211–220 of 518 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Barely makes an impression in the parade of crime that is web3isgoinggreat.com/
That’s a fun site.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tomorrow your bank could cut you off from your own money because you protested the government[1], and what could you possibly do? Having the freedom to truly own your own money and investments is valuable in and of itself, no matter how much crypto "devolves" towards traditional finance in other regards. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/22/world/americas/canada-pro...
Apart from some edge cases, Western democracies have quite solid property rights upheld also by the judicial system. But yes if you’re in Russia or China then this argument is moot. They have much less property rights. However, Bitcoin is also not a solution because there is no point in owning Bitcoin if you fell trice out of a Russian window or are sentenced to a labour camp or to the death penalty in China for "fra…
Did you mean intellectual property? You draw Mickey a year ago and a FBI helicopter would soon be overhead to kill your dog and take any cash they find in your wallet.
I am glad to see the cyberpunk future of hackers impersonating government agencies in order to pump and dump digital currency has finally arrived.
Barely makes an impression in the parade of crime that is web3isgoinggreat.com/
The idea that there would be anything but a massive acceleration of crime and fraud as a result of the digitization of actual money is actually hilarious.
It’s a fact that North Korea relies on hacking it for funding critical imports at this point…
The real question is who and how this massive financialization and tokenization exercise will benefit, because it’s increasingly clear that the old guard has designs on how to control it pretty effectively and it’s not actually as free or anonymous as many people think. Some exceptions apply.
POW crypto should be globally banned on ecological grounds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We really really really need some legislation about governmental agencies using privately owned companies to announce things. There was already some for radio/early news, but the landscape has changed so much, and it bothers me a ton that these platforms are being used.
> We really really really need some legislation about governmental agencies using privately owned companies to announce things. What kind of legislation? There's a whole lot of existing law that applies in that domain (both statute and Constitutional case law), but if you think we need different laws, it probably helps to at least present the general shape of the law you want rather than just that it should in some w…
(full opinion here): https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1365-trump-twitter-s...
which while resolved, really opens more questions than it solves (which is fine because legislating from the bench shouldn't be the norm...)
There need to be very clear laws about how social media and modern tech is used to present information. Hell for the first time the government should have the ability to directly release information and not be reliant on normal privately owned distribution, and that should be investigated as well.
This whole thing is a giant can of legal worms anyways, and it only gets worse because our legislative branch has decided to devolve into high school popularity contests and just let the judiciary sort it all out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being able to buy it in a run-of-the-mill tax advantaged account would be a very big deal. It's possible to do it now, but not easy.
Why is it not easy? Your fund manager has to click a button to enable it. You have to click a button to buy it. How will an ETF make it easier?
There is a friction that would undoubtedly be solved by bitcoin ETFs. There's hundred of millions of causal investors who prefer to simply treat btc as any other stock and don't want to bother with actual ownership of the asset in any form and don't want to have to deal with anything different from normal stocks. And lowering friction increases usage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Web3 is the crypto nonsense. It was a rebrand attempt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web3
From this forum we shall organize the great retaking of “Web3” for the 3D paradigm it was always meant to be. It’s in the name!! It’s sad that blockchain went the way it did, because it’s probably a great technology when you don’t expect it to revolutionize the entire internet.
It really isn't. There's nothing legal it can do that something else can't do better. It's not even that good at the illegal stuff.
I know making millions off crypto doesn't make me an authority, but... It's not an investment. I made money off people speculating by taking advantage solely off an inefficient market. There's nothing else to it. Money put in is not used to generate more wealth. Whether it's going to be used as an official currency in the future in no way would make an investment, nor would it mean it should even go up an value.
This is half a joke, but maybe there is demand for a vehicle for speculation that isn't tied to anything real, at all. It achieves some sort of purity of concept. Plenty of people _gamble_ on the stock market but there has always been some sort of link to reality. With crypto, you can cut that tether and really treat it like gambling, rigged odds and all.
I'll go with completely agreeing with this statement, the way it's written. Let's be honest...There's nothing semantically or generally wrong with it to argue against.
As far as the "gambling" part... My objection would be that speculative vehicles aren't really on the "stock market" as much as they are the "derivatives market", if anything. Problem here is that the derivatives are, by definition, tied to the value of something else that could be called an investment. I'm not opposed to people trading. I made my money with market making algorithms and will make more as people keep trading. I'm just saying that classifying it as an "investment" poses quite a few issues for the SEC in terms of regulating it. Introducing it into an ETF that does nothing but hold crypto will be viewed by the public (that doesn't understand what crypto is) into presenting it as an investment. There are issues with that.
From a Slack of market observers I frequent: "Right now, someone is explaining to the BlackRock board, 'you got rugged, it happens all the time in crypto.' "
It'd be funny if it wasn't a $45k to $45.7k change for a +$700 delta.