It really has a bad reputation in the general population because many of them are intransparent and full of scammers trying to make a quick buck.

I have no illusion that central banks operate independent of government, that thought seems ridiculous. Nobody is allowed to say it though, as there is nobody allowed to say that many countries are basically broke.

I still think that some currencies will establish themselves, but the gold rush seems to have damaged the reputation of most currencies.

Not sure why this article is being upvoted. It contains nothing of value. There is no cogent argument, nor any novelty.

Turn back now and save yourself the time.

As an aside, it would be nice for HN to have a domain filtering feature. I've noticed more and more junk articles being upvoted for their title with no attention paid to their content. Perhaps the most filtered domains could also be (optionally) down weighted

Stablecoins / Central Bank Digital Currencies are equivalent to AOL vs the Internet.

Why would I hold stablecoins that are getting devalued at a MINUMUM of 2% per year over Bitcoin that has gone up in value on average at over 200% a year for the last 10 years. Not to mention other cryptos.

The article has some historical paragraphs, then abruptly ends with fluff. Not worth the time to read.

What's crumbling (and this wasn't hard to predict half a decade ago) is the silly idea that cryptos are a financial asset which could replace fiat currencies.

But the promise of their use for permissionless transactions is still there. Perhaps you won't buy 1 BTC for $33K and sit on it until it hits $100K and McAffee is no longer with us to eat his dick on TV, but you'll still want to buy some crypto and use it for permissionless apps.

Once the feds opened coinbase all was lost.