Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Goldman Sachs executive quits after making millions from Dogecoin

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 170 posts

Re: Goldman Sachs executive quits after making millions from Dogecoin

#141

Post by tinco »

chii wrote: post #101
tinco wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be totally with you until 2 years ago. Now I'm not so certain. Can you truly look at TSLA and say that there's value creation behind that valuation? Or GME? And frankly, the dollar? And if it's not the case for these pathetic cases, what does that say about the rest? BTW I'm not arguing the dollar is worthless, especially not when compared to crypto, obviously the dollar has a lot more use than Bitcoin. But look…

> Can you truly look at TSLA and say that there's value creation behind that valuation? the value of TSLA hasn't been created yet - the event is still in the future. The current price is based on the expectation (by many people) that their value creation in the future will occur. As for GME - the short squeeze certainly did create value. It's like charging someone dying of thirst in the desert for water. But as soon…

That expectation is not based in any reality, not by anyone working at Tesla, and not by anyone with any sort of realistic view of what the company will do in the future. The value of the stock simply does not have any relation to the company itself. It's easy to verify this by asking anyone holding TSLA what amount of profit Tesla will make at the point that its current valuation is justified. It doesn't even really matter how far in the future that point is, it would for an investor basing their investments on fundamentals, but that's not what's going on.

As soon as you dive into the numbers, their answer will stop even mentioning the company Tesla, it will be about the American economy or the global economy in general.

I agree the short squeeze held value, it was great, but its value hasn't fallen yet, it's still over ten times its fundamental value, if such a thing even exists. If GME's new plans succeed, and it does exceptionally well and it really becomes a big player in the online games industry, maybe its stock would be worth $40 or even $80. If it doesn't, then all this capital is wasted and the stock is probably worth under $4. With those two very extreme scenarios and their appropriate valuations, what is its stock doing sitting at $150?

The answer is simple, just find a social gathering of GME investors, like r/superstonk, and read what they're saying about the stock. They're calling the squeeze to 450 a "baby squeeze", and that the big one is still coming. Even though as far as I know the squeeze to 450 was the largest squeeze in the history of the stock market.

I'm not saying these stocks are overvalued by the way. If you've got a firm grasp on the dynamics of those stocks, it might make sense to buy/hold at these prices. Just like it made sense to hold Dogecoin to that Goldman Sachs guy. Just don't pretend it's different somehow.

Re: Goldman Sachs executive quits after making millions from Dogecoin

#142

Post by gjs278 »

lottin wrote: post #63
rawtxapp wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that the case for pretty much all exchanges? How is that different than in the stock market?

> How is that different than in the stock market? Stock holders own the underlying business and businesses do create wealth—all the inputs that are used in making a product are worth less that the product itself.

no they don’t lol. try and buy any percent of any company stock and tell them what to do

Re: Goldman Sachs executive quits after making millions from Dogecoin

#144

Post by 2038AD »

rorykoehler wrote: post #128
2038AD wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is the most brain-dead class analysis I have ever read. You can't be serious.

I am deadly serious. There has been a successful multi-decade gaslighting initiative to make people think middle class and working class are different when in fact they are both just working to make the investment class rich. Time is your most valuable asset and unless you own it 100% then you are working class.

You're absolutely right in implicitly arguing that social class isn't exactly determined by the amount of money you have.

You're also correct that traditionally the proletariat (the working class) were those who sold their labour. By a very strict definition, anyone who earns a wage is working class and that would include CEOs (as you are doing explicitly). That definition is deficient and doesn't relate to reality.

Traditionally, the bourgeoisie were the class or classes who employed the workers. The capitalists own the capital and capital goods (means of production) that are used in industry. The petit bourgeoisie are those who own small businesses, such as shopkeepers or lawyers. They were middle class because they were neither working class nor part of the nobility.

Today many companies are publicly held. By this, I mean that stakes in the company are sold publicly. Many companies are also part-owned by the public in the sense of state ownership. This kind of relationship would falsely suppose that members of the working class are members of the bourgeoisie. You agree that ownership doesn't exactly determine class since your criterion is the selling of time or labour.

Those today who have power over the factors of production are very often employed when previously they employed themselves. You call these people working class. I find that very bizarre.

I believe that a managing director of an investment bank is a person who represents capital absolutely. Their job is to head an organisation whose aim is to manage capital and to generate or bring in capital in the process. To identify this person with a factory worker is confused.

Re: Goldman Sachs executive quits after making millions from Dogecoin

#145

Post by alisonkisk »

benhurmarcel wrote: post #133
yaa_minu wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to understand is that, while many cryptocurrencies are completely worthless, some cryptocurrencies have solid reasons to exist. Your characterization of all cryptocurrencies as a ponzi scheme purely based on the fact that people buy it because they believe others will buy it later at a higher price is weak because that is how all monetary assets like gold operates. We take it because we believe others will al…

How does holding some coins give any incentive to anyone else?

It doesn't. Its an incentive for early adopters to establish the system. It's like a startup giving lower prices to first customers.

Re: Goldman Sachs executive quits after making millions from Dogecoin

#146

Post by alisonkisk »

chii wrote: post #101
tinco wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be totally with you until 2 years ago. Now I'm not so certain. Can you truly look at TSLA and say that there's value creation behind that valuation? Or GME? And frankly, the dollar? And if it's not the case for these pathetic cases, what does that say about the rest? BTW I'm not arguing the dollar is worthless, especially not when compared to crypto, obviously the dollar has a lot more use than Bitcoin. But look…

> Can you truly look at TSLA and say that there's value creation behind that valuation? the value of TSLA hasn't been created yet - the event is still in the future. The current price is based on the expectation (by many people) that their value creation in the future will occur. As for GME - the short squeeze certainly did create value. It's like charging someone dying of thirst in the desert for water. But as soon…

> the short squeeze certainly did create value.

That's not value creation, that's zero sum.

Re: Goldman Sachs executive quits after making millions from Dogecoin

#147

Post by alisonkisk »

roenxi wrote: post #120
lottin wrote: post #24

No wealth was created or destroyed in the making of these millions, the millions simply changed hands. Think about that before purchasing a cryptocurrency. You're basically handing your money to an earlier "investor" in the hopes that a future "investor" will hand a greater amount to you. This is all there is to it.

Sure, but the thing being traded for these are US Dollars which are, by explicit design, worse than pretty much any other asset over the long term. Not only do they go down in value, but they go down in value in a difficult to predict pattern and more rapidly in crisises. Holding almost literally anything nonperishable is better than dollars. We can argue what it is, but if anyone has any optimism at all about the fu…

Holding things has costs. Dogecoin was intentionally invented to never have a "future". It was a joke.

Re: Goldman Sachs executive quits after making millions from Dogecoin

#148

Post by nicoburns »

fighterpilot wrote: post #57
nicoburns wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but in the real world people are makong jsut as much if not more money on comaoniea that they think other people will later invest it, rather than companies that they think are good companies. That makes it little better than crypto.

There's a bubble now in speculative stocks, and it's not good because it means billions in funding are going towards failing companies. That's why I said "in an ideal world". I do believe this bubble will pop eventually and the stock market will return to its appropriate primary function (which it still is doing ex-retail hype stocks) of allocating capital to the most productive companies. Note also that I was respon…

> the stock market will return to its appropriate primary function (which it still is doing ex-retail hype stocks) of allocating capital to the most productive companies.

Do you think it has done this in the last 30 years? I am of the opinion that has it has at best done this exceedingly poorly. There are many reasons for this:

1. Speculating is the one we've already covered

2. HFT, which isn't that much different to speculating

3. The consolidation of market power in a few huge funds

4. The rise of index funds which don't attempt to judge companies on merit at all

It would/will take significant reforms to return the stock market to anything remotely resembling an ideal market.

Re: Goldman Sachs executive quits after making millions from Dogecoin

#149

Post by candiodari »

lottin wrote: post #24

No wealth was created or destroyed in the making of these millions, the millions simply changed hands. Think about that before purchasing a cryptocurrency. You're basically handing your money to an earlier "investor" in the hopes that a future "investor" will hand a greater amount to you. This is all there is to it.

No wealth was created or destroyed in the making of pretty much every luxury good, currency, stock, loan, ... That is not what defines a ponzi scheme.

Furthermore, if you need money in 4-5 countries (even inside the Eurozone), you'll find that several cryptocurrencies are really quite good for that purpose, and that banks are not. So I for one have found value in owning these (mostly temporarily, although I have some on hand now).

Might be fun to do it with Dogecoin I must say. I should give it a try.

Re: Goldman Sachs executive quits after making millions from Dogecoin

#150

Post by Brian_K_White »

secfirstmd wrote: post #132
yaa_minu wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to understand is that, while many cryptocurrencies are completely worthless, some cryptocurrencies have solid reasons to exist. Your characterization of all cryptocurrencies as a ponzi scheme purely based on the fact that people buy it because they believe others will buy it later at a higher price is weak because that is how all monetary assets like gold operates. We take it because we believe others will al…

"I believe strongly that a monetary system that's provably scarce, programmable, completely decentralized, permission-less, trustless, higly divisible, borderless and very easy to transfer has the potential to revolutionize how we store value." But is adding massively to global carbon levels needlessly...

That is an implementation detail of bitcoin, not a fundamental aspect of cryptocurrency.

Bitcoin is cryptocurrency 1.0, or proof of concept, and the concept is well and truly proven.

Developing others which operate more efficiently than the proof-of-concept or 1.0 version, or even than the existing banks and credit card exchanges is just engineering and iteration, and hardly a great leap of imagination or faith.

Post reply on HN