61–70 of 227 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What surprises me is the constant negative drum beat against Bitcoin on Hackernews. Mostly based on speculation.
> What surprises me is the constant negative drum beat against Bitcoin on Hackernews. Why does that surprise you? As the article from this discussion shows, there is strong evidence supporting the idea that crypto in general "it's just a big scheme".
Who's doing the scheming, I wonder?
Michael Burry was also famously (and vocally) short TSLA for many years until he finally folded and closed his positions recently. I'm not crazy bullish on crypto myself, but it is pointless to hold the opinion of a few analysts/fund managers above the rest just because they made some good bets in the past. The one thing that the market has shown is that no one knows which way any security will go tomorrow – not Buff…
I don't think that's a sign of Burry being wrong, it very well could mean he couldn't stay solvent in that position longer than the irrationality of the market.
The truth is that if you get squeezed out of a short you were wrong. The result is all that matters.
This kind of stuff is why most investors do not ever short anything at all (best example: Buffett & Munger), as you can be "right" and still lose. On the long side you cannot be squeezed out of a position. Traders, market makers and other "technical" participants such as HFTs - that's a different story, their use of shorting is kind of more sensible.
Rather balanced article, but like many fails to mention one really important aspect of Bitcoin: There is a IMO a very tangible market demand for a financial product that allows one to completely shield value from the myriad of value-eroding propositions that have been baked into the traditional financial system to essentially bleed you dry on a long enough timeline. - "management" fees - capital gain taxes - death ta…
It has honestly surprised me that a bunch of people I thought were smart really think NFTs are a good long term investment. It clearly has no value beyond speculation and the bubble will pop.
I became convinced that NFTs are worth something after understanding that there is little difference between an outrageously expensive watch and a rare NFT. One shows off your wealth in person, the other will let you show it off online.
Besides, expensive watches look really pretty and shiny. NFT is not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I became convinced that NFTs are worth something after understanding that there is little difference between an outrageously expensive watch and a rare NFT. One shows off your wealth in person, the other will let you show it off online.
How? You can't see if I own any NFTs right now. You can't see it in gmail. You can't see it on facebook. You don't get ads saying "rich NFT holders in your area!". No one knows or cares if you own an NFT.
I'm really amazed at these comments. Every time Bitcoin goes through a major move, the "bubble" crowd comes out of the woodwork, while having done absolutely no effort in understanding what Bitcoin is.
A digital trading card that's used for speculating and buying drugs?
I understand what fundamentally motivates people to trade it and that they tell themselves all sorts of stories about a "new financial system" because it feels better than saying they invest in Charizards. I also know not to touch it.
To Bitcoin's credit, it made a lot of people think about what makes something a currency, the differences between investing and speculation, consequences of deflation, etc.
I'm really amazed at these comments. Every time Bitcoin goes through a major move, the "bubble" crowd comes out of the woodwork, while having done absolutely no effort in understanding what Bitcoin is.
I mean, what is it if not a worse gold? All assets can be roughly divided into few categories: currency, debt, equity, derivatives/bets, collectibles. It's not an equity or debt instrument, it's not a derivative, and it's not a currency as nobody settles transactions in it. It's a collectible (like gold or paintings), with a short history (unlike gold), that delivers zero value for the holder in the meantime (unlike…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe. I'm just an armchair economist. I don't have quantitative evidence, but you can imagine that the overall degree of leveraging can affect the local-in-time price dynamics and push them into a phase change from a flash crash regime to a `bigger problems` regime. The saving grace to date has been that Bitcoin is a fundamentally financialization-resistant technology, but it still lives in and interacts with the re…
I'm qualitatively in agreement -- I had day-traded bitcoin many years ago and sold off my last small holdings over the weekend. I had a forcing function that made the sale timely, but $62k/BTC was close-enough to my ~$100k/BTC target that it seemed silly to try to squeak out the remaining ~50% gain given the downside risk. It is strange no longer holding any cryptocurrency, but it is harder to see the future of crypt…
Congrats on getting out in the money. I am not far behind you, let's see if I wind up okay or wind up pulling a Newton
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, what is it if not a worse gold? All assets can be roughly divided into few categories: currency, debt, equity, derivatives/bets, collectibles. It's not an equity or debt instrument, it's not a derivative, and it's not a currency as nobody settles transactions in it. It's a collectible (like gold or paintings), with a short history (unlike gold), that delivers zero value for the holder in the meantime (unlike…
How do you classify gold using your categories?
It used to be a currency quite a while ago - people would actually use it in contracts, most importantly long term debt contracts (long term contracts is where the value/acceptance of the currency really shows; imagine taking or issuing a 30yr mortgage in Bitcoin, as in the homeowner is obliged to pay fixed X Bitcoin per month, lol). A big part of the great depression fighting/relief was to make debt contracts denominated in gold unenforceable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this is really the case and not just an opinion, you should be able to easy show that Tether is not a fraud. Can you do this? I don't think so because Tether itself has never shown as much. Calling me "misinformed" without any easily verifiable basis in fact would suggest that perhaps you are a participant in the fraud somehow.
I do believe Tether is one huge lie. The fact that it does continue to operate in spite of that being increasingly clear to most people interested in crypto is because there is a need for something like it. It's very unfortunate that they (the Tether operators) were the first to implement this at scale and are a bunch of crooks. However, what is very much less clear is what will happen when (not if) Tether explodes.…
The real surprise would be if crypto was otherwise.