When you recognize the inevitability of institutions launching their own successful blockchain ecosystems, people usually end up at a cross roads You either 1) go full anarcho-libertarian, ‘fuck the corpos’ and try to maximize for your idealistic utopian version of the world, but ultimately settle for creating an underground market that serves as an ‘opt-out’ of the traditional system, given the ideology largely doesn’t scale until people need a life raft Or 2) you accept the reality of capitalism that public chains will have to compete with bank/fintech chains, and most won’t fare well given we don’t actually need 573285628 commoditized ‘public settlement layer’ copies of the EVM, and that crypto will actually benefit from established user distribution, capital, and scale that institutions bring The neat part is that these ideologies are not mutually exclusive, they will play out in parallel There will be many chains leveraging all kinds of different architecture (L1 & L2, public & private, etc), and the market will decide who the winners are Personally, I believe crypto can and will have a positive impact on society, but only if it can actually scale and tap into the existing financial systems where the vast majority of people’s assets exist Otherwise, it doesn’t matter how trustless and pristine your blockchain is, if the only people using it are a few thousand crypto degens gambling on tokens of questionable value If you’re already calling for the failure of bank/fintech chains because their very existence threatens the value prop of your public chain bags, you should think deeply about what the next 10 years of crypto will likely look like(Zach Rynes | CLG)