@badtux @cstross
<straps self in; possibly unpopular opinion>
This came up in a discussion the other day, and I only half-jokingly mused about futures and commodities exchanges for RAM and vector compute. Yes, exchanges can and do lead to speculation, but the timing is tight, delivery _is_ taken, and there's no floating contracts for weeks or months on end.
Yup, there are plenty of opportunities for corruption and manipulation (I'm looking at you, paper silver exchanges and traders) , but the mechanism for transparency and efficiency at and regulation at least _do_ exist alongside the asset, which I think would probably shake out far better than where we are now... speculation on the port of large corporate market makers that happens in secret with little to no accountability, alongside an administration I don't anticipate enforcing antitrust meaningfully anytime soon.
The current system is blatantly inefficient and counterproductive, and invites corruption and wild price swings, and those who are doing actually interesting work, or just the gamer, suffer for it. An actual exchange for these wouldn't be perfect but, but I think less bad. The only alternative would be price fixing (something TFG floated right after "Liberation Day") and rationing, which, like other interventional schemes like tariffs, would invite wider nominal-real price splits and a huge black market that would be flocked to by down-on-their-luck cryptogrifters.
Not a frothy free marketer here, but damn if we couldn't use some more transparency, accountability, and skin in the game for these things.
Not a professional economist here. I'm sure there is a counterargument, but I am past entertaining arguments predicated administrative intervention.
I think P≈0.0 that this would ever happen, for the record, but it's an interesting thought experiment.
<keeps buckle fastened>