Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Edited Latecomer’s Guide to Crypto

mollywhite.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 331 posts

Re: The Edited Latecomer’s Guide to Crypto

#101

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

dvt wrote: post #99
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The definition of liquidity is something like "the ease with which buyers and sellers can transact at transparent, stable prices". If no-one wants to buy a thing at any price, it is - by definition - illiquid. The notion that something for which there is no demand can be liquid is strange.

Actually, AMMs (automated market makers) work by ensuring that there's always a buyer (hence, "automated") as long as there's liquidity -- by automatically adjusting prices based on supply/demand.

Help me out here. I'm going to issue a hundred trillion MostExtraordinaryShitCoin (MESC). What's the bid for MESC from these AMM pools?

Re: The Edited Latecomer’s Guide to Crypto

#102

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

trophycase wrote: post #84
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that holding Apple stock is a claim of ownership of the assets of Apple as well as the future income of Apple, either in the form of dividends or stock buybacks. The activity of Apple is economically meaningful; and the price of Apple stock reflects that.

The activity on Ethereum is economically meaningful, whether you believe it is or not. And let's be honest, Netflix or Facebook could disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow and productivity would arguably increase, so is that a negative sum game?

OK but I'm responding to a claim about BTC.

Re: The Edited Latecomer’s Guide to Crypto

#103

Post by chipgap98 »

trhaynes wrote: post #10

Does anyone know if there is a tool or platform that makes it easy to make/publish this type of "leave footnotes on an article"? The UX here is nice and simple, and I think there is utility in sharing feedback this way (vs. blockquotes in email, or Google Docs comments, etc).

Yeah I was thinking the same thing. This would be a cool product.

Re: The Edited Latecomer’s Guide to Crypto

#104

Post by alligator1728 »

eropple wrote: post #42
alligator1728 wrote: post #37

Quoted post unavailable.

> Does it not make sense that a reporter on web3/crypto should be entitled to practice owning an ENS domain, in order to better write about the experience from a first hand perspective? It would be like banning a reporter from purchasing their own personal domain name, out of fear it may skew their bias on how they write about HTTP and web protocols. It absolutely does not. This is what a research budget is for from…

I feel a journalist should be entitled to own their own personal ENS domain just like they might secure their own .com domain with their own personal funds. Seems wild to suggest that Kevin should sell his ENS domain to avoid any potential bias, considering it means he will have to later buy it back at a premium either when/if he retires (or changes jobs), or when/if the NYT changes their policy. (I am assuming (1) he actually wants to keep the ENS domain, and (2) he bought it with his own funds, rather than company dime.)

I am sure they all have fulfilling lives outside of what they project online; but the single-track attitude and constant crypto snark is as tiring as the laser eyed BTC bros.

Edit: just to add, if the ENS were solely to practice buying “nytdomaintest1234.eth” and using it, then sure I agree with you. I am asking this question in the context of Kevin owning a personal domain linked to his real life name and identity.

Re: The Edited Latecomer’s Guide to Crypto

#105

Post by alex_sf »

vasco wrote: post #5

This format is interesting at first but when it starts getting to 5 paragraphs of dissecting each phrase, it gets too much. Reminds me of the someone-is-wrong-on-the-internet, point-by-point-repliers in internet forums circa 2006.

> This format is interesting at first

I agree.

> but when it starts getting to 5 paragraphs of dissecting each phrase, it gets too much.

Yeah, that's true.

> Reminds me of the someone-is-wrong-on-the-internet

Isn't there usually?

> point-by-point-repliers in internet forums

I still think it's a good format.

> circa 2006

What's wrong with 2006?

Re: The Edited Latecomer’s Guide to Crypto

#106

Post by ChrisClark »

germanjoey wrote: post #44

The article (or, rather, the commentary in the link above on the article) talks about the fallacious notion of "market cap" in regards to cryptocurrencies. That is to say, e.g., multiplying the number of bitcoins in existence times the current market price is a silly metric because the entire market would never be able to cash-out at that maximum price. What I was wondering was: is there a better number? e.g., is the…

It's a good number to use if you are comparing different coins by value though. You need to know the circulating supply if you want to compare the price of each token.

Re: The Edited Latecomer’s Guide to Crypto

#107

Post by [deleted] »

anonporridge wrote: post #92
bigtunacan wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overall, I enjoyed the analysis of the piece, but I disagree with their take on market cap. Amy Castor - "Yeah, market cap is a meaningless number. It assumes everyone bought at the current price and could cash out at the current price." We could just as easily apply that basic logic to any security. Amazon(AMZN) is ~3275 a share with a market cap of ~1.668T. That also assumes everyone could cash out at ~3275, but th…

This illustrates an important point to me. First of all, money or value is a purely memetic construct. It's a grand illusion that only exists in our collective network of consciousnesses and operates as an abstraction to efficiently keep track of favors owed. Therefore, value or money doesn't just transfer with explicit trades, as in trading $40,000 for 1 bitcoin adds $40,000 of value to bitcoin. Value also transfers…

[deleted]

Re: The Edited Latecomer’s Guide to Crypto

#108

Post by dvt »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #101
dvt wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, AMMs (automated market makers) work by ensuring that there's always a buyer (hence, "automated") as long as there's liquidity -- by automatically adjusting prices based on supply/demand.

Help me out here. I'm going to issue a hundred trillion MostExtraordinaryShitCoin (MESC). What's the bid for MESC from these AMM pools?

(Sorry for late reply, HN time-limits nested comment replies.) Basically, if you were to issue N tokens into an AMM, you would also need to provide the counter-party liquidity. So let's say you're sending 100 MESC to a pool, and the initial price is 0.01 USD (to keep it simple), you would also have to seed the pool with 1 USD. Once that's done, people start trading -- some other people might even provide liquidity (and buy LP -- liquidity pool -- tokens) which they can earn interest on.

Re: The Edited Latecomer’s Guide to Crypto

#109

Post by acdha »

bigtunacan wrote: post #71
germanjoey wrote: post #44

The article (or, rather, the commentary in the link above on the article) talks about the fallacious notion of "market cap" in regards to cryptocurrencies. That is to say, e.g., multiplying the number of bitcoins in existence times the current market price is a silly metric because the entire market would never be able to cash-out at that maximum price. What I was wondering was: is there a better number? e.g., is the…

Overall, I enjoyed the analysis of the piece, but I disagree with their take on market cap. Amy Castor - "Yeah, market cap is a meaningless number. It assumes everyone bought at the current price and could cash out at the current price." We could just as easily apply that basic logic to any security. Amazon(AMZN) is ~3275 a share with a market cap of ~1.668T. That also assumes everyone could cash out at ~3275, but th…

> Eventually it would reach ~0 share price and effectively a 0 market cap.

This is the misunderstanding breaking your argument: AMZN shares are fractional ownership of a company with assets and ongoing revenue. In the event of a business downturn, those will go down but they’re not going to zero in any plausible scenario - even bankruptcies usually return some fraction of value to shareholders.

This is important to understand because cryptocurrencies are the weakest form of a fiat currency: unlike those AMZN shares they have no value except for social consensus and unlike a sovereign currency they have no pressure creating demand — nobody must have them to pay taxes, there are no government contracts or salaries, etc. and there’s no inherent value to a random number so there’s nothing to keep that floor above zero.

Re: The Edited Latecomer’s Guide to Crypto

#110

Post by nightski »

FabHK wrote: post #90
bigtunacan wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overall, I enjoyed the analysis of the piece, but I disagree with their take on market cap. Amy Castor - "Yeah, market cap is a meaningless number. It assumes everyone bought at the current price and could cash out at the current price." We could just as easily apply that basic logic to any security. Amazon(AMZN) is ~3275 a share with a market cap of ~1.668T. That also assumes everyone could cash out at ~3275, but th…

> We could just as easily apply that basic logic to any security. Not quite. An Amazon share is a claim on future residual cash flows, whose net present value constitutes the (unknown) "true value" of the share. If Amazon falls to 1/10th of its current price because of some tweet by Elon or whatever other (extraneous, fluke) reason, lots of people would be lining up to buy it, because they get a stake in an actual bu…

In theory it sounds so logical!

Is it though? Have you actually tried to apply this in practice to a trading strategy? I think once you start trying to predict prices based on NPV of future cash flows this quickly falls apart, even with large behemoths like Microsoft, Apple, etc...

Post reply on HN