I'm gonna give a sentiment that is pretty anti change, so I encourage argument against it cause I do want change towards better, gooder, nicer!
The thing is though... I don't think you should tear down systems that are doing something, until you've removed the need for doing that something, or created a better system for doing that something, in which case the original system should fade naturally. I think of this especially with respect to finance and governence.
I'm not certain some crypto currency will ever be better for the world than traditional finance, but I'm pretty sure one will. So the thing to do in this case would be to identify all the things old money is still doing better than crypto, and implementing things with crypto that to that thing better. Once crypto is doing everything old money did better, everyone will just want to switch. If it's done right, this will include people who supported banks, bankers, and hopefully even actors who use the existence of banks for malevolent actions. I wouldn't mind if that last category switched over begrudgingly.
Governance would be a bit more difficult. The thing governments do that is actually quite useful is the soliciting of "donations" (taxes) and distribution to public services. I'd like to see that replaced by, maybe something like paytreon tbh. Donations to public infrustruction maintainance. Donations to managing political relations with other parts of the world. Donations to public healthcare. Donations to education. People like making their lawns and gardens look nice, they should care about their roads and everything being nice as well, but you don't get out your ashfault paver on the weekend like you get out your lawn mower, you donate to road maintainance. Coupling this back to bragging rights would help. "Hey did you see the improvements to the old bridge? Yeah, I was one of the contributers to that!"
Because people ideally should like the things that their taxes go to. The government is supposed to represent the will of the people. If everything was online and volentary like that it should become more transparent.
One issue there would be the dynamics of public opinion and education... really people should be saying what things they care about and then teams work out the best strategies to achieve those things. It seems right now people say what strategies they care about, and thats probably a problem.
The bigger issue with creating something that does what governments do but better is that a bunch of what governments to is to manage the monopoly on violence... which is pretty unpleasant. I think what's really needed here are some really skilled game thorists to come up with incentive gradients that slowly remove violence from being a reasonable action. Maybe like how in the cold war nukes strongly implied mutual destruction, so neither the US nor the USSR wanted to do anything, but somehow and all levels. That's just an example though... the cold war was actually pretty scary. Hopefully actually skilled game theorists could come up with better and comfier strategies. The point is though, that the monopoly on violence right now is serving some purpose to some people, and that purpose needs to be made irrelevent, and then it should fade on it's own.
Using the past to work with the present to move to the future...
Of course I'm not sure how much sense that really makes and it sure is high level and hard to act on. What do you sunrise friends think?