One of the important differences between crypto and fiat is long term stability. 

Fiat economies are designed to manage scarcity. Those economies use a pseudo commodity, or currency, that

a) must be enforced,

b) can be diluted by certain parties if it serves their interest, and

c) produces nothing.

Fiat currency is not a real commodity, you can't eat, drink, smoke or otherwise use it. It does not produce any commodities directly and is subject to being monopolized. The only positive thing that can be said about fiat is that it allows a more easy exchange of wealth. If people used gold or silver as currency the economy would develop more slowly and be harder for any individual or group to use, for bad or good.

Crypto currencies are still in their infancy, but already there are coins that do scientific calculating, Gridcoin, Primecoin, Riecoin, Gapcoin, Foldingcoin, Curecoin etc. These coins are ‘super commodities’, in other words 'currencies that produce a commodity'. 

Within a few years most high tech jobs will probably involve 'human mining' of science coins, using input from people. This will allow very rapid development of many technologies and, in effect, the coins of the future will be producing the most important commodity of any technological society. It will be like a resource that not only replenishes but actually increases in quality. The opposite of 'managing scarcity', as long as the development is directed towards solving problems.


Decentralizing an economy built around very powerful coins will be essential.

For many years military force i.e., fiat’s blunt edge, and political power have been focused on financial issues, profit, to a small isolated part of the population. 

So, nationalist economies have effectively evolved into mafias whose goals are not compatible with the broader collective interests of their 'lesser' members. 


In any centralized economy, but especially an economy built around technology and ideas, natural accountability becomes important not so much for substantive reasons like having things run smoothly, but for personal and political reasons. In other words a small group has a monopoly on 'facts', for example, and those 'facts' then become subordinate to that small group which has hijacked control of the 'central authority'. 

This leads to a compartmentalized mentality that drags the economy down. The obvious problem with compartmentalizing information or 'knowledge' based on financial considerations is that it causes stupidity. It encourages a mindset in which information is proprietary. 

There are a lot of smaller problems as well.

When a person has to make a decision that may lead to accountability issues in a centralized economy, the focus is on isolating awareness of the issue. For example if a company has to dispose of a large amount of toxic waste, the more dangerous the situation is, generally, the fewer people who will have imput on a solution. 

In a decentralized economy there is a natural tendency to crowdsource solutions.

Any person can 'take responsibility' for any problem.

There is a distinct awareness that whatever decisions are made a thousand miles away could reverberate locally so there is a focus on effective, real solutions. 

Also, accountability is natural, a product of the system.

Any person is free at any time to transition instantly from one coin’s currency or economy to another. Coercion is not made productive. So although there may briefly be a ‘proprietary’ side to some information, as long as open source is considered an ethical minimum there will never be a dangerous compartmentalization that obliges anybody to start compounding their mistakes until they become tragedies. 

~in progress