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

$130B wiped off crypto markets in 24 hours

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 382 posts

Re: $130B wiped off crypto markets in 24 hours

#281

Post by iso1631 »

aaron695 wrote: post #112
iso1631 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He made a GAAF, no need to read anything into it. Big Tech stocks have changed since FANG/FAANG was coined, the term doesn't necessarily relate to what was big and heading for explosive growth back then. "FAANG" is a noun that doesn't necessarily mean "Facebook Amazon Apple Netflix Google" any more

> He made a GAAF, no need to read anything into it. But did not say they were wrong and Netflix was actually the same as Bitcoin. They edited it to another group to prove their point. Which to be honest confirms the original implication, they are picking and choosing for politics. OP point is clear to me, everyone can trash talk Bitcoin from twitter rote, but no one is actually thinking. How does it relate to the US…

Certainly is clear, big tech stocks are falling, not as much as crypto, and that probably has something to do with big tech stocks have fundamental value.

Re: $130B wiped off crypto markets in 24 hours

#282

Post by Yizahi »

samarama wrote: post #122
dtech wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have ~zero inherent value, due to their non-speculation use-cases like payment being very limited or still early development (smart contracts). Unless you count BTC in black market I guess. USD has inherent value, it's the only currency where you can pay taxes in, and if you want to do business with government or government employees - who are ever only paid in USD - you must accept…

Bitcoin’s inherent value is 1. Immutability 2. Limited supply 3. Censorship-resistance 4. Independence of governments, nations, banks, institutions, corporations 5. Accessibility You can also pay your taxes in crypto in many countries. The dollar’s inherent value is very weak and not really tangible. It’s 2022 and people still don’t get that.

Why did you list Bitcoin negatives instead of positives?:)

1. Immutability - clearly a negative feature, no way for humans to manage transactions and correct mistakes.

2. Limited supply - very bad for a "currency"

3. No censorship resistance in bitcoin, but ease of tax evasion due to exterritorial nature. IRS may find you easily but can't do anything. On the other hand oppressive regimes can both find you can prosecute you because in that case you are physically in the regime's country.

4. Dependence on a handful of anonymous guys in the non extradition offshore printing tokens to pump price with zero oversite. I pick governments. Also Bitcoins are not really independent from governments for the lawful citizens.

5. Zero accessibility after more than a decade in production.

Re: $130B wiped off crypto markets in 24 hours

#283

Post by anon9001 »

microtherion wrote: post #154
anon9001 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand what this is showing. What does "Just printed $100,494,053 USDC!" mean? I think this means that someone minted $100M of USDC by depositing USD. The way this normally happens, USD deposits are made to an exchange that has a relationship with Circle, and 1 USDC is minted for each 1 USD on deposit at Circle. Circle then invests those funds in things that are considered financially prudent, maki…

What the alert shows is that the coins came into existence. It makes no claim one way or another whether it means that somebody deposited $100M USD or whether there was creation ab nihilo. But I find it generally a bit suspicious that people would choose to buy a stablecoin in order to buy bitcoin instead of buying the bitcoin directly (the explanation given is usually something about evading currency controls/KYC).…

> or whether there was creation ab nihilo.

Just to be clear, you're alleging a massive fraud by these people: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/circle-2

> But I find it generally a bit suspicious that people would choose to buy a stablecoin in order to buy bitcoin instead of buying the bitcoin directly (the explanation given is usually something about evading currency controls/KYC).

I think it has more to do with how DeFi works. You can get huge yields on stablecoins right now (like 40%+), so a lot of people are taking money they would normally put in the stock market and are farming yields with stablecoins instead. I'm sure you'll identify this as a big red flag for scam, but it's actually not. It's the modern equivalent of saying "open a bank account with $100 and get a free toaster", except the numbers are much larger, and they're tokens instead of toasters.

> In a bear market, I find it even more suspicious that there would still be more buyers than sellers of these stablecoins necessitating further creation.

In a bull market, people sell their stablecoins to buy bitcoin. In a bear market, people sell their bitcoin to buy stablecoins.

Re: $130B wiped off crypto markets in 24 hours

#284

Post by anon9001 »

AnonHP wrote: post #124
anon9001 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand what this is showing. What does "Just printed $100,494,053 USDC!" mean? I think this means that someone minted $100M of USDC by depositing USD. The way this normally happens, USD deposits are made to an exchange that has a relationship with Circle, and 1 USDC is minted for each 1 USD on deposit at Circle. Circle then invests those funds in things that are considered financially prudent, maki…

> The way this normally happens, USD deposits are made to an exchange that has a relationship with Circle, and 1 USDC is minted for each 1 USD on deposit at Circle. On the other hand, the most popular (?) stablecoin, Tether (USDT) doesn’t have a one-to-one relationship with USD deposits, and the amount it really has in USD is believed to be very low (I don’t know the numbers, but have read that there haven’t been any…

If this bothers you, you will be shocked to learn how US chartered banks operate.

Re: $130B wiped off crypto markets in 24 hours

#285

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

tobrien6 wrote: post #218
zarzavat wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The amount of electricity needed to protect the network is directly tied to the price of BTC This is not how proof of work functions. Hash rate and price are not directly related, they are somewhat correlated because when the price goes up it becomes more profitable to mine. Bitcoin doesn't need more hash rate for the price to go up - the price is the independent variable and the hash rate is the dependent variable…

Truth. Parent comment is deeply misinformed. BTC already has more than enough hash rate, and it is entirely independent of price.

That does not make sense.

The whole point of proof of work is that it is proof that someone has spent the value in electricity validating a block.

As the price of bitcoin rises, naturally more and more miners will beef up their rigs (that is, spend more money in infrastructure and electricity) to mine BTC, because the rewards and fees are worth more. Note if they didn't do this, anyone could easily have a "free money" arbitrage play, and basic economics says that discrepancy in prices (i.e. the value of a BTC on the market and the cost to mine one) must be arbitraged away.

Think of it this way, if hash rate is independent of price, why does it take the electricity output of Argentina to run the network? It certainly didn't take that much years ago. The reason being that as BTC becomes more valuable there is more reward and thus more competition for miners to mine. As that happens, the hash rate will rise as more power is added to the network.

Re: $130B wiped off crypto markets in 24 hours

#286

Post by EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK »

$30,000 is plenty of value for Bitcoin to fulfill it's main function - that of electronic cash. And this is going pretty good for it, I pay small amounts of $1, $10 using Wallet of Satoshi all the time - instant, free and global. Maybe at some remote later stage, when everyone wants to have $1000 in their Bitcoin wallet, will it need $300k price level.

Re: $130B wiped off crypto markets in 24 hours

#287

Post by jcranmer »

kmeisthax wrote: post #267
SeanAnderson wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix is down 35%, not sure why Google would be seen as the hardest-hit FAANG.

The dirty secret of "FAANG" is that Netflix is not a FAANG company anymore despite literally being the N of the acronym. The idea behind FAANG was to create a catchy acronym for "high-growth, big-cap tech stock". At the time, maybe it made sense to stick Netflix in the acronym - but their business model was also radically different than it is now. It also wasn't really sustainable: Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and Google…

> Counting Netflix as a FAANG makes absolutely no sense and we should just pretend the N stands for, oh... I dunno.

I always mentally treat the 'N' as standing for Microsoft. The letter isn't right, but FAAMG isn't as easy to pronounce as FAANG...

Re: $130B wiped off crypto markets in 24 hours

#289

Post by psyc »

jcranmer wrote: post #287
kmeisthax wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dirty secret of "FAANG" is that Netflix is not a FAANG company anymore despite literally being the N of the acronym. The idea behind FAANG was to create a catchy acronym for "high-growth, big-cap tech stock". At the time, maybe it made sense to stick Netflix in the acronym - but their business model was also radically different than it is now. It also wasn't really sustainable: Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and Google…

> Counting Netflix as a FAANG makes absolutely no sense and we should just pretend the N stands for, oh... I dunno. I always mentally treat the 'N' as standing for Microsoft. The letter isn't right, but FAAMG isn't as easy to pronounce as FAANG...

NadellaSoft

Re: $130B wiped off crypto markets in 24 hours

#290

Post by joecool1029 »

tiku wrote: post #261
asimpletune wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could be wrong about this, but I don't know if the energy requirements have anything to do with the price (I.e. demand) for the coin, does it? I was under the impression that the problems that you have to solve get predictably more difficult, and they're more of a function of time than price. But yes, with your point overall I agree, like in 10 years or something it doesn't seem workable without major changes. Wasn…

Why would a bitcoin miner sell his mined BTC for less than the power costs?

To pay down rising borrowing costs?
Post reply on HN