221–227 of 227 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another view is that markets are not about gambling but rather investing? For example, index matched funds grow because the economy of the world, as a whole, is growing.
Index funds are pegged to a lot of activities that look like gambling, but the risks are somewhat hedged by a limited kind of diversification. It’s like betting every blackjack hand in the house at once (setting aside the house’s favorable odds).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another view is that markets are not about gambling but rather investing? For example, index matched funds grow because the economy of the world, as a whole, is growing.
Index funds are pegged to a lot of activities that look like gambling, but the risks are somewhat hedged by a limited kind of diversification. It’s like betting every blackjack hand in the house at once (setting aside the house’s favorable odds).
It's narrow index funds that are gambling. Not all index funds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Back in early 2011 when I started looking at Bitcoin, they were worth 0.70 each. I talked to people who had 100,000 BTC that they’d mined in the early days on their CPU. For kicks. Some of them are still holding it.
Wait, you're trying to tell me you knew people who were paper (ledger?) billionaires and were willing to disclose that? Nuts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not liquid capital, it's not cash. It potentially has no value, yet giving it away will likely help with the donors' tax situation. Likewise, by giving more people Bitcoin et al, it creates more people with vested interest and who will likely speak positively about Bitcoin et al - which is all to help perpetuate the openly talked about, decentralized and global Ponzi schemes that are taking place.
Pretty misinformed and seemingly bitter, especially for a self proclaimed yogi. It is liquid capital - and its value is $86mm since you could liquidate this at any moment without moving the order book.
I remember from last time someone tried to dump a bunch onto the market the price crashed - by definition then - is that more liquid or more illiquid? Liquidity is obviously on a spectrum and these crypto-assets very quickly become illiquid depending on how many people are wanting to sell; searching for the example it seems the specific event I was thinking about was regarding Ethereum's Ether - https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/22/ethereum-price-crash-10-cent...
Here's another brief article that showed in the search listings re: market manipulation - https://steemkr.com/bitcoin/@crypto-pro/how-to-make-altcoins...
The point being that it's perhaps only liquid until too many people at once want to remove their money. People of course didn't and don't try to dump it (currently) because they're not going to want to sell for 1/300th (example) of what it was the day before, so everyone just waits until it rebounds. This is why these global decentralized Ponzi Schemes are dangerous for society because they can survive because there's such a supply of potential people using relatively small amounts of money, these growing number of people putting relatively small amounts of money increases the number of people incentivized to wanting it to grow in value - so they all speak positively and market it to their friends to buy, etc. All of the current holders need new money/people to come in for them to realize "profit" (unreasonable wealth transfer) by acknowledging/validating/legitimizing the 'current' value of the crypto-asset of their choice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"no fail quick buck"? If you listen to mass media for the last several years whenever they mention bitcoin they tell you it's an incredibly risky investment.
Yes, but at the same time you hear 30-100% gains in the span of one day and people going "I just bought a lamborghini" - survivorship bias and all that.