introducing speculative assets into the housing market has caused some problems before.
it’s for corrupt purposes, of course:
The blockchain idea is being pushed, a HUD official told colleagues, by Irving Dennis. Dennis, the agency’s new principal deputy chief financial officer, is a former partner at the global consulting giant EY, also commonly known by its original name, Ernst & Young. EY itself is involved in the proposal as well: An executive of the firm discussed the idea with HUD officials last month.
a followup story: https://www.propublica.org/article/hud-cryptocurrency-blockchain-democrats-maxine-waters
Oh pray tell, what is the potential you saw in the technology? Was it the part where every transaction costs immense amounts of power and time and resource usage grows superlinearly with respect to usage? Or the part where the monetary system can be controlled by a few oligarchs with the most computing power or market cap of the currency instead of full nation states? Or the part where making payments comes with a built in fee, a bit like a tax without the upside of funding anything?
Or maybe you just like the part where governments can’t print money to enact keynesian new deal style spending because boo hoo muh inflation. Maybe you think money should be made of magic yellow metal so that you can’t invent more of it when needed? If you want to try what it’s like when the state can’t arbitrarily mint more cash, try living in the Eurozone. Some of us are fine, but many sure think they could use that moolah printer. Somehow not getting to conjure up new Euros at the drop of a hat has not brought in the triumph of the People’s Economics.
Money without a state is not a better money, it’s just nonsense. Money is always a tool of vertical power structures. A state government is just about the least worst entity to have control over money. Don’t privatize money, consider abolishing it instead.