What is money actually? A universal commodity whose value is ultimately based on trust, in order to constantly receive an expected countervalue for it. That’s how you could define it briefly and concisely. We are all aware that the monetary system is a construct designed to facilitate trade by creating a universal currency.
But this universal currency is not a purely financial object that has arisen from nothing. It is Bitcoin Evolution not only politically regulated, it even fulfils political purposes. So it seems as if it is a classic feature of currencies that people are inevitably responsible for their control, monitoring and regulation. After all, this is how it has been remembered over long periods of history.
Bitcoin Evolution and the tuture
But what role do digital currencies play in our classic image of currencies and financial systems? They do not have a central responsible person on whose decisions one can rely, at best they can be regulated in their use. The basis of such a system Bitcoin Evolution is technically laid, once erected and carved in stone. A digital currency is usually resistant to political decisions that cause inflation or deflation. They act completely autonomously, because nobody has power over them. Or do they?
Suppose digital currencies are completely independent of any human decisions (in reality, however, developers of the system have some influence). That would mean: Every participant of the system can do what he is inclined to do. There are no restrictions, no taxes, Bitcoin Evolution no monitoring in the classical sense, but also one thing: security.
For one advantage that the classic political financial systems offer us is “security”. Political decision-makers have the accountability and responsibility to keep the system running (at least apparently). The demise of a financial system or the expropriation of many people means a loss of power for these political instruments. They are therefore interested in creating the impression that the financial systems are stable. The fact that the actual guarantee of security and responsibility is seldom successful becomes visible again every year in the form of a financial upheaval. Extensive instruments of power can at least ensure that losses are not realised by the individual as such.
Political money systems give us a certain feeling: security! Most people always bear in mind the idea of the delegation of responsibility: “If something so bad happens, they will attack in time”. Although we know that we are facing an economic crisis at a more onlinebetrug or less even pace, indirect burdens such as cold progression or rising inflation are not as dramatic for many people as a total loss of wealth, which can be seen on the bank statement.
If we compare the digital systems again with the classic monetary systems, we find that in the world of digital currencies there is no political instrument to which we can transfer our responsibility. The user alone is responsible for all his actions. If he loses his money, it is irretrievably gone. On the other hand, there are possibilities open to them that are unimaginable in classical financial systems, such as the greatest possible anonymity.
If one starts from a certain image of man, then people are very careful to shy away from responsibility and to place it in other hands. People want maximum safety with minimum responsibility. That is why the plateau on which crypto currencies are written is hardening: There are some people who are willing to give up their need for security in favor of the advantages of a digital payment system. But most people are still sceptical, fearing the new technology to some extent. It brings risks – that cannot be denied. And these risks seem to outweigh the benefits in most cases. That’s how it was with the invention of the railroad back then, and that’s how it is with digital currencies today. Until one has slowly but surely reached a point and the system has become so big that one can trust it.