<div class="text-justify">


I am back at work today and it has been okay so far, but it has also been a bit awkward to be in what is a familiar, but feels like an alien environment. What is familiar though is that pretty much as soon as I arrived and sat down at my desk, my cryptolleagues (a term for "colleagues in crypto" I just coined) started talking prices and speculating on the near-future movements. 



![vacuum.jpg](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/tarazkp/23tGTUaJ4LSGqzbs6qgsTwk5EvGVHkJWgLTdbAWaNHYhwyj7GYe2THhPwc4FNugDLbwEQ.jpg)



One of the things they are somewhat lamenting is what I am sure many are, *not buying at the 30K Bitcoin dip, nor the 1700 Ethereum dip. It takes a "brave soul" to buy on the way down, because everyone wants to get the bottom and when buying "too early", it feels very much like a missed opportunity. Funnily though, if a person buys on the way up at the same price and it keeps climbing, they feel really good about themselves, even though buying at a price is buying at a price, up or down. 

Of course, this depends if there is going to be an up coming, but I assume that most people getting into crypto (or investing in general) have the expectation that there will be a significant increase in prices to warrant their investment. Now that Bitcoin is up almost 60% and Ethereum has almost doubled in price over the last few weeks, the "wish I bought more" thoughts are prevalent. 

The title of this post came from briefly talking to another friend this morning and joking about retiring on Splinterlands holdings, something I myself will unlikely be able to do, but several I know could probably do it now. They said, "they aren't banking" on being able to, but who knows.

Everything is *certainly uncertain.*


>Bank on something
*Fig. to be so sure of something that one can trust it as one might trust a bank with one's money.*

It is a funny phrase to use perhaps these days, as increasingly, people *are not trusting* their money with a bank and in many ways, they are being encouraged to move away from *putting money* into the bank, as the interest rates on savings are so poor, that saving money is actually a negative for wealth generation. 

This pushes people into investing into something, which up until recent years, were the domain of the financial institutions anyway. Since they themselves are the primary investors into many of the businesses, whenever people buy-in, they benefit and, they can direct customers toward investing into what they benefit from the most. What the banks can be trusted to do is to maximize their profits, regardless of what it means for their customers as individuals. All they care about are the market trends. 

We hear stories in the media about people losing the family farm to *callous banks,* as if it is a surprise that an organization that has a a model of maximization of profits using the economy itself should care. Banks aren't people, they are algorithms geared toward supporting their goal of increasing their own wealth. And, that wealth isn't bound to a human life, nor does it have to worry about paying inheritance tax, as it is lifeless and eternal. It can generate wealth across generations forever and the more they do, the more they can. 

Rather than trusting the banks, I think more are going to be looking for alternatives and once they realize that many of the traditional alternatives are already stacked against them, they will look for non-traditional options. This means that *not blockchaining on it* might become a more appropriate expression, especially since be design, a blockchain is immutable, meaning that at least from the sense of what is recorded, it can be trusted. 

I don't know where the future is heading and the discussion of the increasing legislation came up, where they expect Bitcoin to have an easier time of it than say, Ethereum. I think that this is testament to the control the institutions have as what *they back* will get legislative support, because they can influence the decisions at the government level. However, this in no way kills off the alternatives and is more likely to drive people to seek them, in the same way they are now in respect to the traditional vehicles. 

What is interesting in regards to legislation is that for years the governments ad institutions have taken the approach and broadcast to the world that they believe crypto is worthless, that it holds no value - yet their very need to try to legislate to control it proves otherwise. But, they have not yet fully understood that the crypto industry is a can of worms that generates new worms from both in and outside of the can. It is going to get messy for sure, especially if we choose not to conform to the directorates given us. 

I no longer know what retirement is going to mean for most people, considering that for many, there is likely not going to be the retirement funding they have worked their lives for available when they need it. But, I do not believe that banking on government or institution to be there is a safe strategy, as it is just not in the best interest of their business model to do so. It is probably prudent for us all to find a way to provide for ourselves and most likely, the best way to do this will be finding a way to provide for each other, to generate and manage value ourselves, rather than relying on a company that by design, doesn't care about us. 

Maybe the banks will change.
*But I'm not blockchaining on it.* 

Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]

</div>

Posted Using [LeoFinance <sup>Beta</sup>](https://leofinance.io/@tarazkp/not-gonna-blockchain-on-it)