71–80 of 91 posts
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!
If a recession comes, it won't be because of NFTs. 'Traditional' finance has become hooked after a decade of loose monetary policy, that was always going to end in pain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works. If you think that cryptocurrency has been or will be a success then the onus is on you to provide proof. So far it's just worthless garbage.
It’s proven to be a great way to bootstrap new things that have heavy network effects. I think more and more businesses will take advantage of this effect—it’s pretty powerful.
200 Billion in crypto wiped out in 24 hrs is bound to cause ripple effects in traditional finance as well. "Crypto has at least started to work its way into the real financial system. Some traditional investors also own crypto; if their crypto goes down they might have to sell regular stuff. Some public companies are exposed to crypto (because they are crypto exchanges, because they have levered crypto holdings, etc.…
>so your boring old index fund might go down when crypto goes down I need someone to explain to me how my S&P 500 blackrock ishares are going to die from crypto. I don't think FAANG, Berkshire, Exxon and Pfitzer are going to notice if all of crypto dropped to zero right now.
2) There are plenty of crypto ETFs, such as GBTC and BITO, where selloffs there could cause liquidations elsewhere.
3) Major companies themselves now have significant crypto holdings. The most famous being Tesla, but investment banks have been piling into it over the past year. SPY's own State Street announced a 425-man team to head a new division last June.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works. If you think that cryptocurrency has been or will be a success then the onus is on you to provide proof. So far it's just worthless garbage.
The fact that crypto. exists, makes me correct and crypto success provable. Your statement is false as, again, crypto exists. As long as the crypto space exists and has value above 0, it is not worthless and that makes you wrong.
Not sure how basic you need this proof to be, but here is one more attempt. 1 > 0, 1 being crypto existence and 0 it not existing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works. If you think that cryptocurrency has been or will be a success then the onus is on you to provide proof. So far it's just worthless garbage.
"If you think that cryptocurrency has been or will be a success then the onus is on you to provide proof" The fact that crypto. exists, makes me correct and crypto success provable. Your statement is false as, again, crypto exists. As long as the crypto space exists and has value above 0, it is not worthless and that makes you wrong. Not sure how basic you need this proof to be, but here is one more attempt. 1 > 0, 1…
200 Billion in crypto wiped out in 24 hrs is bound to cause ripple effects in traditional finance as well. "Crypto has at least started to work its way into the real financial system. Some traditional investors also own crypto; if their crypto goes down they might have to sell regular stuff. Some public companies are exposed to crypto (because they are crypto exchanges, because they have levered crypto holdings, etc.…
By fading the print out after a few interesting paragraphs, you don't make me want to subscribe you just piss me off. That's because you suckered me into reading something I couldn't finish without paying. If you told me that at the beginning of the article, I would have more respect for you and, who knows, might have even considered subscribing. If you are sincere honest journalist don't function like a pimp.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If you think that cryptocurrency has been or will be a success then the onus is on you to provide proof" The fact that crypto. exists, makes me correct and crypto success provable. Your statement is false as, again, crypto exists. As long as the crypto space exists and has value above 0, it is not worthless and that makes you wrong. Not sure how basic you need this proof to be, but here is one more attempt. 1 > 0, 1…
Pocket lint also exists. Does that prove the success of pocket lint?
Now I want to see you bring an example of pocket lint being used as collateral. Pretty sure you cannot, therefore you're wrong again, and probably should admit so and learn something, instead of being ignorant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The regulated companies didn't do much better: CVNA -91% PTON -91% RIVN -90% FVRR -90% HOOD -90% U -85% ROKU, DKNG, RBLX, the list goes on .. and we call those investments.
There’s a difference between equity in badly performing companies, and a Ponzi scheme where “stable” coins that promise a value of 1$ can depeg.
In contrast, a company can hide wrongdoing and you can be left with something like Enron.
Long-term, I'd trust the algos more than the traditional system. Survival is a powerful selector, flawed ideas will be weeded out. Those that remain will be both resilient and transparent.