Cryptocurrency: ETH Just As Shady As BTC, XRP etc , Propaganda, Privacy

[grarpamp]

Does anyone else find it funny that we’re al just trying to take money
out of each other’s pockets?COMEDY

Got Privacy-Coins, Cross-Coin-Anon-DEX, Yet?
No, Trading on Robinhood is not "Free": Your Bank Account Activity is
being Recorded and Trading Activity Data being Sold to Hedge Founds,
Robinhood is the Facebook of Trading
I feel like Facebook’s Meta is another step towards a world like
1984’s Big Brother, and it’s anti crypto.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoReality/comments/qw4qtw/crypto_influencers_media_kit_leaked_online/
STOP LISTENING TO CONTENT CREATORS. They are selling you hopium and
making a lot of money doing it. They are the pickaxe sellers of the
Gold Rush.


https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/qw2e32/eth_is_bad_and_i_am_tired_of_pretending_its_not/
I am going to open up by saying that some of the following is going to
be FACT and some of it will be OPINION. However, the opinion will
never prevail over the facts. Also, depending on traction I may do a
second post with some more up to debate things.
I also know that the title alone will lead to downvotes, some of you
won’t even read it before downvoting. It is a shame that people forgot
downvotes are supposed to be used to penalize off-topic and not to
punish unpopular opinions, not to create echo chambers.
So let’s get to it shall we?

ETH is shady:
Not only is ETH a security, it has always been manipulated by well
connected and powerful people behind the scenes. The connections
between the ETH Foundation, ConsenSys, and the SEC are totally public
knowledge. Jay Clayton, the former SEC chairman, was a partner at
Sullivan and Cromwell.
Joe Lubin, co-founder of ETH, also founded ConsenSys. He also bought
9.5% of ETH supply.
ConsenSys is a client of Sullivan and Cromwell.
That was the back door ETH used to get the free pass on regulations.
There are court papers about the meetings between ConsenSys and the SEC.
At the same time, the SEC was prosecuting DOZENS of ICOs that were
using the exact same approach ETH was.
Hinman’s, Clayton’s Director of Corporate Finance, speech where he
says ETH is not a security was partly WRITTEN by some of ETH top
investors.
The plan by ConsenSys with the help of the SEC was clearly to make ETH
the only crossborders payment platform by giving it a free pass, while
at the same time preventing any incursion into that space with SEC
lawsuits.
At the same time this was happening, Gary Gensler told an MIT audience
that “XRP deserved regulatory clarity”. (I won’t go in depth with the
Ripple lawsuit here).
Not only is Chairman Gensler trying to pretend he never said that, and
the entire SEC trying to hide the fact they gave ETH a free pass, to
date ETH is the only altcoin to have had the privilege of being
formally consider a commodity/currency and not a security.
Other funny “coincidences” include: Claydon being hired by a crypto
hedge fund 100% invested in BTC and ETH. SEC Enforcement Director Marc
Berger being hired by Simpson Thatcher and Bartlett, part of the ETH
Alliance and Hinman’s prior employer, less than a month after the
Ripple lawsuit was filled. Hinman receiving $15 Million, during his
service on the SEC, from Simpson Thatcher and Bartlett. AND after
leaving the SEC, Hinman returned to Simpson Thatcher and Bartlett as a
senior crypto adviser.

ETH is centralized:
Users and nodes have no real power to shape the protocol. This is
virtually true of all protocols with a Foundation at it’s head, but we
can’t forget ETH falls under this group.
The first piece of evidence here is the ETC hard fork. This fork
happened because the wrong people lost money. The changed the code and
the protocol for the first time to suit the wealthy whales and not the
users or miners. They changed the rules to fit their goals.
The second piece comes in the form of changes to mining rewards. This
was a blatant attempt to decrease supply by not paying the miners.
More important than the way it impacts the economics of ETH, it points
towards a centralisation of power. Rules can be changed on the fly
with no consideration from the community but based on profits alone
for the higher ups.
This leads us to the PoS change. This has nothing to do with energy
concerns or with price of fees. This is meant to skip all the
intermediate problems by getting rid of miners and let the token
holders leverage their will directly. Don’t forget the LUDICROUS
amount of ETH that was pre-mined.
Every hard fork the Ethereum blockchain has enacted has always been
for the benefit of the few, never for the benefits of the community.
You know what that looks like? Our current banking system. Where the
citizens and the working class pay the price for mistakes and reap
none of the rewards for profit.
People in this sub hate central bank digital currencies, failing to
see that every abuse these could enact on the public, so can Ethereum
upon it’s users.
To quote one of my sources “Etherium is not a decentralized
peer-to-peer system. It is a system with an unaccountable ruling class
exploiting the working class, making promises they can’t keep, while
spinning a wonderful narrative.”

ETH recent and future design is bad:
Everyone was fooled into thinking EIP 1559 was going to be a good
thing. How the Foundation pulled that off is honestly mind boggling.
This change made it so fees were more uniform. Uniformly high. And
making sure that miners saw none of that profit by burning it.
Burning the fees essentially made sure that the biggest holders get
they profits increased because every ETH is worth more, while miners
that actually keep the network safe get a pay cut because there are
less fees per block for them.
But the biggest problem is that you are getting a landlorded network
to users. If you want ETH to be useful, you need to, well, use it. But
this model makes it so the interests of holders are opposite to the
interests of users. Users want lower fees so they can use the network
to transact, but holders want higher fees, for more burn and more
profit.
Taking money out of the pockets of miners decreases security. If you
are paid less you have a higher incentive to get your money some other
ways.
And since users and holders have different agendas, future goals
benefit different people. An interesting question would be for
instance what happens in the case of a block size adjustment? Bigger
or smaller block sized benefit users and holders differently. Well,
given ETH’s history, you know how those chips would fall. Even this
decision was reached by a small amount of key players.
And PoS will only make this whole process more straight forward. The
fact that the token holding are already so centralized will make
changes easier for the ruling class and be baked into the system.

In conclusion:
ETH’s had a shady start, has been controlled by a group of shadow
players on the background, is becoming less and less secure and has no
intention of not being.
At any point, any decision can be hard forked in. The miners don’t
matter. Your nodes don’t matter.
ETH is INTENDED to shackle you the exact same way the current banking
system does.
Don’t be fooled.

Sources:
https://tomerstrolight.medium.com/the-problem-with-ethereum-af9692f4af95
https://www.crypto-law.us/the-ethereum-free-pass-fair-notice-and-the-fight-ahead/
https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2021/09/17/ethereums-design-choices-are-inherently-political/

EDIT: I was enjoying the discussion in the comments, but I am getting
spam downvoted so I will have to stop. This is the state of this sub.

-- DaVirus





https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/qvtezo/schools_showing_anticrypto_propaganda_to_students/
I thought some may be interested in this. My son told me that the
student news channel they watch was on the topic of crypto today. He
said it was all about how crypto mining and NFTs are destroying the
environment and causing climate change.

He said they also talked about people getting paid in crypto. The
episode suggested that paying people in crypto is some horrible
inhumane practice because it’s unstable.

Just to be clear, I haven’t seen this myself but I trust that my son
wasn’t making this up. He said he thought that some of the things they
were saying weren’t true so he was looking for clarification on it.

Personally, I find it a little disturbing that they’re misrepresenting
and showing only one viewpoint on this technology to middle school
children. A lot of them just blindly believe what they’re told because
they haven’t developed critical think skills at that age.

Update: I asked my son what the news they watch at school is called
and I have the exact video in question. What they’re watching is CNN
10, “an on-demand digital news show ideal for explanation seekers on
the go or in the classroom.” I have some people complaining that I’m
just calling fair criticisms propaganda. I’ll post the link and you
can watch it yourself and decide if it seems fair to you.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/cnn10/2021/11/14/ten-1115.cnn

I don't want to respond to everyone who is telling me everything in
the video is true so here is my explanation for what I personally
think is wrong with the way the video presents the topic.

Keep in mind that I hadn’t seen the video myself before posting this.
I posted the link for people to judge themselves.

Personally, I think the video is extremely biased. The host briefly
mentions a benefit of crypto but then immediately brushes it off and
starts debunking it. The video also gives the impression that
government oversight and regulation is not only good but necessary for
a currency to work which I believe is at the very least subjective
opinion and probably downright false.

Finally, the thing about buying an NFT using the same amount of energy
as driving 500 miles is false. That’s not how ethereum works. The host
also acts as if banks, state and Federal governments and the Federal
Reserve don’t use electricity. I don’t think bringing up electricity
is a valid criticism of crypto unless they’re going to compare it to
the existing financial infrastructure.