A lot of people don't know just how corrupt the IOC is, I suspect if this was common knowledge there would be a hugely increased number of people calling for boycotts of the Olympics.
In a heavily inflationary environment this practice could turn out to be entirely maladaptive. What percentage of inflation year on year will you change your mind at? Do you even have a line?
Just be very careful with this stuff and make sure to talk to a psychiatrist that knows what they are doing. I've seen a few people get prescribed benzodiazepines for anxiety related issues from general practitioners who didn't know what they were doing and the results were vastly worse than if nothing had been done. A tolerance can very quickly be built in which this class of drugs become vastly less effective and the withdrawals in particular were especially brutal. A public case of this was seen recently with Jordan Peterson lately and it shows just how serious this matter is (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ktjZhih3LQ for an example of how serious the health consequences are).
Whatever you do just make sure you are informed, psychoactive drugs are a serious matter.
The monetary system in many places was already mostly private, most money is created by commercial banks and we have institutions like central banks with private ownership in many countries.
I think a lot of skilled software developers might be unaware of just how bad the practices can be in non-software companies regarding software development.
A few years back I remember a big corp explicitly telling me that a project for an Excel based integration between some systems would have easily got buyin and budget. Despite it being in a broader sense a crappy tool for the job due to everyone having excel installed and almost nobody being able to get approval in a reasonable amount of time for anything else to get installed it did appear to be the easiest option in the circumstances. Before this I think I was one of those people who just ruled out using Excel for integrations because I just couldn't see how it could possibly be the best option in any circumstances.
It's a bit like getting struck by lightning, you deal with this when it happens if it happens. This is sufficiently unlikely for most people that it's not worth being too concerned about it when other exceedingly more dangerous and pressing matters could be dealt with using that same energy.
I think there's a massive difference between the government owning things and the central bank owning things for the reasons you mention about accountability.
Bitcoin had design goals in mind to avoid certain downsides of centralized currencies. The cryptocurrency space however lives inside the broader economy and questions about what money is and the regulations around it don't go away just because a specific cryptocurrency thought about some of these aspects in it's design. Even if bitcoin were to solve everyone's problems as some maximalists would claim how do we even implement this? Considering much of the world doesn't have holdings in bitcoin what are we to do? Similarly what do we do about people who don't have the infrastructure to run full nodes? What about dealing with interference with using the cryptocurrency imposed by external actors?
There's good reasons why people discuss these ideas, bitcoin, much like anything else is just part of the direction things can go in and it doesn't exist in isolation from the rest of the world.
I'm trying to encourage a discussion about what money itself should be. I think without this discussion it will be very hard to make effective regulations around money and the implications this has on the operations of the banking system. Once people are more informed about these topics better regulation will be possible. Frankly I don't see people talk about the fundamentals of money much, the current monetary system is convenient enough for most people such that they don't have to think about the details of how it works in their day to day lives.
It would seem that the temptation to set the price of everything is increased when there are impediments to setting the interest rate (since this removes an important monetary policy lever). I think this has been seen lately as the zero-lower-bound on nominal interest rates has started to come into play in many places.
I'm not sure why you'd take from this that I'm ignoring the role of regulation when I'm commenting on a situation whereby the regulatory framework of central banks allows them to take actions that damage the signaling power of pricing. I most definitely think that banks and central banks must be carefully regulated because they have the special privilege of creating money and with this comes a lot of responsibility.
The other part though is that if money is corrupted it impacts the process of regulation itself. For example creating good regulation to tax companies is made far more difficult when there's fundamental differences between the nature of the money that those companies themselves have access to. I'm sure it would be possible with a large amount of effort to have regulations with non-fungible money but there's challenges there that would be substantially difficult to address and the complexity of that regulation would come with it's own non-zero costs to society.
I strongly believe that money itself has been corrupted lately, this then causes all number of bad flow on effects to happen. A massive shift happened when central banks started getting involved in direct purchases of various asset types and we started to see a major distortion happen in monetary policy that which has distorted the functioning of money itself. For example who would care if their business is completely unprofitable if it could get access to freshly printed money every quarter to prop it up. What then happens to all the other businesses who don't get access to that freshly created money? When we have situations like the BoJ owning more than 60% of the Nikkei 225 we really ought to be asking some serious questions about if we really have free markets? We also should be asking some questions about the properties we desire in money itself. If a central monetary agency can go about unconventional monetary policy such as purchasing equities we can quickly have a situation whereby an unelected group of bureaucrats can damages the ability of money to be used as a means to convey information. Further there's questions about picking winners and losers that comes up there too. As a whole I think people need to ask what money is again and have some serious conversations about what money and the monetary system should be. It seems that these difficult questions really fell out of favor a while ago and as a result things have been drifting in a direction that many people aren't comfortable with.
If we don't ask these questions then technological approaches to money, like various cryptocurrencies and other financial technologies are unlikely to actually cause long lasting improvements. We have some serious monetary policy problems in the world right now and while some tech could help (in some cases) these aren't primarily technological problems.
I think the stimulus feedback loop you mention is exactly the situation that could provoke strong inflation. Were the markets free of this intervention/interference I'd be strongly in the deflationary camp because fundamentals worldwide are not good at all. But that's the bothersome thing, since the repo crisis of 2019 I've not been bullish on fundamentals but yet asset prices just keep inflating regardless. The pullback in 2020 being the shortest bear market I've ever seen followed by all time highs is what changed my mind on the potential of inflation, before that point I just didn't see it as possible at all given the weak global fundamentals. But yet there we say a situation where fundamentals were terrible but the market rebounded so fast. The upside-down stimulus driven market where bad news implies more stimulus implies higher asset prices could turn what would traditionally have been a strongly a deflationary situation into one where inflation occurs via rampant monetization and fiscal/monetary interventions. The question I keep asking is if the interventions can outpace the deflationary fundamentals? The introduction of Central Bank Digital Currencies would be a major change if for no other reason than they allow more monetary interventions to be done faster and more directly than before.
I have to say I thought the most ridiculous name I'd see in this space was coins named after people's dogs. This not-even-a-name might be even more ridiculous. It reminds me of those spam emails where they the writing forms an effective filter on the people who reply, the idea being that they are so ludicrous that only a sucker would reply (hence saving the time of the scammers on interacting with people who reply but won't fall for the scam). I have to say I'm super sick of all the bullshit happening in the crypto space at the moment because I think it really tarnishes the reputation of everything in the space including some decentralized apps and decentralized finance stuff that could actually be a massive net positive to everyone.