121–130 of 268 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Banks failed because they weren't regulated. If we regulate crypto, whole crypto premise is lost. So what's the point?
We only need to regulate crypto-banks that are holding other peoples assets. We should not regulate those that wish to hold their own assets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is economic value in a piece of equity in google. It doesn't entitle you to profits, it doesn't entitle you to assets (except in bankruptcy), you can't eat it, and it's only worth what other people will pay you for it. Unlike a rothko, I can't hang it in my living room. Where's the value?
If Google stock were really worthless, someone could buy all of it for pennies and do whatever they want with the company. Owning and controlling a company with $80B yearly profits isn’t worth anything to you? A single Google share isn’t really worth anything on its own. But its value is tied to the collective value of _all_ Google shares, which _are_ worth something.
Nobody is disputing that it has market value. My argument is that it has much less intrinsic value than some people would like to believe.
> A single Google share isn’t really worth anything on its own. But its value is tied to the collective value of _all_ Google shares, which _are_ worth something.
Not really, unless there's some non-zero chance that Alphabet will be bought out. By my understanding, that chance is pretty close to zero. Am I wrong?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So are you saying monero can solve the planetary crisis of users not being able to buy illicit drugs online?
Monero is digital cash. Cash is also used to buy drugs, but we do not ban it. I feel that financial privacy is a human right just like any other form of privacy. If you disagree then please post your last month’s bank statement in response to this comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is economic value in a piece of equity in google. It doesn't entitle you to profits, it doesn't entitle you to assets (except in bankruptcy), you can't eat it, and it's only worth what other people will pay you for it. Unlike a rothko, I can't hang it in my living room. Where's the value?
It absolutely does entitle you to profits, either in the form of dividends or stock buybacks.
I can't just vote in a dividend, because founders Larry and Sergey control 51% of the voting power. Shares don't entitle you to profits at all.
Quoted post unavailable.
I don’t think that is true at all. There is economic value in a piece of equity in google. The price someone is willing to pay for it changes frequently. Crypto is closer to art than anything else. I get less value from a rothko than someone else may
If you make money out of a piece of equity in Google, then somebody made that money but didn’t get it, either by buying the same amount of equity for more money then you, or by creating value through working at google but not getting that value paid in salary. This sounds like a ponzi with investors at the top of the pyramid and workers at the bottom.
A better example of something that isn’t a ponzi are taxes (or any common funds), you pay into a common fund that then is used to provide services and infrastructure that anyone can use for fun and profit. Another example is a traditional savings account. The bank (actually a credit union is an even more pristine example) holds on to your money while you are not using it, and lends it to people that need it, they will give you a small interest as compensation (part of the profit of that money) but also spend some of it to buy insurance so that you will never be at risk of actually loosing that money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean communism looks pretty cool on paper too, the actual idea. But we seem to have had a real hard time implementing it. Could crypto be like that?
Except crypto actually works for its intended use cases. I use it constantly. Maybe it works poorly for traders but those of us actually using cryptoassets for privacy, inflation resistance, and censorship resistance ignore the scams and traders. Scams and traders dominate the conversation of most new technology. Same things happen in traditional markets. Cults of personality and false promises by corporations inflat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> inflation resistance Bitcoin hyperinflated in the last year.
There is a fixed total amount of Bitcoin that will ever exist, and they are released the the market over time. Bitcoin is not inflationary.
It has a fixed supply. (Currently. An unknown number of miners could always increase it.)
> Bitcoin is not inflationary
Of course it is. One Bitcoin buys 75% fewer goods and services than it did a year ago. Taking advantage of people who mistake money supply for inflation is one of crypto’s scams.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Early banks failed all the time. Give it another decade or so for regulation to start mandating accountability.
Banks failed because they weren't regulated. If we regulate crypto, whole crypto premise is lost. So what's the point?
Centralized entities (ie businesses) that are holding people’s funds absolutely should be regulated, and certainly more than the current state. The scammers in this space don’t have any real connection to the tech per se, they’ve just identified a relatively friction-free way to scam people.
“Crypto” itself (the tech) can’t be regulated, short of coordinating all countries to confiscate mining rigs/validators and make them seriously illegal, thus breaking the network.
So regulating the businesses does not invalidate the premise—it just protects people as they onboard funds.