I've been playing around with different money. In my practice, I accept dollars but also metals, Goldbacks, and BTC. Goldbacks have been remarkably durable so far - people are accepting them AND spending them, and the manufacturers keep selling out. It's fun to watch. When a system has existed (private banking) and then we end up here, I ask myself, "how did we end up here, and can that be avoided in the future?" One argument I've heard for BTC is NOT that it is useful as a layer 1 or even layer 2 transactional instrument, but that, because it is fundamentally constrained by physical laws, it serves as a type of "trust hedge." Governments, or private banks, are constrained by the competitive pressure it creates because people can always move large sums of money from one to the other. Now, the existence of gold *should* be able to do the same thing, but the portability issue and the ability to physically control the stock has made that market too manipulable. That the government might be able to corrupt BTC would just add to everything else that they already corrupt, and it seems more difficult to corrupt. The goal, in my mind, is dynamic decentralization that creates constant tension and naturally checks the system; a little bit of chaos is better than too much order, even in money. Too much order in money gave us the combination of sclerosis and chaos we are about to descend into.