Efficiency is not the end-all. That's something that fiat money encourages because of the constant need to keep up with monetary expansion. Centralization is the end-state of over-indexing on efficiency because scale is the easiest way to achieve it.

There are other qualities, like resilience and innovation, where you can look for alternative ways to do something which aren't explored much in today's economy. There's a lot of interesting things that have been locked out from an economic perspective from being explored. We're now finally beginning to explore them because we have the room to do so with Bitcoin.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Go to the gym

The free market should demand efficiency as things fall to the marginal cost of production. Inefficiency is punished on the free market. That being said, high quality, “resilience” (whatever that means to you in your OP), safety, and innovation are also things valued on the free market. Innovation is especially rewarded on the free market; see, entrepreneurial activity. Most firms/companies would leverage the profits from their highly profitable (efficient) main enterprise to fund internal R&D to find those innovations and bring them to market as a first mover.

The inefficiency argument against central planning pales into insignificancy compared the moral argument against it.

I had this discussion last night with nostr:nprofile1qqs2a6z08rggz9fa76xr8mjzx5yrwrymt5x3j4vg7v4mqdfv02v298qpzdmhxue69uhhwmm59e6hg7r09ehkuef0l324pz& another pleb.

If resilience is important, we need to resist the temptation to centralise coordination.

As you say it's much more efficient to centralise but then things become more fragile & open to corruption/capture.

Empowering others to be their own leader is a more chaotic & resource consuming path. You end up with diverse & resilient systems with few single points of failure.