I'm not sure what else you'd expect. Those things are caused by humans taking advantage of whatever system of value transfer exists, of course people will do the best they can to reinvent these things on top of new value systems.
On the other hand, unlike the actual infinite money printer central bank, nobody forces you to use obvious scams like tether. You don't need to use a centralised exchange because smart contracts make it possible to use decentralised exchanges. Smart contracts allow you to do things on a small scale that would have required enormous institutions in the past. The ability for any individual to create their own tokens obviously allows institutions to do it too.
Since cryptocurrencies are more powerful than previous systems, it shouldn't be surprising that they support a superset of the scams that previously ran.
They also support an unprecedented level of programmability, default to open api access, a new spectrum of choices for trust, the ability to run transactions across financial products from different providers, faster settlement, are based on actually modern methods of cryptography (unlike bank accounts), and have injected a massive amount of energy into some extremely interesting zero knowledge cryptography.
It's actually pretty surprising to me that the majority of 'hackers' on 'hackernews' don't seem more excited about the ability to create programmable tokens of their own.
> Those things are caused by humans taking advantage of whatever system of value transfer exists, of course people will do the best they can to reinvent these things on top of new value systems.
It would be nice if at least one person would leapfrog all this 1850s US Frontier West banking history, which was dominated by frauds and theft, and offer us a system working under modern reforms: Glass–Steagall Act, Sarbanes–Oxley, similar rules-that-make-it-work from Europe. Best practices.
To use the same approach that the modern financial system uses, we'll need legal systems to catch up, I presume that that will happen, even if a lot of the community don't really want it to. Some of it can be addressed in new ways of course, but there are some aspects that fundamentally need a working legal system to implement.
On the other hand, unlike the actual infinite money printer central bank, nobody forces you to use obvious scams like tether. You don't need to use a centralised exchange because smart contracts make it possible to use decentralised exchanges. Smart contracts allow you to do things on a small scale that would have required enormous institutions in the past. The ability for any individual to create their own tokens obviously allows institutions to do it too.
Since cryptocurrencies are more powerful than previous systems, it shouldn't be surprising that they support a superset of the scams that previously ran.
They also support an unprecedented level of programmability, default to open api access, a new spectrum of choices for trust, the ability to run transactions across financial products from different providers, faster settlement, are based on actually modern methods of cryptography (unlike bank accounts), and have injected a massive amount of energy into some extremely interesting zero knowledge cryptography.
It's actually pretty surprising to me that the majority of 'hackers' on 'hackernews' don't seem more excited about the ability to create programmable tokens of their own.