Live data from Hacker News

Is this the end of crypto?

economist.com

251–260 of 448 posts

Re: Is this the end of crypto?

#251

Fundamental issues of cryptocurrency economy: 1. Biggest pushers are seemingly tech-bros from FANG companies. These companies are laying off staff in record numbers. The biggest cryptocoin believers therefore, will have less income than ever before (in ~3 months or so, after their severance is paid, they'll have to start drawing on savings if they didn't get a job yet... and getting a job in this economy is going to…

> 3. Inflation. Instead of being a hedge on inflation, cryptocoins collapsed in the face of it.

I don't disagree with the other points but... That one remains to be seen. Bitcoin was precisely created as a gigantic middle finger to the central bank's endless money printing to bail out the financial system. That's the message in the genesis block ("Chancellor on the brink of second bank bail out": it's as political as it gets). The early adopters, before the poker players (Bitcoin was used to facilitate players-to-players transfer on poker sites before Silkroad and drugs where I thing IIRC), were libertarians and anarchists fed up with the FED.

This hasn't changed, so far. There are only going to ever be 21 million Bitcoin. Ethereum, at the moment, is deflationary (more ETHs are burned than created through proof-of-stake).

You get, what, 5% on your USD: great. But real inflation is, say, 12%. So that's still 7% down.

There's a price at which people are going to enter BTC and Ethereum with the promise that it won't be inflated to death.

Many may not like it. "Inflation in the two digits, good!. Helicopter Ben: savior of the economy. Bank bail outs mutualizing losses: perfection by our beloved state!".

But there are still people out there who see the value in something that cannot be printed at will.

I'd say especially so when the FTX and Tether of this world, at times in bed with officials, are printing at will their worthless token and dumping them on retail with the blessing of the New York Times.

> There are still inflation worries in the economy.

Precisely.

I'm certainly not keeping all my life savings in cryptocurrencies. I was all in cash after the war in Ukraine started and I'm certainly enjoying the firesales on many stocks right now (Stanley, Makita, ASML, Intel, 3M and a shitload of stocks I handpicked are totally on sale: it was time to sale when everybody was yelling "TINA" and the war in Ukraine started and it's time to buy now that everybody is yelling "falling knifes, it may fall another 90%"... Yeah, sure. If all the companies I handpicked are falling 90% more, I'll load up the truck and retire in a fancy yacht in a few years).

But this entire USDT/FTX scam (with the blessing of the SEC and CFTC), these shitty tokens created out of SBF's farts (sorry but it's how it is) and these centralized exchanges makes me want to go bullish on BTC / ETH. I'm waiting for tether to go bust to go in bigger.

Many hate it here: BTC may not be worth much but "your keys your coins" and as long as it's not totally outlawed, nobody is going to prevent me from storing BTC (mo matter their value) on a hardware wallet.

And f--k fractional reserve banking, f--k bail-ins (Cyprus), f--k the vicious states stealing people's money (Spain, where banks offered crazy return rates to their customers then defaulted on the principal) and certainly f--k mutualized bank bailouts.

I have zero confidence in USD / EUR. I have zero confidence in banks. I believe in stocks and, yes, in BTC and ETH on my own hardware wallet.

Re: Is this the end of crypto?

#252
post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm from Argentina but live in the UK: in 2020 my mom needed an urgent oncological treatment and the only method I had to transfer the money was using a cryptocurrency. I really don't like to talk about this stuff but when people here in HN keep making arguments like "oh who needs this stuff, I can send money to my friends with the Monzo app" it really makes me feel like my problems as someone from the third world do…

I think most people here agree that it is unnecessarily hard and expensive to transfer money between countries. However cryptocurrency is a technological solution to a regulatory problem. This issue could be solved tomorrow by legislation if governments would cooperate and work to do so. All the efforts pushing cryptocurrency for this particular niche would be better served pushing for international standards for che…

>This issue could be solved tomorrow by legislation if governments would cooperate and work to do so.

Again, many countries around the globe don't have a functional government capable of produce such legislation _tomorrow_.

Re: Is this the end of crypto?

#253
post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All the efforts pushing cryptocurrency for this particular niche would be better served pushing for international standards for cheap and simple instant money transfers. That seems impossible given today's geopolitics. Crypto remittance at least works.

Maybe that is true of transferring money between USA and Russia, or between USA and the EU, or the USA and any other country outside of Canada and Mexico, but there is no reason that the UK and Argentina don’t have a bilateral agreement in place that would make transferring money between the two countries quick, cheap, and easy.

[deleted]

Re: Is this the end of crypto?

#254
post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd go a step further with the comparison to gold. If everyone would stop mining gold today, gold would retain value (or perhaps even go up in value). On the flipside, if we turned off all bitcoin miners today, bitcoin would go to zero instantly (as its worthless without continuous resources being pumped into it). This is why I'm sympathetic to those who say its ponzi scheme, it only has value because of new resource…

Nitpicking but >if we turned off all bitcoin miners today, bitcoin would go to zero instantly isn't true. You couldn't trade them normally with the miners off but you could start mining up the day after - it only takes a couple of computers really.

[deleted]

Re: Is this the end of crypto?

#255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I anticipate CBDC being something for the peons to use, not the elite. Yes, the government can monitor transactions, but it currently has to jump through a lot more loopholes to do so. I understand and agree with your sentiment, with the additional point that smaller banks are also going to be made obsolete if a CBDC is rolled out. But the wealthy and connected will most certainly have their own way of getting around…

At this point, if HN is any indication, they deserve it.

I migrated to https://stacker.news ; anxiously waiting for them to open other subs

Re: Is this the end of crypto?

#256

When Crypto was young it was this cool new technology that mostly interesting because of the underlying tech. But even back then it was mostly valuable for buying drugs online and other illegal stuff. Now it's that and a way to scam people of their life savings. I do hope it dies out, it should have been heavily regulated from the get go. Way too many people saw these high production commercials with their favorite c…

I see this point of view a lot on Hacker News because it's dominated by people living in places like the US. Let me add a little perspective on how Bitcoin is used in lower- and middle-income countries from my personal experience.

If you live in a country with a highly functional banking system and no kleptocracy, Bitcoin is probably a bit puzzling unless you have family in Cuba. But it’s not puzzling at all for those of us who live somewhere in the middle of the broad spectrum between Switzerland and Somalia, because most places have a little kleptocracy. Argentina is a stable democracy, far from being “a failed state,”† but if you want to send US$500 abroad via non-Bitcoin means it’s basically impossible, and the only broadly available savings vehicle is real estate (“ahorrar en ladrillos”), which of course grossly inflates real-estate prices, with a substantial part of the capital city occupied by empty apartments someone bought “as an investment”. Historically, Argentines have saved by buying dollars, but that’s limited to US$200 a month now, and then only if you have a non-under-the-table job (about a third of total employment is under the table):

https://www.ambito.com/finanzas/dolares/cronologia-del-cepo-...>

Something like 300,000 people out of a country of 40 million are legally permitted to buy dollars.

You can see that in September 02019 when this measure was imposed the price of a dollar was AR$63.50; now it’s AR$305. So whatever savings you had in pesos in 02019 have lost 79% of their value to peso devaluation. In fact, whatever savings you had in pesos a week ago have lost 4%.

I’ve been using Bitcoin to get paid for several years at this point where I live here in Argentina. It’s currently 14 years after Bitcoin’s invention, and some people think it’s regressing instead of progressing. Well, 14 years after the internet’s invention was 01983; not only couldn’t you get so much as a weather report online, much less IRC, but many of the early interesting experiments like NLS at SRI had shut down, and more and more places were disabling guest access to their hosts—you couldn’t run so much as a game of ADVENT without getting a username. And a password. Things were seriously regressing. The only people you could talk to on the internet were other people who really bought into the subculture.

In 02001 a lot of Argentines had saved dollars in their dollar-denominated, "government insured" bank accounts. This did not preserve their savings through the financial crisis that year; the cash-strapped government limited withdrawals to a trickle, then converted dollar deposits to pesos at a one-to-one rate, then released the exchange-rate peg, at which point peso went overnight from being worth US$1 to being worth US$0.25 before settling at about US$0.31 for the next few years. The US did something similar in 01933. There was no recourse for this scam.

You might think alternatives to banks like credit unions would protect their customers better, since the customers are the owners, but Credicoop depositors suffered the same two-thirds confiscation of savings as depositors in for-profit banks. And they pay the same 3% tax on bank transactions including checks. That’s more than a fast Bitcoin transaction fee of US$15 for transactions over US$500.

But we’re not a failed state. There are no gangs of bandits roving the streets in Argentine cities (though there are some pretty bad slums where you’ll get robbed if you wander in without knowing anybody). Courts, free public hospitals, and roads continue to function, though there are more potholes than a couple years ago. Argentine infant mortality is 10 per 1000 live births, down from almost 20 in the late 01990s and the same as the late 01980s in the US; life expectancy at birth is 77 years, worse than Switzerland’s 84, but the same as China and Hungary, and better than Saudi or Mexico. (Somalia is 54.)

Most of the world is worse off than Argentina, although not necessarily in such a statistically transparent fashion. About one fourth of the people in the world are unbanked, 51% here in Argentina, 70% in El Salvador; even advanced countries like Russia, Hungary, and Uruguay have roughly a quarter of the population unbanked:

https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/economic-data/worlds-most-...>

And if your family lives in a country like Iran or Venezuela subject to US sanctions, and you live in the US? Good luck sending them an ACH, instant or otherwise!‡ It’s well known that Bitcoin is very popular in Venezuela, which kind of is a failed state, so one of the Venezuelan governments is trying to tax Bitcoin remittances at 15%.

https://archive.fo/ZRXzS>

Bitcoin handles a few billion dollars per year in such remittances. A few billion dollars a year might seem like a trivial amount of money to someone in a rich country, but in poor countries, it’s enough to keep several million people alive.

Even in the US, it’s common for the police to confiscate large amounts of paper currency just because they can (“civil forfeiture”); US bank accounts are probably fine for US$100K but probably somewhat risky for US$10M if the bank thinks you don’t seem like the kind of person who ought to have it. US$10M in US$100 bills fits in a box you can wheel around on a dolly, but Bitcoin is a lot more practical. (And of course US$10M in dollar bills loses about US$200k per year to inflation.)

Transaction fees are usually high enough that you wouldn’t want to use Bitcoin to pay for a can of Red Bull or even a restaurant dinner. But it’s extremely practical as an alternative to Western Union or US$100 bills or gold; even when transaction fees are high, they're low compared to the black-market spread.

So, Bitcoin doesn’t have to be a cypherpunk utopia to be a big improvement on the status quo ante. For those of you living in stable countries where your worries are things like “instant and extremely low-fee ACHs” and “decentralized utopia”, this may be very confusing, but try to remember that most of the world lives in places with much more pressing concerns, concerns that Bitcoin helps a lot with. And you may live there too, soon—the loyal subjects of Kaiser Wilhelm in 01913 certainly didn’t expect that in 15 years they’d be in the middle of a hyperinflation episode that remains legendary a century later.

I think that, by providing workarounds to the people who need them, cryptocurrencies probably not only ameliorate the most immediate and pressing concerns of poor parts of the population like Venezuelan immigrants and MS-13 victims, but probably also adjust the power balance in a more liberal and democratic direction. This will improve the chance of those concerns being ameliorated by public policy over the next decades as well. But it’s hard to tell what will really happen.

Of course, when saving money or making a living becomes illegal, I guess they count as "buying illegal shit". But that doesn't make them bad.

The potential disaster scenario is that, by making most taxation impossible, cryptocurrencies destroy the modern welfare state without providing anything to replace it. So the public hospitals close, the enormous police force starts to support itself by extracting tribute, and the infrastructure decays. Pretty similar to what’s happened in the US over the last 50 years, in fact, only more so.

However, at this point I think the modern welfare state is already doing a good enough job of destroying itself without any significant help from cryptocurrencies—as evidence, I can point to Maduro, Macri, Bolsonaro, Trump, and Brexit, and metonymically to the social changes they betoken. So at this point I’m more worried about cushioning the collapse than preventing it.

____

† We’ve remained democratic since 01983, electing presidents from three different political parties (UCR, PJ, and PRO), and there’s no serious insurgency. It’s the economy and government policy that are ruinously unstable, to a point that seems satirical to anyone accustomed to the US, but is lamentably common worldwide. Rich people sometimes say they don’t know of legitimate uses of Bitcoin outside of “failed states”.

‡ Family remittances are specifically exempted from the US sanctions on Iran, but good luck finding a US bank that’s willing and able to take that risk: https://www.wiggin.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/26580_advi...>

See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27448744.

Re: Is this the end of crypto?

#257
As a general financial instrument there seems to be too large an opportunity for fraud and scams that it seems to generally not be worth it outside of hedges against hyper inflation.

But the general idea of web3, personal ownership of data that you can seamlessly move to different interfaces, and as a way to trust documents still all seem like great reasons to have public ledgers. This may not be in the currency space, but I feel like general crypto is something I would like to see in the future.

I also love the idea of moving fully to stable coins for better tracking related to tax implications. I'm not sure of how this would work fully, but there seems far too much opportunity for tax evasion and fraud under the current systems and moving to a stable coin seems like it could aid in that regard.

Re: Is this the end of crypto?

#258
post #98

When Crypto was young it was this cool new technology that mostly interesting because of the underlying tech. But even back then it was mostly valuable for buying drugs online and other illegal stuff. Now it's that and a way to scam people of their life savings. I do hope it dies out, it should have been heavily regulated from the get go. Way too many people saw these high production commercials with their favorite c…

> I do hope it dies out, it should have been heavily regulated from the get go. On the other hand, if it had been heavily regulated from the get-go, there would be tremendous pressure to bail it out now, so maybe it's for the best that it wasn't regulated by the government. It would have been nice if there was a countervailing force to the billionaire-savior cults promoting it, but unfortunately our media environment…

> On the other hand, if it had been heavily regulated from the get-go, there would be tremendous pressure to bail it out now, so maybe it's for the best that it wasn't regulated by the government.

This isn’t true at all. The FTX collapse is more akin to something like Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, which was significantly larger and did not get a bailout.

The financial bailouts you’re comparing this to were mostly loans that were paid back with interest, which init equivalent to the government handing money over to compensate for someone’s fraud.

The idea behind the regulation would be to prevent these situations from becoming so large in the first place. FTX deliberately avoided locations with regulation so they could perpetuate their fraud. So, no, regulations in the US would not have impacted how FTX operated in the Bahamas nor would they have any interest in bailing out a foreign company.

Finally, regulation doesn’t cause bailouts. There’s no rule that says regulated industries get bailouts while unregulated industries don’t. You’re conflating two completely different topics and trying to pass them off as one in the same.

Re: Is this the end of crypto?

#259

Here's how I see it: Crypto as an investment - Not your keys, not your coin. Crypto as a currency - I can't directly buy food, water, shelter, transportation, energy, or anything fundamental with it. I know acceptance is growing, but 10+ years later, crypto still has extremely limited acceptance for daily goods and services. It is almost exclusively held as an investment.

> Crypto as a currency - I can't directly buy food, water, shelter, transportation, energy, or anything fundamental with it.

Cryptocurrency payments is a flourishing market, btw.

Re: Is this the end of crypto?

#260
post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd go a step further with the comparison to gold. If everyone would stop mining gold today, gold would retain value (or perhaps even go up in value). On the flipside, if we turned off all bitcoin miners today, bitcoin would go to zero instantly (as its worthless without continuous resources being pumped into it). This is why I'm sympathetic to those who say its ponzi scheme, it only has value because of new resource…

Nitpicking but >if we turned off all bitcoin miners today, bitcoin would go to zero instantly isn't true. You couldn't trade them normally with the miners off but you could start mining up the day after - it only takes a couple of computers really.

> You couldn't trade them normally with the miners off but you could start mining up the day after.

So if we turn off all the bitcoin miners, it wouldn't be possible to transact. All you could do is look at it, like a read-only excel sheet.

Post reply on HN