Yes, actually. There is a profound potential in cryptocurrencies: the ability to bind our hands to something that no one can change. Normally, when we talk of diplomacy and war between countries, political philosophy has always faced the same problem: who guards the guardians? As in, who is powerful enough to hold the major powers accountable? In the current system, the U.N. is the most global political body, but it doesn't have binding power against the security council.

But now, imagine every nation's bank account was held in cryptocurrency. Now, further, imagine all countries agreed that if another nation launched a war, their military accounts would automatically be frozen or drained. Sort of like how NATO created an umbrella defense system from "an attack against one is an attack against all." Similarly, an attack anywhere could be "an attack against all," and the punishment could be automatically enforced, even against major world powers.

Obviously, this doesn't eliminate the "root cause of war," nor is it especially plausible in the near future, nor does it show how it would be politically viable to transition to such a world (why would the U.S. or China or Russia relinquish their power?). But -- it at least presents a plausible, albeit simplified, logic behind how cryptocurrency and blockchain could be foundational in political institutions which could mitigate if not altogether eliminate the ability for nation's to wage war.