431–440 of 454 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cash is used for more crime than crypto. London city pretty much is the epicenter of money laundering and financial crime.
Is it though? Cash may be more in absolute value terms, but in per dollar terms, is cash used more for crimes than regular transactions than crypto?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ironically a lot of people that would have before criticized Wall Street now seem to be spending more effort criticizing cryptocurrencies ? (Even though they are the same kind of people that created and popularized cryptocurrencies to deal with Wall Street's issues in the first place ?)
I have no problem criticizing both. Indeed, one good criticism of cryptocurrencies is that the are sucking up a lot of the attention and money that could go into actual reform. For example, contrast Bitcoin usage in emerging markets with something like M-Pesa. They both started at the same time, but M-Pesa has been a huge boon to the unbanked, whereas Bitcoin is a rounding error in those markets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not at all. I'm just saying that the other process is much, much worse than that.
It's a fundamental question wether people should be allowed to take on risks or not. If you are leaning towards the "no they should not" side, then consider that doing a startup is also very risky. So maybe that should be illegal, too? Or at least, there should be government startup specialists that evaluate ideas and decide wether people should be allowed to create such startups? Or should there be an elite of peopl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no problem criticizing both. Indeed, one good criticism of cryptocurrencies is that the are sucking up a lot of the attention and money that could go into actual reform. For example, contrast Bitcoin usage in emerging markets with something like M-Pesa. They both started at the same time, but M-Pesa has been a huge boon to the unbanked, whereas Bitcoin is a rounding error in those markets.
Any good source to learn what M-Pesa is ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies are free to direct list without underwriters and even issue new shares in the process. I'm not sure what a "pop" (the idea that prices often go up on listing) has to do with anything. It generally means that the company underpriced its equity but by no means does this always happen. Are you referring to a greenshoe? There's some misinformation there too, but it serves a purpose, too. [1] [1] https://www.inv…
I think they may be referring to the "pop" some tech companies have gotten lately where they may have been purposely undervalued so when they IPO they get a nice 5-10% "boost" and good publicity when they open.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it's been painfully obvious from the start. It was the first thing I noticed, once looking into NFTs. I'd be surprised, AMAZED actually, if some of the big NFT collections aren't entrenched in wash trading, to pump up trade volume and price. In fact, I think that in order to successfully launch a NFT collection today, you need to have either: A) Substantial social capital. B) Capital to do the wash trading, or i…
I personally don't value nfts highly but I'm in a circle with lots of rich crypto early adopters - they absolutely would pay $100k for a bored ape and would consider it a bargain. It's a real status symbol, just in a niche you don't understand. I feel the same way about $100k Patel Phillipe watches but I don't hear everyone talking about how those are only wash trades The platforms where these nfts are sold usually c…
This is a misconception; on Polygon for example OpenSea is built on top of 0x v3 (an open protocol for marketplaces); one could wash trade an NFT back and forth on 0x v3 directly and only pay the protocol fee (pennies in comparison) and OpenSea would still show those sales in its UI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a fundamental question wether people should be allowed to take on risks or not. If you are leaning towards the "no they should not" side, then consider that doing a startup is also very risky. So maybe that should be illegal, too? Or at least, there should be government startup specialists that evaluate ideas and decide wether people should be allowed to create such startups? Or should there be an elite of peopl…
That is not a fundamental question. Everybody agrees that people should be generally allowed to take risks. However, we also constrain those risks in all sorts of ways so that we can run a reasonably safe and effective society. The eternal questions are which risks lead to generally positive-sum activity and which tend to be dangerously opaque, negative-sum, or with strong negative externalities. You can see this is…
Not really, the nanny state is a thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a good thing to be encouraged to saving instead of spending. No one needs incentive to spend. You will spend if you have plenty to spend. Having a currency which gains in value will take you there.
> You will spend if you have plenty to spend. Having a currency which gains in value will take you there. That’s some pretty fanta-dreamy-economics. How can it possibly be true for everybody? Money from heaven?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't want a currency with a bull case. That means it discourages spending it in favor of holding it. I want a currency with an extremely slow bear case. Also my value of USD hasn't dropped 30% in the last month.
It is a good thing to be encouraged to saving instead of spending. No one needs incentive to spend. You will spend if you have plenty to spend. Having a currency which gains in value will take you there.
As a matter of fact crypto "currencies" are a rotten medium for saving due to their volatility.
Sure, they may go up in value. But then that's pure speculation, certainly not saving.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Enron was run by a corrupt CEO who lied about its accounting. Bitcoin has no CEO or accountants. It has also gone up A LOT more than Enron did over a much longer timespan. How can you look at the log chart and think BTC is “going to zero”?
> How can you look at the log chart and think BTC is “going to zero”? Because eventually it will be worthless. Your return on investment is entirely predicated by how much demand there is for Bitcoin; currently it's pretty high, correlating with media attention and whatnot. This is just about the highest demand we'll see for it though, the future of all crypto obviously hinges on practical applications, which venture…
It crashed 70-80% in 2018
And then later went way above the 2017 peak.
It is not guaranteed to recover, but it is FAR from certain that it won’t, and history suggests it will recover