Sound decentralized money is to finance as literacy is to the written word

If we didn't recognize the superiority of the written word over oral tradition, and thus the value of literature for our advancement and welfare, we wouldn't be learning to read and write, but occupy our time in a different way.

It's often been said that the introduction of the possibility of a sound, decentralized form of electronic money, in the form of Bitcoin as it was presented in 2008, is a technological revolution in finance, something that will take time to be recognized by the larger population and appreciated for the benefits it could bring.

The scaling of blockchain technology to serve the masses is well underway in the hands of those skilled in the field, but the "literacy" aspect of the general population is what will determine the general adoption, or not, of this invention.

It is also well understood that "programmable money" could be made to enforce permissions and centrally directable behaviors on its users, if they are not careful about their choices. One could say that the ability to keep using decentralized, sound, programmable money comes with some responsibility on us to make sure the money remains accessible and does not begin to drain the rights of the individuals to use it away to some third parties.

That requires a degree of vigilance that we need to muster, just as we will need to exercise in our consumption of media in this age of AI-generable content.

A starting point is to ask the question:

"Am I even allowed to read what I need to verify whether this is good for me?"

If the answer is yes, the next questions might be:

"Is this within my grasp to understand, or is it too complex - meaning I have to trust others about it? Can I form that trust in a decentralized way or am I putting all my trust into one basket here?"

If not, is should always be ok to stick with simpler, yet effective technology that fulfills the task.

There is risk-taking involved with more complex, new technology that hasn't been proven over some time, and nothing wrong with assuming only limited risk while reaching an information level you deem adequate.

For example, even if the most basic user interface of a parachute may seem intuitive (there's a handle, you pull it), it may still be very helpful to be able to fully understand the instructions on its use, so that you know that opening it below a certain minimum altitude won't result in the effect you want.