From here: https://www.stephendiehl.com/blog/crypto-absurd.html > There are no fundamentals to any crypto token and it’s discounted future cashflows are all strictly zero and thus its present value must be strictly zero. This is demonstrably false. Cash has no future cash flow, yet its value is clearly not zero. The way I see it, the value of an asset depends on how desirable it is to market participants (demand), as…
Well of course it will when enough people (globally) decide to have a literal revolution (including the crime and punishment that entails) after realizing that neo-libertarian ideals are _obviously_ the only plausible way to maintain a society. /s I see an argument like this in every crypto thread. Come on. You should know that this is a political argument and that, in the US at least, we're pretty damn divided. Talk…
But this is not Diehl's argument. He's saying that crypto isn't worth anything no matter how many journalists MBS cuts into little pieces. His line (which appears to be a dumbed-down, unattributed version of what Nassim Nicholas Taleb says) is that an asset with no cash flow has zero present value. NNT's version is that an asset with no cash flow must be valued based on the price "at infinity". Diehl wants this to mean that any self-licking ice-cream cone has zero PV, but that is simply false, in that a self-sustaining process which never ceases really does have that "price at infinity". Most of gold's value comes from this, i.e. from the reasonable expectation that humans will value gold for as long as there are humans. There's a respectable theory of money which says that moneys arise in this way – a feedback loop of belief about others' beliefs about value, that ends up creating the common knowledge that something is valuable. To this extent Diehl is simply begging the question, by assuming that something isn't a potential money and valuing it as if it can never be one.