281–290 of 334 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bitcoin, like tesla stock is better predicted by treating it as a religion than a rational investment. So how long are people going to believe a kid who said a god knocked her up to avoid getting stoned?
Tesla has a ton of ip, Bitcoin is pretty cloneable
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is Tesla makes cars, good cars, that people can use. Bitcoin makes "investors."
OK, but Tesla makes cars that catch fire while parked, and their "profit" comes from selling carbon credits to GM and Fiat. I agree Tesla is less of a pyramid scheme, but I think it's still a pyramid scheme.
Tesla is in no way a pyramid scheme.
It is, however, a groundbreaking luxury car brand that is disrupting the auto-sales collusion, opening up the possibility of fossil fuel use reduction, highly dependent on blood minerals, and run by an egomaniac tax cheat who doesn't give 2 shits about his employees. Tesla's impact is multi-faceted, both positive and negative, and highly nuanced.
I love this sort of thing. He’s making a bet, explains his reasoning, and does it in the open! That’s great. I disagree that there’s no tech here. IMO public ledgers that never sleep are far superior(thanks to the hard work of many people over the past decade), and their advantage over retail banking will only increase. My online banks keep getting worse, crypto keeps getting better. Think about this: banks are CLOSE…
Banks are bad because they charge to much, but they aren't that bad. What kind of unbelievably shitty bank doesn't provide 24-7 money transfers through a convenient phone app? Those transfers always take 0 time within the bank and have legally forced waiting periods between banks and between regions. The time may be legally required to be higher for certain scales of transactions, but they are generally as fast as th…
I love this sort of thing. He’s making a bet, explains his reasoning, and does it in the open! That’s great. I disagree that there’s no tech here. IMO public ledgers that never sleep are far superior(thanks to the hard work of many people over the past decade), and their advantage over retail banking will only increase. My online banks keep getting worse, crypto keeps getting better. Think about this: banks are CLOSE…
> Think about this: banks are CLOSED 77% of the time! Need to send a wire? 3/4 times bank will be closed Physical branches, sure, but I don't know of any online service that has ever closed, in the UK at least... We can send payments to other banks and they arrive almost instantly (or within 2 hours) any day of the week. For free. This is why I wasn't that impressed when US friends were excited about instant transact…
I love this sort of thing. He’s making a bet, explains his reasoning, and does it in the open! That’s great. I disagree that there’s no tech here. IMO public ledgers that never sleep are far superior(thanks to the hard work of many people over the past decade), and their advantage over retail banking will only increase. My online banks keep getting worse, crypto keeps getting better. Think about this: banks are CLOSE…
Derivatives guy here. Perfectly fine opinion, but two issues. Why now? This is a general investing issue. Trading costs money, holding a put costs money, so why will the market do what you think in this time frame? Why are the puts cheap? This could be substantiated with some numbers, esp implied volatility. Are they cheap vs history? I don't know, but the reasoning should show why you think so. Note I'm not looking…
A company/idea/market can remain irrational a lot longer than you can remain solvent.
With shorting stock, and even worse with long options, not only do you have to have the right premise, but also the right timing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Costs me €1.50 per transfer in Germany. Also costs me in Singapore. It should just be the be default.
Here in India, I can make transfers via UPI for free. For larger amounts, I can use IMPS which costs INR 5 ($0.067). Both are instant and have highly usable apps from trustworthy providers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
C'mon now BTC certainly doesn't have (1) it's down 50% in the last month. I'd quibble with (2) because portability does imply a low cost of portability which compared to USD it does not have. (3) It has. (4) It has. (5) It definitely isn't broadly accepted and (6) it's not great at either, just look at what percentage of the coins have already been lost. 20-30% in a decade. Every random walk down the time line leads…
You misunderstood the terms. Economically Durability refers to an asset that doesn't decay with time. Historically, things like cows, sheeps, wheat and other things were used as money. Those things are not durable: they rot or are consumed. Gold, silver, paper/fiat money and BTC are durable. Portability refers to the ability/costs to transfer your money from, say, New York to Singapore. Transferring USD is cheap and…
I disagree, the sticker price at the moment looks cheap but only because the majority of a transaction cost is socialized in block reward. To look at the actual cost of a transaction you need to sum the direct fees and the socialized fees. After all, the socialized fees are going away over time, so either users will have to pay directly or be subject to a less secure network.
An average block of 2000 transactions costs 6.25 BTC ($225,000) in indirect subsidies plus about $16,000 in direct costs. This means an average transaction costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $120.
At $120, you could probably just overnight a gold bar via FedEx.
This is dramatically higher than competitive solutions.
> Losing your wallet is another concept not related to storability: you can also lose a gold coin or a $100 bill
Yes, but losing a few billion dollars worth is exponentially harder. I would argue that over time your risk of losing all your coins in a step function approaches 100%. Even though it's step, on average it represents a negative storability/durability.
As the total quantity in circulation drops the entire supply could be seen as "rotting."
Derivatives guy here. Perfectly fine opinion, but two issues. Why now? This is a general investing issue. Trading costs money, holding a put costs money, so why will the market do what you think in this time frame? Why are the puts cheap? This could be substantiated with some numbers, esp implied volatility. Are they cheap vs history? I don't know, but the reasoning should show why you think so. Note I'm not looking…
Yeah I bought puts in Sears 10 years ago after reading about Lampert (the CEO). I was roughly 8 years early. A company/idea/market can remain irrational a lot longer than you can remain solvent. With shorting stock, and even worse with long options, not only do you have to have the right premise, but also the right timing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“I may be early but I’m not wrong” “It’s the same thing Michael!” Best big short quote.
Put options have a time limit. So being early means you loose the money you used to buy the put. So yeah it is the same thing. And Michael Burry was a lucky mother effer that he managed to keep his put on all the way until it finally happened.
It is rare to have both the conviction to bet everything and also be right at the same time.