for Gollums who slink about in dark obscurity mumbling, “my precious”. :hole: :skull:

Do not go gentle into that Crypto-nite.

4 Likes

LOL! lots of truth in your post!

1 Like

Two points:

  1. The technically impressive feat cryptos have achieved is that, with a few caveats, they’re not just scarce (quantity available < quantity conceivably desired) but have a fixed maximum quantity. This is different from USD and even gold, which can be extracted and gathered to an unknown degree.

  2. Finitude and scarcity is not broadly considered to be a necessary condition for the perception of value. “Non-rival” goods (things where my consumption doesn’t interfere with yours) abound. Just as an example, people like looking at the night sky. Not quite perfectly non-rival, but digital goods, being almost free to copy and use, are similarly perceived as valuable. A dhamma talk on YouTube can be heard by as many people as desire to hear it, and they will likely get value out of it. One of the dangers of web3, highlighted by this talk, is that NFTs + DRM could limit the creation of this kind of value. Imagine if, for example, only 100 people at a time ever had the right to watch a certain film.

The point Bhante was making there was really about adoption. If all you care about with BTC is it’s value in USD, not what you can buy with it, it seems like you’re not thinking about it as a currency.

However to address your concern, what makes the USD “more real” are the institutions backing it up. The court system, sales / purchase orders, and employment agreements.

El Salvador is an interesting case here, because they dollarized and then adopted BTC. It is my understanding that the courts are still considered broadly incompetent (ie if someone owes you X, you wouldn’t reasonably expect the courts to find that you are owed X, and then even if they did, you wouldn’t expect to courts to bring about the transfer of the dollar or btc value of X to you from the person who owes you), but that most major business, including international trade, is conducted in USD. This is, broadly speaking, because of the network of USD commerce. If I’m selling in USD, I can turn around and buy in USD. Or, as business is more commonly actually practiced, if I already bought something in USD, I need to sell something in USD.

This is, I think, what Bhante is referring to as the beneficial element of trust in our current monetary system.

If anything else’s, blockchain consumes and waste too much energy compared to its intended usage.

1 Like
  1. The technically impressive feat cryptos have achieved is that, with a few caveats, they’re not just scarce (quantity available < quantity conceivably desired) but have a fixed maximum quantity. This is different from USD and even gold, which can be extracted and gathered to an unknown degree.

To be honest, i do not see it very different. Gold became precious commodity due to its “declared” scarcity. Scarcity is a theoretical finitude in the sense that all you have to agree to is that the amount of gold that can be found in nature is not limitless. Humans probably began mining gold using primitive tools, but to dig for or mine more quantities would require more complex technologies or computational power. The more advanced are the tools for mining, the higher the impact on the shared environment. It is no coincidence that AUS is one of the most polluting nations on earth due to its booming mining industry.

  1. Finitude and scarcity is not broadly considered to be a necessary condition for the perception of value. “Non-rival” goods (things where my consumption doesn’t interfere with yours) abound. Just as an example, people like looking at the night sky. Not quite perfectly non-rival, but digital goods, being almost free to copy and use, are similarly perceived as valuable. A dhamma talk on YouTube can be heard by as many people as desire to hear it, and they will likely get value out of it. One of the dangers of web3, highlighted by this talk, is that NFTs + DRM could limit the creation of this kind of value. Imagine if, for example, only 100 people at a time ever had the right to watch a certain film.

Non rivalry has to do with exclusivity, which divides space into private (ownership) and common (public property). The non-rivalry of looking at the sky makes the sky a public property where two humans with two separate bags of skin can equally perceive it without getting into conflict over it. Value is not separate from a sense of lack. If someone has problems with his/her eyes, they would still need an eye surgery to access the public property of night sky. This brings us to another distinction or definition, which is desirability. The individual experience is exclusive but not necessarily desirable, such as in the case of sickness and old age. It is observed through the public sphere, but associated with negative value. The family institution, which is the cornerstone for conventional way of life is based on the same concept of exclusivity, or what became to be known as monogamy.

The point Bhante was making there was really about adoption. If all you care about with BTC is it’s value in USD, not what you can buy with it, it seems like you’re not thinking about it as a currency.

However to address your concern, what makes the USD “more real” are the institutions backing it up. The court system, sales / purchase orders, and employment agreements.

El Salvador is an interesting case here, because they dollarized and then adopted BTC. It is my understanding that the courts are still considered broadly incompetent (ie if someone owes you X, you wouldn’t reasonably expect the courts to find that you are owed X, and then even if they did, you wouldn’t expect to courts to bring about the transfer of the dollar or btc value of X to you from the person who owes you), but that most major business, including international trade, is conducted in USD. This is, broadly speaking, because of the network of USD commerce. If I’m selling in USD, I can turn around and buy in USD. Or, as business is more commonly actually practiced, if I already bought something in USD, I need to sell something in USD.

This is, I think, what Bhante is referring to as the beneficial element of trust in our current monetary system.

As far as i remember, the USD was subject to the gold standard until the 1970s before it became floated, or declared as any other commodity subject to the market forces of supply and demand. The proponents of cryptos would argue that having more institutions backing it is a process in the making. If we take the moral aspect into consideration, institutional backing is more relevant to making it legal that moral, considering that imposing laws is done by force of central governments. Many would argue that the relationship between the value of USD and the US military-might are inseparable. There are also theories that explain the relationship between the value of USD and petrodollar, and the subsequent humanitarian and environmental impacts of maintaining this value.

My main take from Bhante’s talk is that getting-rich-fast-schemes are not conducive to peace. When certain conventions became well-established, we better follow them mindfully minimizing the damage we cause to ourselves and others. Reinventing the wheel, as with the case of cryptos, seem to indicate passion towards what is harmful.

1 Like

Is that you, Cordelia?

I wasn’t able to find exactly what you’re looking for, but I really recommend this one, it’s informative and fun!

This deals with so-called “web3”, which is an umbrella term for all the various crypto-tech as applied to the internet.

Otherwise, this twitter feed has a lot of links to various articles. Maybe spend a while scrolling, find one that will suit your dad. For example, what kind of source is he likely to find authoritative? Traditional finance? Wealth inequality? Law and order? Tech?

At least with the stock market, there is some relation between an investment and what people actually do. You can invest in a company that you believe in, one that does good work. And you can avoid corrupt or harmful corporations. Despite its excesses, you can see that there is some basis to the idea of an exchange where people with cash invest in the work of others; and if they do good work, you are rewarded for helping them. With crypto, it is literally nothing more than investing in the hope that others will invest after you and you can take their money.

6 Likes

Very true. At least there are more and more companies taking a better approach to business in general, so this does give you some more choice around investing. My bias is mostly based on my opposition to capitalism in general, but I also understand that the world economy is mostly based on it, and it isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. So, if I was to invest (if I had money to invest is probably more accurate LOL) I would look to companies that are dedicated to regenerating the environment for sure.

2 Likes

Thank you! This bit from Dhiel’s twitter account will be enough for my father to say thanks but no to crypto:

Crypto isn’t a technology that actually works. It’s an empty speculative asset who’s only fundamental referent is a fuzzy human narrative about reimagining society’s power structures, and usually as a fantasy with the imaginer at the top.

5 Likes

Ain’t that the truth.

1 Like

I have spent a lot of time with crypto since february this year. Let me share my experience, good and bad.

Good:

  1. I learn more about this new technology and its future potential
  2. I profit like 10x from my investment and have enough passive income. Now I have the freedom to work on AI for Dhamma.

Bad:

  1. The wealth without work mentality. I understand now why the Deva world is not a good place for mental cultivation.
  2. I check the crypto price many times a day. It consume too much of my attention.

Still, there are some great beings who can still meditate in the Deva world. So, it depends on our wisdom to see divine enjoyments as empty.

Let me share how I justify my crypto investment morally.

My biggest crypto investment is in LUNA. Its first major application is the CHAI payment system used by millions of people in Korea. CHAI fee is <1% compared to 3% of VISA. I agree that most crypto investments are just speculations, but if you want to look for a moral one you can look into LUNA and its family. Now LUNA has grown to become the second largest blockchain by TVL. Bitcoin may not deliver its promise as a usable currency, but Terra stablecoins (KRT, UST) backed by LUNA do. So, at least some crypto can be really useful and help solve real problems.

Another development that I keep my eyes on is DAOs(Decentralized Autonomous Organizations). This social structure built on crypto may become more popular than “companies” in the future. You can read about it from this coinbase article or just google it.

Would it be more beneficial to teach how to do crypto investment morally and avoid its pitfalls? Just like how the Buddha teach us to avoid the baits in Nivāpa Sutta.

2 Likes

Here are a few:

  1. The vast majority of crypto are digitals coins created out of thin air and silly memes, that have no value beyond what the originators have set the values at. Many coins fall victim to “rug pulls” where the sponsors pump a new meme coin, gullible people buy into it, and then the sponsors dump the coin and take the money.

  2. Crypto investing is highly volatile. Many people have lost huge sums of money from this price volatility (eg buying on margin) and rug pulls.

  3. Much of crypto is owned by “whales.” These are the original sponsors that created the digital widgets, and then hoard millions of coins, and play the arbitrage game when prices rise and fall.

  4. Crypto is touted as decentralized and democratic, but the reality is that a few whales own most of the coins, and use this fiction of diverse ownership to manipulate the market.

  5. Crypto can be severely insecure. Hackers hack into large exchanges all the time and steal account funds.

  6. Money-laundering through crypto exchanges/ATMs is common.

  7. Crypto used to purchase on the black market. Human trafficking, organ trafficking, and exploitative adult services.

  8. Crypto Wallets Can Be Lost: If a hard drive crashes, or a virus corrupts data , and the wallet file is corrupted, Bitcoins have essentially been “lost”. There is nothing that can done to recover it.

  9. Bitcoin exchanges are digital and therefore vulnerable to hackers, operational glitches, and malware . By targeting and hacking a cryptocurrency exchange, hackers can gain access to thousands of accounts and digital wallets where the cryptocurrencies are stored.

  10. The crypto industry is largely unregulated. Unlike the stock exchange where there is at least some regulation and prosecutorial capacity, crypto is a Wild West frontier and is largely unregulated.

3 Likes

Reminds me of the pyramid schemes that left many in ruin.

1 Like

Yes, and it’s very similar to the boiler room schemes and “penny stocks.” The sponsors issue a penny stock named “Omicron Technologies, Inc.” and the sponsors pump it through false claims so that gullible and greedy speculators buy the stock. “The pump and dump scheme is a popular trading scam to lure investors into buying a stock. Large amounts of a penny stock are purchased followed by a period when the stock is hyped up or pumped up. Once other investors rush to buy the stock, the scammers sell their shares. Once the market realizes there was no fundamental reason for the stock to rise, investors rush to sell and can take on heavy losses.” The same scheme plays out with crypto now. Same game, different widgets.

1 Like

Thank you so much!
My dad (minuts ago):
“I wouldn’t have done it anyway.”
My siblings: “What?!” :relieved:

3 Likes

It will be funny if less than 50-100 years from now. The whole world embraces & uses crypto for financial, for technology, for home, for transportation, for web, for donation, etc.

If one recollect the past, it also happens with the usage of currency/money/gold before. At first people rejecting it, But now everyone use and embrace it.

Then, what will happen to one who is rejecting crypto now? Will they rejecting the crypto forever, or embrace it later? If they keep rejecting it, wouldnt that give rise a suffering now and in future? Wouldnt it better just be non-judgemental for now and see what happen?

1 Like

Being “non-judgemental” is just a fantasy. There is no such thing. People are constantly making value judgements. Choosing to “not judge” is itself a judgement.

1 Like

We can write a long essay on why money is evil. It makes people greedy and hoard money instead of sharing excess goods. The world might share more if we sill use the barter system. We all should try to stop the development of money, it’s evil.

But we can’t stop it. So the Buddha teaching is about right livelihood instead. We can use money by giving it as dāna as well, although most usage is about greed than charity, just like crypto.