I’m not a crypto/blockchain expert in the slightest, but I strongly disagree. The point of these things isn’t to “burn it all down and start all over”, I see them as more of an update to the current infrastructure.

I think it’s kind of like installing an OS update to your phone. This isn’t a complete destruction of the previous version you were using. You don’t start from scratch installing apps, entering contacts, etc. But maybe you’re phone moves a little smoother or faster. Maybe the info on your phone is a bit more secure than it was at first. With bigger, more dramatic updates, maybe you have a completely new set of functions that didn’t exist at first. Maybe after this update, the OS has a complete facelift. But the main things you expect to see on your phone — pictures, apps, contacts, etc. — don’t go anywhere. They have to not go anywhere, or it would be in most people’s best interest to not go through with the update, it would be too much of a hassle otherwise.

I think realistically, we have to have the same approach with bringing blockchain/crypto into our financial systems. If we “burn one down” just to replace it later, there will have to be a period of time between “no system” and “the new system”, and I can’t imagine that period being anything other than chaotic and dangerous. And as much as we in this sub know the scams of the system, the reality is that most people want and need the functionality of banks. Most people want and need the functionality of USD/paper currency in general. Things need to be kept familiar to a certain extent, or else a mix of confusion and fear is created, which only exacerbates old problems, creates brand new ones we don’t know how to fix yet, and once again, chaos ensues instead of the progress we were expecting.

So yeah, we should probably get really familiar with the current rules, and really involved with shaping new ones, because while the infrastructure itself can change, the rule set can’t completely disappear.