The federal courts can create law solely because overruling them is nigh impossible. The Supreme Court exists to rule on constitutional matters, but it is merely the final arbiter and uses that to its advantage based on case law they made for themselves.
Overruling the Supreme Court requires a constitutional amendment and this won't happen, and the court rarely does something untenable or an impossible outcome for a functioning society as it wants compliance. It tries to match a partial collective conscious understanding of a topic.
When it does act as fill-in legislature, Congress/Legislatures are capable of simply changing the law it ruled on, such as repealing the legal framework supporting enforcement agency.
The courts can also overrule itself in a future court case.
(The Supreme Court exists by the constitution, the other federal courts are created by congress and have a path to the supreme court.)
Is it wasting though? Do you consider vaults a waste? Do you consider 2-3% CC fees a waste?
We already have costs built into the current system (e.g. cc fees to make up for fraud, security systems around protecting gold + cash). Electricity is just the cost of that specific system - I think calling it a waste is not necessarily justified.
Credit card fees are 2-3% for a reason -- you can get 2% cash back as a customer with a no-annual-fee card for instance. Then there's the fact that credit cards are loans, and there's a cost to lending. Finally, credit cards come with protections (chargebacks), guarantees, additional warranties and all sort of other customer-friendly services that people want. And obviously are willing to pay 2-3% for.
In the EU where people don't want the system to work like that interchange fees were capped in 2015 at 0.2% for debit and 0.3% for credit [1]. If that's what you want, there's a proven model for establishing it. In Australia it's capped at 0.88% for credit and the greater of 16.5c or 0.22% on debit [2].
Did you know Bitcoin alone ALREADY used 0.5% of world electricity at the end of 2018, even though nobody really uses it? [3] It's like we're all paying a 0.5% surcharge on top of everything we do, which is double the price of EU interchange. Just to support some ancap pyramid scheme that people agree solves largely 1 class of problem: payments for illegal goods and services, while pretending to solve all the worlds problems, just poorly.
2-3% CC fees are a waste. But you don't need blockchains to fix that. You need someone to legislatively force the CC companies to stop playing the cashback bullshit game, which is the real cost driver (much more than fraud) as it funnels money from cash and debit card users to high-reward CC users, while burning a lot of it on the way for managing all of that overhead that is of no help at all when it comes to making financial transactions.
It happens to be that the EU is such a "someone". In EU countries, CC interchange fees are limited to 0,3%, debit fees to 0,2%, effectively resulting in much cheaper rates to be paid by merchants (whether big or small) for card acceptance.
Thoughtful legislation and an effective, fair and trusted executive branch, both with the necessary checks and balances, trump any blockchain, at least as long as we are talking about legal transactions.
Your whole post missed the important part about what can get funded and where.
NYC is coming up, but the graveyard of quirky disruptors would still only be pursued in Silicon Valley. These non revenue generating companies acting as developer daycare need to be flipped from one portfolio to the next until you have a deal size big enough to matter, swap out the board and executive team and shop it to the public markets, ka-ching. New York VCs and other markets cant and wont chase developer daycare companies on a broad enough scale to grow these into deals.
Maybe I'm missing something, but why are you talking only in terms of massive funding and growth. The GP stated that they're seeing success in smaller (I don't actually know the size) companies due to capitalizing on a local or hyperlocal need. That's far from disrupt, fund, flip, and retire, and it's a perfectly viable way to start, grow and maintain a business.
Again, I could be missing the entire point of your comment.
I more or less responded to this in response to "etblg", but you'd be amazed at the amount of funding available from angels, local governments, provincial governments, and federal governments.
No, we probably won't be building the next Facebook up in Sudbury. We don't need to.
But we can do extremely well being "big fish in a small pond", as the saying goes. Our strength is mining. Very few communities have the concentrated resources and expertise that we do in this very specific sector.
I think your point of view is a little VC centric. If you're a community leader in any city like ours, your ambition isn't to attract billions of dollars of investment to build the next unicorn. I mean, sure, we wouldn't say no to it. But the actual challenge we're trying to solve is job creation. To create jobs faster than they can disappear.
If we throw all our money willy-nilly at any tech startup, we're not going to get a good return on that investment. Startups notoriously fail at a ridiculously high rate.
But we can look at our strengths, and build upon them.
non revenue generating companies acting as developer daycare need to be flipped from one portfolio...
I wonder what's going to happen when, at some point, the Saudi Arabia Sovereign Wealth Fund stops putting money into Softbank. They're currently the world's largest source of dumb money. That can't last forever.[1]
Apologies if the point was sarcasm, but you never know. It isn't obvious to me that this behavior is in any way helpful for success or even that it's the only way for success. Sudbury can probably do just fine for itself with another approach.
Also you dont need hockey stick growth if you dont take VC capital or any outside capital
Businesses like this make more for founders when they dont take outside capital. With obsessions on growth and liquidation preferences, a business like this likely wouldnt result in a windfall for a founder during an exit event.
I want to see this feature film so people stop wasting their time with them