Markets can remain irrational longer than rational people can remain solvent. Bitcoin made no sense to me in 2007 and I have yet to see any compelling argument for crypto in general and as an investment it makes as much sense as “investing” in checks. But while I feel confident I’m correct, if I’d tried to bet against it, I’d have lost a lot of money. Doesn’t mean that I’m wrong though.
well eventually, if you have a curious mind, you’ll question or challenge your thought that it’s weird that people have beliefs and stick to them instead of having a curious mind and question or challenge their own thoughts …
I feel that way about nightly entertainment shows that appeared after the news but before prime time. I hated them and saw no case for their existence. The shows seems so fake. Everything hype. But 20 years later people still like these shows and they live on. Just because I have no use for something it doesn't mean someone else might be more clever or resourceful with it.
Betting against cryto is betting that everyone gives up on it which is different than if it will be useful to most.
Cryto can work in different ways for different people. It is not ready for the masses but more people are finding different ways to use it everyday.
Forget Blockchain. Just think of inventing a currency of your own. Paper currency. A designer designs it get it printed through printing press. What's worth of that currency? Then a few dozen more follow the suite and print their own design and own currencies - how much worth is that all? Zero.
Add more limitations that no more than 7 or X number of people can exchange currency notes among themselves at a time and there's no privacy whenever you pay someone, your and their name gets advertised on TV, Radio broadcasts and is printed on NYT frontpage.
I haven’t seen any compelling use case for crypto/blockchain. It’s slower and more expensive than existing solutions for payments and the anonymity is, it turns out, something that can be pierced by law enforcement. NFTs were an obvious scam from the start (except for the suckers who lost money on them). Web3 hasn’t provided any usable solutions. Meanwhile we have a bunch of crypto coins that have no inherent value that are serving as a remarkably long running Ponzi scheme.
Theres nothing irrational about Tether if Binance is being honest. It's possible they're being truthful about not touching customer deposits of fiat USD.
You can't wait to see millions of people lose money and in some cases their livelihoods? Maybe you should stop blaming cancel culture for your declining karma and do a little bit of self-reflection.
What about social media, is that a net negative? Gig economies? Every societal shift enabled by technology comes with significant negatives, but you won't know if it is a true net negative on society until it plays out to maturity.
Yes, absolutely. While it allows people to keep in touch more easily, the manipulation of society via fake news, targeted advertising, etc. has been extremely harmful. It has made people increasingly vainglorious, and promotes wasteful excess in the name of social status (influencers and other parasites on society). It brings out the very worst in people.
Not to forget the rise of far-right extremism. Look at the Qanon thing, what should have been limited to a few paranoid weirdos eventually led to open insurrection. This disgrace would not be possible without social media.
>Gig economies?
Yes. While it is convenient and can benefit some small percentage of the gig workers, it is an overall negative to most of these gig workers - e.g. with ride sharing services they have successfully offloaded the costs of owning and operating a vehicle fleet (fuel, wear and tear / maintenance, etc.) onto people's personal vehicles. I have heard of a number of cases where drivers have taken out loans to purchase luxury cars to be eligible for Uber's higher-end service, only to be stung by pricing changes and forced to default, leaving them far worse off than when they started.
>Every societal shift enabled by technology comes with significant negatives, but you won't know if it is a true net negative on society until it plays out to maturity.
Cryptocurrency has had ~15 years and the only real successes in that space have been new and interesting forms of fraud and incompetence.
It basically acts like gold with more hype because it's on the internet. We have hundreds of years of economic history with gold. It is not some revelation.
If you have any question that crypto is a net negative for society, it is likely pretty hopeless to argue with you. I guess you are invested in crypto, so biased.
Sure, have pity with those with too much money. Of course. Because these people have not chosen deliberately to play with their money. I know there is this sort-of-equivalence of hard drug addicts and gamblers. But in my book, these are all grown up people, that have decided to take a risk to maximize their assets. Not my bussiness at all when they loose the bet.
These commenters missed out on the most lucrative investment of their lifetimes. In their own family and social environment they are considered the technical people, and they get questioned as why they didn't invest. Why they didn't foresee this.
So to keep their own ego alive they must now convince themselves they were right all along, the others just don't see it yet. They are of course very bitter and wish their own suffering onto others.
I, on the other hand, made a shitton of money in crypto, and cashed out a part so I can never lose. The people that I described above really hate these kinds of comments so I'm surely going to be downvoted to hell.
"I benefitted from a Ponzi scheme and you should too"...for every person who cashed out from something technically worthless, there are many others that lost their shirts too...this isn't a valid argument.
I don't get it. I didn't have ten thousands of dollars lying around that I could have invested in 2014 when the hype started but the price was still low. I was in highschool. My mom told me she wanted to invest in Bitcoin at the $20k price point in 2017. Bitcoin is below that now.
What Bitcoin does is reward people who have excess money lying around and who can take the loss. Any person who actually needs their money can't invest into something like that.
> ten thousands of dollars lying around that I could have invested in 2014
Neither did I, nor would I invest so much. $50 would have given you $5000.
> Any person who actually needs their money can't invest into something like that.
The trick is to keep high-risk investments very low. Let's say you have some money you are saving up. You could invest 1% of that in a high risk thing such as crypto. When it goes to zero, you only lose 1%. However, when it does the bitcoin thing and goes x100, you just doubled your total savings.
I agree that when you are in highschool and put $20 or $50 in that, it's a gamble.
But just to be clear, I have nothing against people not investing in crypto. I have a problem with all the people here that seem very resentful and just hope to see everyone in that space lose money.
If they are not operating on fractional reserve or doing anything shady then this is no big deal and how the system is supposed to work. A smaller run than this took down FTX.
Over the last year we've discovered that there is no safe way to do this. Every company that lent out customer crypto deposits is now bankrupt. Unlike "tradfi" where you can lend to a stable government or a diverse basket of companies engaged in the real economy, crypto has no risk-free rate of return.
They sell coin listing access and coin drop promo access and can sell on insider information. I imagine deals for certain coin access are paid for in that currency
crypto exchanges that work correctly can handle simple withdrawals. people are simply heeding the advice of "not your keys, not your coins" and withdrawing. properly functioning exchanges can handle that, improperly run exchanges halt withdrawals and make excuses. that isn't happening here after $12B "bleeding" out, aka withdrawn as intended?
Is there a crypto exchange that do this correctly? Isn't the idea of an ideal exchange go against the philosophy of decentralization? If exchanges are not regulated, what incentive do they have to handle assets correctly anyways? And finally, if regulation is inevitable, why not just go with the traditional financial system for better safety and security?
CZ brought this on himself, he and SBF are getting absolutely destroyed for all the right reasons, and incidentally BTC finally broke back into the 17k range which happened after the FTX scandal, despite not having any BTC on their exchange at all.
Fundus are clearly not safu with him or anyone else and people are starting to realize that now, hopefully this finally sinks into people's head when getting involved.
And Coinbase has already been humbled with their stock price drop, but I feel that still more needs to be done to reduce their influence on the market.
