> So, we’re choosing between the totalitarianism of the Federal Reserve and the totalitarian of ECash. One has the weight of over a century of history, the other is "a crypto startup *but done by the government*." Perceptions matter. If theres a service interruption or major outage long-enough, or hacks, what do you think people will say of ecash? There will be immediate public outrage from lack of confidence, which will manifest as inter and intraparty conflicts and splinterings, which will lead to the uniparty regime becoming further paralyzed, moribund, and make the nation *less confident* and *less compliant* with the federal regime. This has all the sufficient conditions to lead to a loss of confidence or attempted breakaway (in all but name), splitting states from the federal system. The precursor environment is already there--gun laws, abortion, energy policy, immigration, marijuana, etc. If the states are not united *culturally*, we have to ask, how can they stay united *politically*? and thats just it. The breakup is baked in the cards, *even ignoring* the economic and demographic factors. ECash removes the weight of precedent, and no one likes change, which amplifies that effect. a move to ecash will hasten the end, though the banks are stupid enough to think they can soften the reset and save themselves or buy time by doing it. We should encourage them to make this mistake.