Live data from Hacker News

New study detects lottery-like behavior in cryptocurrency markets

univaasa.fi

141–150 of 193 posts

Re: New study detects lottery-like behavior in cryptocurrency markets

#141
post #90
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the gold standard, for example, contributed in some ways to The Great Depression Most people don’t realize this. A great book on the topic is Lords of Finance which outlines how the gold standard made the Great Depression truly great. Even during covid, I don’t think people realize just how fundamentally important Fed actions were to basic things like keeping food on grocery store shelves.

There is plenty of blame to throw around during interventionist policies during the Great Depression. Take a look at Wickard v Filburn: > An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The US government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. Filburn grew more than was permitted and so was ordered t…

It was illegal for farmers to grow wheat above a certain amount... on their own land... to feed their own animals...

The wheat limits already assumed that farmers would feed their own animals first and then sell the remainder on the open market. The goal was to prevent the price of wheat from dropping too low by limiting the amount available for non-feed purposes. However, by doing the opposite, selling up to the limit and then growing "extra" to feed his own animals, Filburn was deliberately contravening the wheat restrictions. If he had succeeded in challenging the law, everyone would have done the same, the supply of wheat would have skyrocketed, and the price of wheat would have dropped through the floor, financially ruining Filburn and thousands of other farmers.

The wheat restrictions worked for the purpose they were intended: they eliminated the swings in wheat prices during a time of economic crisis, allowing the price (and the market) to stabilize. It worked so well that the these restrictions were included in successor laws and are still part of U.S. agricultural law today.

Re: New study detects lottery-like behavior in cryptocurrency markets

#142

It makes sense. In my experience the primary goal for most crypto holders is to be a part of a new elite. This is why the most popular currencies have a fixed supply. That way, if they're popular earlier adopters get to be a part of the elite. With such a premise it makes sense to treat crypto like the lottery as the gain/loss likelihood is very similar to say, Mega Millions. I do see value in a crypto that's pinned…

> but I will say that I've read both the Bitcoin and Ethereum whitepaper and there's nothing about grievances of traditional governments usage of printing of their currencies From Bitcoin's genesis block: "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks".

Perfect rebuttal to those saying the “store of value” is a pivot after it failed as digital cash. (And maybe it hasn’t failed yet)

Re: New study detects lottery-like behavior in cryptocurrency markets

#143
post #90
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the gold standard, for example, contributed in some ways to The Great Depression Most people don’t realize this. A great book on the topic is Lords of Finance which outlines how the gold standard made the Great Depression truly great. Even during covid, I don’t think people realize just how fundamentally important Fed actions were to basic things like keeping food on grocery store shelves.

There is plenty of blame to throw around during interventionist policies during the Great Depression. Take a look at Wickard v Filburn: > An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The US government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. Filburn grew more than was permitted and so was ordered t…

> It was illegal for farmers to grow wheat above a certain amount... on their own land... to feed their own animals...

I don't find that surprising or scandalous. Wheat is (approximately) fungible, so if you produce more for yourself, you're decreasing the marginal demand for wheat in the market. Besides, barring everyone from overproducing wheat makes more sense than only banning people who somehow intend to sell the wheat:

1. Intent is hard to prove or judge

2. By not applying a blanket ban, you're unfairly hurting net consumers of wheat, or farmers who can't internalise their wheat consumption and rewarding those who can.

I'm having a hard time seeing how the blanket ban was wrong in any way.

Re: New study detects lottery-like behavior in cryptocurrency markets

#144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ask Saddam Hussein, who tried to price Iraqi oil in Euros in 2000. Or Gaddafi, who was tolerated by western powers until he tried to introduce the pan-African gold Dinar and encourage oil producing nations to de-dollarize in favor of it.

> Or Gaddafi, who was tolerated by western powers until he tried to introduce the pan-African gold Dinar and encourage oil producing nations to de-dollarize in favor of it. Ok, serious question here: Can you actually point to me a statement where Gaddafi, or any official Libyan government statement for that matter, actually outlines anything approaching a concrete plan or concrete steps to the establishment of such a…

https://web.archive.org/web/20160111041010/https://www.foia....

Pardon the archive link, the State Department seems to be having some server issues today.

It's hard to be certain of the accuracy of Blumenthal's claims, naturally, but this is a long-time confidant of the then-Secretary of State making them.

Re: New study detects lottery-like behavior in cryptocurrency markets

#145
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bravo, 10/10 response. Since you seem to be ignorant of this, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC and Enron were also "companies," so your response isn't as witty as you think.

I really think “MSFT, AAPL, TSLA” aren’t comparable to your examples.

Yes, and I don't think cryptocurrencies are either. I thought it was clear that this was the object of our disagreement.

Going back to the reason for this thread, saying we "missed the boat" on anything does not mean it is a pyramid scheme -- I think I've demonstrated that and I'm not sure what the point of your comments is any more.

Re: New study detects lottery-like behavior in cryptocurrency markets

#146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or Gaddafi, who was tolerated by western powers until he tried to introduce the pan-African gold Dinar and encourage oil producing nations to de-dollarize in favor of it. Ok, serious question here: Can you actually point to me a statement where Gaddafi, or any official Libyan government statement for that matter, actually outlines anything approaching a concrete plan or concrete steps to the establishment of such a…

https://web.archive.org/web/20160111041010/https://www.foia.... Pardon the archive link, the State Department seems to be having some server issues today. It's hard to be certain of the accuracy of Blumenthal's claims, naturally, but this is a long-time confidant of the then-Secretary of State making them.

That is an unknown individual reporting that an unnamed source says that Libya had gold and was planning to launch a currency. That is still not a primary source providing what I was asking for: either Gaddafi or a Libyan government official actually stating this plan actually existed.

Re: New study detects lottery-like behavior in cryptocurrency markets

#147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, I’ll play along. Which projects are those?

Decentralized finance is pretty massive right now and has some really novel ways to deploy capital. It's not mainstream or outside of crypto perhaps but it is definitely based on strong utility. Scroll down this list[0] and you'll find many projects providing a ton of utility (and some, I'm sure, that do not, but I'm definitely not claiming all crypto projects are legitimate/useful) [0] https://defipulse.com/

Defi is just securitized lending with smart contracts. There is nothing novel about it. And all you do is borrow against your crypto so you can lever up and buy more crypto.

This is just adding margin into decentralized trading.

Re: New study detects lottery-like behavior in cryptocurrency markets

#148

It makes sense. In my experience the primary goal for most crypto holders is to be a part of a new elite. This is why the most popular currencies have a fixed supply. That way, if they're popular earlier adopters get to be a part of the elite. With such a premise it makes sense to treat crypto like the lottery as the gain/loss likelihood is very similar to say, Mega Millions. I do see value in a crypto that's pinned…

> but I will say that I've read both the Bitcoin and Ethereum whitepaper and there's nothing about grievances of traditional governments usage of printing of their currencies From Bitcoin's genesis block: "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks".

I’m not really sure what your point is? The block was created on the that date, that had that title.

It’s a complete coincidence. Again if that was an explicit goal it would be in the white paper.

Re: New study detects lottery-like behavior in cryptocurrency markets

#149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Decentralized finance is pretty massive right now and has some really novel ways to deploy capital. It's not mainstream or outside of crypto perhaps but it is definitely based on strong utility. Scroll down this list[0] and you'll find many projects providing a ton of utility (and some, I'm sure, that do not, but I'm definitely not claiming all crypto projects are legitimate/useful) [0] https://defipulse.com/

Defi is just securitized lending with smart contracts. There is nothing novel about it. And all you do is borrow against your crypto so you can lever up and buy more crypto. This is just adding margin into decentralized trading.

There are financial primitives that cannot exist in traditional finance that I'd call pretty novel. For example flash loans allow uncollateralized loans for millions of dollars[0]. Or take KeeperDAO[1] or Dai[2] or any of the other meta protocols generating returns by providing utility. Also the sheer fact that this is all decentralized/identity-less is already a novel aspect.

[0] https://aave.com/flash-loans/

[1] https://medium.com/keeperdao/a-keepers-guide-to-arbitrage-mi...

[2] https://makerdao.com/en/

Re: New study detects lottery-like behavior in cryptocurrency markets

#150
post #143
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is plenty of blame to throw around during interventionist policies during the Great Depression. Take a look at Wickard v Filburn: > An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The US government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. Filburn grew more than was permitted and so was ordered t…

> It was illegal for farmers to grow wheat above a certain amount... on their own land... to feed their own animals... I don't find that surprising or scandalous. Wheat is (approximately) fungible, so if you produce more for yourself, you're decreasing the marginal demand for wheat in the market. Besides, barring everyone from overproducing wheat makes more sense than only banning people who somehow intend to sell th…

> I'm having a hard time seeing how the blanket ban was wrong in any way.

Before this decision, the federal government did not have the "right" to compel a property owner what (not) to do with his land. The framers of the Consitution were pretty clear about states' rights, and limits of federal power. Prior to this decision, a reasonable reader of the Constitution and case law would have concluded "yea, the federal gov't cannot compel the property owner in this way".

The (court decision) and ban is wrong because A) it's essentially a Constitutional rewrite without the amendment process and B) the Federal gov't does not have the moral authority to mandate how a property owner interacts with his own property. The intent from the 1790 text is pretty clear about the hierarchy of individual rights > state rights > federal rights.

To be clear: I'm not arguing against federal regulation of interstate commerce. The Constitution defined that as "commerce [...] between the states". There needed to be an Amendment to formally redefine (or clarify) that section. There was no Amendment process for this expansion of gov't power.

Post reply on HN