There’s an interesting insight on the possible reasons why the idea of decentralisation of money has gained friction over the past couple of years. What ignites its relevance to an age of drastic and fragile transition to digital forms? Apart from the technicalities and advantages of the use of asymmetric cryptography to substitute the way we transact articles of trade, digital currencies are a highly economic advancement. The mere traits of strengthened security a cryptographic hash entails have transcended just an innovation of technology, but rather become social and tangible assets (however volatile).
Analysts argue that cryptocurrencies are a purely technological progression, and that the Bitcoin ecosystem is filled with geeks who don’t understand the intricacies and idiosyncrasies of economics. That conclusion, of course, is a bit of an assumption, but the general populace can sometimes find the way cryptocurrencies are designed to be convoluted. For instance, Bitcoin evangelists have strived to make sure that the public knows how easy it is to deal, trade, and transact with digital currencies, exhausting alternative coins and minting new ones to target a specific niche of need and inspire interest. From that perspective alone, there is economics at work already with the cryptocurrency fashioning itself to satisfy an established demand.