I could write about the rampant corruption within the legacy bankster class, though it’s crucial to instead try to expose crypto, the suggested resolution to shenanigans in legacy finance, as an even bigger cesspool of fraud, corruption, and criminality.

I admit that I don’t have a clear solution to fixing crony capitalism. But I do know it has nothing to do with crypto: a multi-century replay of laws, rules, and regulations devised to prevent the very fraud, criminality, and instability now occurring in its own ecosystem, and at a much higher rate than its “TradFi” companion.

Before I publish anything, I ponder whether or not we crypto skeptics are “the baddies.” Then I recall the time when Web3 VCs were laughing live on camera about how the tokens they had invested in were effectively junk, and I use that as fuel to add more zeal to the final “FUD.”

“Community building” in crypto is polite code for “join my multi-level marketing scheme, and don’t cash out until I’ve reeled in enough suckers to dump this worthless token on you.” There’s no community in crypto. Instead, it’s hoping that fellow disciples of the worthless tokens you own don’t sell and continue to hold while wanting a perpetual stream of fresh new believers to join in on the hustle.

Nobody who plays games for fun will bother with Web3 “play-to-earn” games once they realize the truth. It’s not entertaining to watch yourself enter the lowest layer of several pyramid schemes, which the games’ first adopters have pseudonymously assembled behind the scenes.

We often hear the phrase “web3 needs better critics,” more so from top crypto advocates like Andreessen Horowitz’s general partner Chris Dixon than the average crypto aficionado.

This is why almost every field and domain of study, from law to economics to finance to regulation, has thoroughly critiqued and debunked crypto’s gargantuan amount of flaws and narratives, and are now secretly wishing for its quick demise; so we can all go back to exposing the corruption and misdeeds of the legacy financial colossus.

But apart from that, Dixon is right.

Finding a way to solve regulatory capture, even slightly, will have more of a positive societal impact than crypto or web3 ever will. Crypto is an early-stage “subprime 2.0” with an observable replay of the same crisis-inducing conflicts of interest playing out in real-time.

Its popularity is only the extreme consequence of states forcing private sectors into riskier assets to paint over decades of ruinous political decisions that ravaged real economies. Crypto fixes none of this while diverting attention away from the very architects of this economic malaise.

We’ve disseminated plenty of “FUD” about Tether here at Concoda, so it’s time to bring attention to the other questionable stablecoin on the market: USDC. With red flags aplenty, going public via a SPAC and never being audited, only attested, its creator Circle has touted USDC to become part of a new-age financial system — whatever that means.

Yet this is becoming more unlikely by the day, with “safer” options emerging. Dubbed by blogger JP Koning as “New York Stablecoins”, Paxos Dollar, Gemini Dollar, and Binance USD (BUSD) have gained significant market share.

Tether, for now, remains the dominant player, but with an increasing possibility that U.S authorities will step in and regulate the crypto industry, stablecoins under the watchful eye of the New York Department of Financial Services will likely become the cleanest dirty shirt.

Ever since the emergence of crypto, the amount of engagement on social media, and especially Twitter, appears to correlate with a willingness to shill increasingly higher levels of financial and technological monstrosities. The wilder the investment, the more devotees that will be willing to join your following. Financial Darwinism, it seems, is not having its day on social media.

The major distinction between crypto critics and advocates seems to be a feeling of total disenfranchisement about the status quo. Without this, no rational grounds exist for evading legacy systems, using slower, less efficient, and more costly technology, unless you’ve become completely demoralized by the cheap money status quo.

The problem with Bitcoin is it shoves basic economics and monetary history in the toilet and replaces these with a radical monetary ideology, a blockchain-based embodiment of The Sovereign Individual.

As the financial system has slowly shifted to cater to the post-WW2 status quo, money supply has become the least important factor. It’s why barely any economist or monetary official brings it up, and why they don’t take Bitcoin seriously.

It turns out rapid global growth demands exotic forms of money with an elastic supply. Not a fixed supply of 21 million units like Bitcoin, rendering the crypto giant incompatible with any modern monetary or financial system.

We’ll save you tons of time watching the gargantuan amount of crypto educational content. It’s all a front for product placements of the latest crypto swindles obscured through intense technobabble and buzzwords.

You’ll acquire more personal growth from learning how Amway does pyramid selling than from any of these channels, as the following Twitter Space regarding the post-release of “ApeCoin” so vehemently demonstrated (click the tweet below to access the recording):

The idea of digital scarcity is ludicrous, because you can create an unlimited quantity of digital items and now, thanks to crypto, an unlimited amount of links to those items.

According to the basic laws of economics, an infinite supply will always lead to insufficient demand, which in crypto is a shortfall of increasingly greater fools willing to risk investing their money in “securities fraud as a business”. When demand dries up in this scenario, prices always go to zero, usually in spectacular fashion.

We’ll probably never see another significant debate between the hardcore nocoiners and coiners. The arguments from both sides are well established. Now it’s just a wait-and-see whether crypto fades away and becomes as relevant as Beanie Babies, or it destabilizes several nation-state economies, 1990s-Albania style.

The discussion won’t go far anyway, because while critics know that nation-states created modern capitalist forms of money, and the two can’t be detached without a radical system change that nobody can foresee or envision, advocates of crypto — a radical form of hyper-capitalist money — can’t find a way past this. So the debate goes nowhere.

If crypto was judged solely on its technological and utilitarian prowess, it would have been swiftly thrown out decades ago. But the tech doesn’t matter. It’s a political tool first and foremost, clouding everyone’s critique, providing a convenient cover for the crypto grifter class to continue operating, unabated.

Wanting to create decentralized technologies is just bizarre. Essentially, you’re working together with people to create more divergence from them. Wanting to “exit into your own economy” sounds bizarre to anyone who has even a slight urge to engage with others and not be anti-social.

We should avoid “crypto was meant to prevent X” and “crypto was supposed to fight against Y.” It wasn’t. It was simply about hoodwinking the system, skirting society for self-enrichment, and never about fighting Goldman, Sachs or liberating the masses.

The crypto space is a start-from-scratch duplication of the entire history of modern finance, created by those who don’t know or never checked why the systems that formed over hundreds of years exist today, coming together to repeat the same errors and fixes that forged the status quo.

When everyone’s starting to use the term “got rugged” to celebrate maximum losses, you know society’s going downhill from here.