41–50 of 91 posts
Matt Levine writes well about it: [ https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-05-10/anothe... ]
It’s fascinating read. Still, the amount of brain power Matt has dedicated to this makes me feel like it would be better spent elsewhere.
Yeah but is crypto causing the crash or just a symptom of it? It doesn’t seem like all the large investment banks and reinsurers are flirting with insolvency due to crypto exposure. They definitely were due to CDO and mortgages. That distinction seems substantive.
An opportunistic scapegoating by the banks, maybe. There's quite a lot of astroturfing about crypto (for and against these days). I'd expect a couple decades of conspiracy theories about their role at the very least. But Bitcoin was created as a response to the banks failures in 2008, so maybe they're trying to get ahead of that message returning this time around. Anyone work in PR for mortgage companies? What kinda…
I love the fact that crypto people are not satisfied with creating one pseudocurrency out of thin air; as soon as that has the tiniest semblance of stability (in this case ether) they go and create other ones “backed” by it. How did we reach the kind of socioeconomic climate where people are actually willing to put their hard-earned money into such a thing?
It will interesting to see what Bitcoin's price floor is when we get to maximum crypto-pessimism. Intuitively, that seems like it would be the price of its aspiration to be "digital gold", in the sense of it being an asset-of-last-resort that has little to no economically productive value, just like the piles at the United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox. Heck if I know what that is, though. $10k, $5k? Or are…
I build in this space all the time, declines are great for builders, and we mostly earn crypto and can immediately cash it out if desired. We don't need a bullish or bearish hypothesis. Transaction fees get cheaper. The economy is big enough to extract value regardless and we’re always accumulating professional experience (niche coveted coding skills) and network.
In these crashes there is always an illiquid whale. In this crash that illiquid whale is Do Kwon liquidating the bitcoin he just bought to prop up Terra/Luna, and maybe Microstrategy.
They’ll stop selling eventually.
Some funds aren’t going to get new limited partners to pump their favorite assets.
I would love to see how crypto performs in a market where sentiment isnt supported by the Federal Reserve, we havent seen that yet, even though crypto was never a direct beneficiary I think the limited partners in the last round of hedge/vc funds were fairly direct beneficiaries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just because you keep repeating something doesn't make it true My 'statements' and that 'something' that I am repeating are based on the contents of the article. That is why I am assuming you also have read all of it before commenting here and some of the author's previous articles. So when are you going to refute them and answer a simple question? Or did you just rush here to comment knowing that you cannot answer…
"As for the crypto-maximalists screaming about Bitcoin as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system for on-chain payments and as a currency, it is safe to say that experiment has totally failed and that was found out the hard way." Crypto has not failed. These are your words, not from the article. You are wrong, as you don't have any proof. Also, the onus is on you to prove your statement. Right now it's baseless and doe…
2008: What do you mean credit default swaps on synthetic collateralized debt obligations will lead to a recession? That sounds like nonsense! 2022: What do you mean monkey pictures in block chains will lead to a recession? That sounds like nonsense!
The monkey pictures are … actually doing fine, maybe just “okay”, have you looked? Anybody trading ApeCoin though? It hit airdrop price, was tempting
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"As for the crypto-maximalists screaming about Bitcoin as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system for on-chain payments and as a currency, it is safe to say that experiment has totally failed and that was found out the hard way." Crypto has not failed. These are your words, not from the article. You are wrong, as you don't have any proof. Also, the onus is on you to prove your statement. Right now it's baseless and doe…
So far cryptocurrency has failed for everything except facilitating certain illegal transactions (buying drugs, paying ransoms, evading currency controls). Someday we might find a real use case for it and then you can claim success, but that hasn't happened yet.
Unless you can prove above it's worthless, and obviously you don't know this and as such your sweeping generalizations are worth exactly 0 (choose your currency).
There are problems with any currency/commodity/anything, but saying X is failed/stupid/useless or anything else is worthless without proof, and as I was saying in my previous comments, none can predict future, so these general statements about future or present are completely pointless and go against HN standards, as again ther is no proof.
Exactly. Maybe that is why it is the justification for more regulations for stablecoins. Highly likely that is going to happen or introducing their own CBDCs like China or both co-existing once the regulatory framework around stablecoins becomes clearer. Then we will see which ones will comply or not. As for the crypto-maximalists screaming about Bitcoin as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system for on-chain payments…
So basically bitcoin died again. Oops.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So far cryptocurrency has failed for everything except facilitating certain illegal transactions (buying drugs, paying ransoms, evading currency controls). Someday we might find a real use case for it and then you can claim success, but that hasn't happened yet.
Here we go again with baseless statements generalizing crypto success or not. Please prove or at least give a source for a sweeping statement you make: "So far cryptocurrency has failed for everything except facilitating certain illegal transactions (buying drugs, paying ransoms, evading currency controls)." Unless you can prove above it's worthless, and obviously you don't know this and as such your sweeping general…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just because you keep repeating something doesn't make it true My 'statements' and that 'something' that I am repeating are based on the contents of the article. That is why I am assuming you also have read all of it before commenting here and some of the author's previous articles. So when are you going to refute them and answer a simple question? Or did you just rush here to comment knowing that you cannot answer…
"As for the crypto-maximalists screaming about Bitcoin as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system for on-chain payments and as a currency, it is safe to say that experiment has totally failed and that was found out the hard way." Crypto has not failed. These are your words, not from the article. You are wrong, as you don't have any proof. Also, the onus is on you to prove your statement. Right now it's baseless and doe…
And where in those words did I say that 'Crypto has failed'? Did I say 'about Crypto'? or was it 'about Bitcoin'?, the one who's author's name is 'Satoshi Nakamoto', and published a white-paper titled: 'Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system'?
Of all replies to me, everyone (except you) knew that I was talking about Bitcoin being a failure in its original purpose. The evidence that supports my claim(s) is all backed by the contents of this article and others by the same author, assuming you have read them.
But of course, if you needed to misinterpret my own sentence and create a straw-man out of it, that tells me that you still couldn't refute the article or my claim(s) about Bitcoin being a failure in its original purpose.
> Is that clearer? Or do you need more words to explain your baseless position.
Perhaps you need to explain why you're the only one that knowingly invented a straw-man to escape refuting the article and answering my question. If the majority of commenters to my reply recognised that I am referring to Bitcoin, it's more clearer to me that maybe the article and the replies here are beyond your own reading comprehension. Maybe that explains why you needed to find a way to escape refuting the article and answering my simple question, which is proving to be increasingly difficult for you every time you dodge it.
So are you going to finally refute the article and give a sensible answer to my question? Or do you still need more time to finish reading the article before you reply back and post something unintelligent again? Since it turns out you still haven't finished reading it and just rushed into posting here in the comments section.