Can decentralized currencies preempt larger centralized event type currency issues? Will they ever lead or will they always be reactionary in nature? Does this really matter with regards to decentralized currencies finding their equilibrium point; especially, as the likely path is to higher frequency of larger events due the exponential and centralizing tendency of debt in our current monetary systems?
As a pre-event example, Steven Keen is gaining mainstream appeal by applying mathematics and programming to economic/cultural issues. This video highlights with reference to Steven some resolution about the nature of the next high probability western fiat event, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2015/feb/04/another-economic-crash-is-coming-how-did-this-happen-video?CMP=share_btn_tw
My take is that at the economic level centralist are implementing only trendline mitigating reactionary political solutions. Classically breaking trendline has most often been post war. Then again, you can sketch most things as post war?
I see the likes of Steven Keen (economics with engineering principles) and David Graeber (cultural) at the margin of the mainstream. Decentralized currencies are surviving at the margin. Are there resources at the margin that can be better utilized to advance decentralized currencies for addressing the wider impacts of currency liquidity events.
Are non-digital currency leaders at the margin resources? For example, should Steven Keen and/or David Graeber be targeted for board input at Ethereum?