101–110 of 364 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hang on, minting and circulating are different things. The USDT circulating supply is currently approximately 76 billion.
Right, they minted $3B, taking the circulating supply from $73B to $76B.
The $7.7B part is a bit hyperbolic right? A lot of value of crypto is based on a small volume of transactions to cash which give a number to the entire asset. If I create 1B secret numbers, sell one for $1, and someone steals the rest, is anyone really out a billion dollars?
it's not hyperbolic, there is a lot of liquidity in this multi trillion dollar market.
although if you're asking this question, the next point might dilute my prior point to you, but a reality is that many people aren't seeking fiat. They don't want dollars. They want more crypto. For physical goods and services there are also enough closed loops to acquire whatever is desired without touching dollars. For digital goods and services they can already be acquired for crypto.
But outside of that, charities accept crypto donations. Private equity firms accept crypto in-kind investments as the third party fund administrators have also updated their technology. Politicians accept crypto.
No different than any of these entities accepting stocks or bonds, and considering to liquidate some eventually. Except the crypto is more easily exchanged for goods, services, donations, investment.
it shouldn't sound absurd, but if it does, just remember that they can also get as much cash as they want whenever they want.
Maybe I'm missing something, but there's something that I don't get about DeFi. My understanding of the idea is this: 1) Using distributed code, the operation of which is assured by code on a blockchain based system like Ethereum, lending and investment can happen without the intermediation of banks and capital markets gate keepers. The savings from cutting these layers out can be shared between the supply and demand…
Apparently the answer is "crypto margin trading".
Cryptocurrencies would be so boring without the scams and shenanigans. I love the wild west.
In related news, Tether has minted $3B USDT in the last month: https://beincrypto.com/tether-mints-three-billion-usdt-past-...
Yes, and although likely a scam, here's another datapoint: Coinbase, an Y combinator unicorn, is behind Centre/Circle and the USDC stable coin. And there are now $41.5 bn USDC circulating. At one point it was billion of USDT circulating and USDC didn't exist yet. Then USDC began to took off and there were, out of memory, $5 bn USDC and $23 bn USDT. But, overall, the trajectory is clear: USDC is growing faster than US…
I think "rug pulls" is not defined well. One example of a "rug pull" is that the team provided liquidity to the AMM liquidity pool, and then removed it, leaving people with no where to trade the token. Its honestly hard for me to call that a scam, although I understand the community expectation being undermined. First: the SEC exacerbates this reality. Tokens that don't want to be considered a security have to consid…
If the team went through all of these steps with the intention of pumping the value of the coin, hyping others into buying it, and then extracting as much money from them as possible with no intentions of helping the coin succeed long-term, that seems like a scam to me.
The victim-blaming mentality runs deep in the cryptocurrency world. It's fascinating how many people in the cryptocurrency space are reluctant to call a spade a spade only because the underlying blockchain or algorithmic rules weren't violated.
This is my biggest complaint against cryptocurrencies in general. I'm happy with my bank's fraud protection. How can crypto users protect themselves without recreating traditional banking? Bitcoin was released ~13 years ago, and wallet/transaction security has been one of the most important requirements since then (along with scalability, but let's not go there). If trillion dollar market caps and god-knows-how-many…
This is my favorite story about crypto fraud protection: The Winklevosses came up with an elaborate system to store and secure their own private keys. They cut up printouts of their private keys into pieces and then distributed them in envelopes to safe deposit boxes around the country, so if one envelope were stolen the thief would not have the entire key. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/technology/bitcoin-winkle…
So these dudes both "saw" FB and cryptocurrencies.
Hate as much as you want on FB and cryptocurrencies, it's still quite a feat to have foreseen both.
Regarding storing parts of the secret here and there: it's basically and "m out of n" scheme AFAICT. There are many variations of this but the overall idea is that you can afford to lose (n - m) parts and yet you'll be able to recover the secret. And if a thief were to steal parts, he'd need m parts to be able to recover the secret.
This is my biggest complaint against cryptocurrencies in general. I'm happy with my bank's fraud protection. How can crypto users protect themselves without recreating traditional banking? Bitcoin was released ~13 years ago, and wallet/transaction security has been one of the most important requirements since then (along with scalability, but let's not go there). If trillion dollar market caps and god-knows-how-many…
I think the way you protect yourself is the same way people protected themselves before credit cards were widely used. By not spending your cash on things that are scams. Somehow people managed to survive before banks offered their rent seeking / fraud protection and I think they'd be OK without them if push came to shove.
So...by staying out of cryptocurrencies entirely, then?
Sounds good to me.
The “I have no sympathy for the victims” comments are crass. But there is a legitimate question of how much law enforcement these crimes deserve. Arizona has a stupid motorists law [1]. If a car “becomes stranded after driving around barricades to enter a flooded stretch of roadway,” the driver “may be charged for the cost of their rescue.” A similar concept for crypto may be necessary. Law enforcement will pursue. B…
Technical hacks against the protocol and implementations are fair game, and is the implicit incentive that balances the market. Social engineering and financial hacks are not fair game, and are "illicit" in the sense that crypto is obviously an international martial zone. Exhaustively brute forcing a keyspace is valid, making your username an XSS to steal funds from an insecure page/downstream app is not valid. Findi…
The “I have no sympathy for the victims” comments are crass. But there is a legitimate question of how much law enforcement these crimes deserve. Arizona has a stupid motorists law [1]. If a car “becomes stranded after driving around barricades to enter a flooded stretch of roadway,” the driver “may be charged for the cost of their rescue.” A similar concept for crypto may be necessary. Law enforcement will pursue. B…
No, they're not. They're entirely reasonable. Stop trying to shame people for expressing a common, reasonable and fair opinion that you don't like.