What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation

[maizefolk]

During this same time, my leveraged real estate went up around 10% and I'm increasing rents by 10% for my annual leases. I do self-manage and it requires about 200 hours/year of my time with me performing some repairs that I like to do. I hire out the stuff that I don't like to do.

How much time do you spend "researching" crypto trends? Some people claim to be experts because they consumed massive amounts of information for the past 6 months. That doesn't seem passive to me.

In terms of "passiveness" there is no comparison.

My very modest amount of bitcoin required some education when I first got interested in 2013 (just like learning any new thing, I imagine you did a fair bit of reading and talking with people to figure out the legalities of being a landlord and learning by doing for the maintenance you do yourself). Since then the entirely of the time I've had to spend to maintain that ownership was figuring out how to extract my private keys from my wallet on the very old laptop I used in 2013 and transferring them to a new one. Let's say that took two hours.

So 120 minutes/9 years = 13 minutes year vs your estimate of 12,000 minutes a year for real estate. That's close to a 1000x difference in passitivity. Which I'm pretty sure is not a word but it should be. 

There are plenty of other differences between real estate and bitcoin. Really it's an apples to oranges comparison. But you specifically brought up which is more active or passive so I wanted to speak to that.

[clarkfan1979]

During this same time, my leveraged real estate went up around 10% and I'm increasing rents by 10% for my annual leases. I do self-manage and it requires about 200 hours/year of my time with me performing some repairs that I like to do. I hire out the stuff that I don't like to do.

How much time do you spend "researching" crypto trends? Some people claim to be experts because they consumed massive amounts of information for the past 6 months. That doesn't seem passive to me.

In terms of "passiveness" there is no comparison.

My very modest amount of bitcoin required some education when I first got interested in 2013 (just like learning any new thing, I imagine you did a fair bit of reading and talking with people to figure out the legalities of being a landlord and learning by doing for the maintenance you do yourself). Since then the entirely of the time I've had to spend to maintain that ownership was figuring out how to extract my private keys from my wallet on the very old laptop I used in 2013 and transferring them to a new one. Let's say that took two hours.

So 120 minutes/9 years = 13 minutes year vs your estimate of 12,000 minutes a year for real estate. That's close to a 1000x difference in passitivity. Which I'm pretty sure is not a word but it should be. 

There are plenty of other differences between real estate and bitcoin. Really it's an apples to oranges comparison. But you specifically brought up which is more active or passive so I wanted to speak to that.

Good points. A couple other things to consider.

1) Because bitcoin is so volatile, there is a larger market for media on speculating on future price. The typical bitcoin investor is going to spend more time clicking on articles and listening to podcasts and speculate on future price.

2) Time spent on investment should be weighted by dollar amount invested. If you are investing 10K in bitcoin, but spend 50 hours/year (1 hour/week) on reading articles, you are spending 1 hour/year for each $200 invested.

I probably consume 1.5 hours/week of media related to real estate. I like to listen to a bigger pockets podcast during a workout. I probably average 1-2 each week. However, I have 2.35 million invested in real estate. If I add my 200 hours + 75 hours for podcasts, it's 275 hours/year. I average 1 hour of time for every $8,545 invested. I'm 40 times more efficient with my time allocated to investments.

[Log]

I was initially skeptical/ignorant of Crypto for quite a while. I listen to a particular rich-white-guy's podcast who occasionally gets into Crypto (or "Web3" as the evangelists like to call it in order to invoke the FOMO of something as influential as Web2) and so I started to learn more about it and try to open my minds to any real, value-producing implications of the space. I've tried to be really open-minded about what alternative use-cases NFTs might create beyond being receipts with links to JPEGs.

I've come back around to thinking it's all just a massive pump-and-dump scheme. The billionaires and multi-millionaires and Instagram influencers with no moral compass can whip up a furor about a new currency or a new drop of NFTs and walk away with their money while the common rube gets nothing. These entirely fabricated hypothetical futures of widespread adoption of Bitcoin or Web3 applications lend some air of legitimacy to the whole thing while the billionaires laugh their way to the bank. The whole space is owned and manipulated by the oligarchs of the world. It started with pumping up new currencies, but then the supply of gullible chumps who hadn't already been burned started to run dry so they needed to start actually presenting real "uses" of Web3, to tap into that artificial sense of legitimacy, so the NFT craze started. Now they're on to these scammy NFT games. Zuck is trying to get a head start on hyping up the applications of NFTs for the Metaverse.

None of these things do anything. Web3 is a giant lie to get gullible people to keep falling for the same old scam dressed up with new "applications." Every single person who evangelizes about Crypto and Web3 application directly profits off of new people "entering the space." People will believe whatever they're told if they stand to make money off of believing it. I would say most Crypto enthusiasts who aren't 1) immoral billionaires/hundred-millionaires or 2) gullible idiots, are just people who 3) started by just buying some "just in case," and then got whipped up into more and more of a frenzy about it as they stood to gain more financially from other people believing in it.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I'm curious if I'm the only one who believes Bitcoin can both go +200% and -100%?

For those certain that crypto will fail, why not buy "put options" on Coinbase stock (COIN)?

For example, 2024-01-19 PUT $80 would cost around $980/contract.  If Coinbase hits zero, that PUT option is worth $80/share x 100 shares = $8,000.  That's how I would play the cynical view of crypto: +7163% return if crypto crashes in 22 months, and -100% return if it doesn't.

[ChpBstrd]

I'm curious if I'm the only one who believes Bitcoin can both go +200% and -100%?

For those certain that crypto will fail, why not buy "put options" on Coinbase stock (COIN)?

For example, 2024-01-19 PUT $80 would cost around $980/contract.  If Coinbase hits zero, that PUT option is worth $80/share x 100 shares = $8,000.  That's how I would play the cynical view of crypto: +7163% return if crypto crashes in 22 months, and -100% return if it doesn't.

I'll agree with you; it could go either way. However I have enough random things to worry about in the management of my portfolios that are outside my realm of control. Adding a variable about how long an irrational market can remain irrational would do me little good. It doesn't hedge interest rate increases, offset market risks elsewhere in my portfolio, generate a stream of reliable income, or raise my SWR.

This gets us back to theory: We could simply take our portfolios to a casino roulette table, but what we'd prefer is to set up our portfolios so that chance is a minor factor. We'd prefer to tie our outcomes to highly certain outcomes, such as the long-term growth of the world economy, rather than random outcomes like the roll of a roulette ball, the fortunes of one speculative company, or the continuation of an investment bubble. Reducing uncertainty is the point.

This brings up another point, as an addendum to what @Log said: There will always be more internet content published to promote scams, bubbles, conspiracy theories, and superstitions than debunking these ideas. The people promoting the ideas feel they have an incentive to work hard to spread their ideas, while the debunkers are merely performing a public service on a volunteer basis. Thus the promoters will inevitably outwork the debunkers, and the factually wrong ideas will amass more content (evidence?) in their favor than the reality-based worldview of the debunkers. 

[GuitarStv]

For those certain that crypto will fail, why not buy "put options" on Coinbase stock (COIN)?

The market can stay irrational longer than I can remain liquid.

[maizefolk]

During this same time, my leveraged real estate went up around 10% and I'm increasing rents by 10% for my annual leases. I do self-manage and it requires about 200 hours/year of my time with me performing some repairs that I like to do. I hire out the stuff that I don't like to do.

How much time do you spend "researching" crypto trends? Some people claim to be experts because they consumed massive amounts of information for the past 6 months. That doesn't seem passive to me.

In terms of "passiveness" there is no comparison.

My very modest amount of bitcoin required some education when I first got interested in 2013 (just like learning any new thing, I imagine you did a fair bit of reading and talking with people to figure out the legalities of being a landlord and learning by doing for the maintenance you do yourself). Since then the entirely of the time I've had to spend to maintain that ownership was figuring out how to extract my private keys from my wallet on the very old laptop I used in 2013 and transferring them to a new one. Let's say that took two hours.

So 120 minutes/9 years = 13 minutes year vs your estimate of 12,000 minutes a year for real estate. That's close to a 1000x difference in passitivity. Which I'm pretty sure is not a word but it should be. 

There are plenty of other differences between real estate and bitcoin. Really it's an apples to oranges comparison. But you specifically brought up which is more active or passive so I wanted to speak to that.

Good points. A couple other things to consider.

1) Because bitcoin is so volatile, there is a larger market for media on speculating on future price. The typical bitcoin investor is going to spend more time clicking on articles and listening to podcasts and speculate on future price.

2) Time spent on investment should be weighted by dollar amount invested. If you are investing 10K in bitcoin, but spend 50 hours/year (1 hour/week) on reading articles, you are spending 1 hour/year for each $200 invested.

I probably consume 1.5 hours/week of media related to real estate. I like to listen to a bigger pockets podcast during a workout. I probably average 1-2 each week. However, I have 2.35 million invested in real estate. If I add my 200 hours + 75 hours for podcasts, it's 275 hours/year. I average 1 hour of time for every $8,545 invested. I'm 40 times more efficient with my time allocated to investments.

I can only speak to my personal experience but I certainly don't spend anywhere close to an hour a week reading about bitcoin. Basically just the unfortunate compulsion to click the title this thread every so often when it pops up on the "new replies to your posts" page and the occasional slashdot summary when I happen to be reading that page to procrastinate at work anyway.

More importantly, none of even that trivial amount of time spent reading about bitcoin influences my ability to own bitcoin or the returns or losses from doing so. Any time I spend reading about it is charitably time spent on a hobby and less charitably a symptom of poor time management.

I'd have just as much bitcoin and its price in dollar terms would increase (or decrease) just as much, even if I were hit by a bus and in a coma for the next decade.  And that would be equally true if I owned $200 of bitcoin or $200M of bitcoin.

Again, you can disagree or agree with the idea that it makes sense to own bitcoin, but the simple act of owning it is a remarkably passive one.

[talltexan]

I think building enduring value requires mastering the space of available investments well enough to understand where that enduring value will lie, and mastering myself well enough that I can follow through on a years-long plan.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

For those certain that crypto will fail, why not buy "put options" on Coinbase stock (COIN)?

The market can stay irrational longer than I can remain liquid.

Note that "put options" gives the holder the option, but not the requirement, to sell shares at the given price.  No additional liquidity is required.

I'm mostly exploring the idea that people who dislike crypto will not put money behind their idea.  There's a certainty that crypto is wrong, but not a certainty to invest against it.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

This gets us back to theory: We could simply take our portfolios to a casino roulette table, but what we'd prefer is to set up our portfolios so that chance is a minor factor. We'd prefer to tie our outcomes to highly certain outcomes, such as the long-term growth of the world economy, rather than random outcomes like the roll of a roulette ball, the fortunes of one speculative company, or the continuation of an investment bubble. Reducing uncertainty is the point.

Per the thread title, "a low % of crypto allocation" is adding some crypto.  It is not "simply take our portfolios to a casino roulette table".  You're creating a false choice of 100% or 0% of your portfolio - you can choose 5% crypto.  Further, it's well known casinos profit of the money that comes in, leaving the average gambler poorer.  Bitcoin has provided a profit to early buyers who sold later - there's no casino taking more than half the profits away.

This brings up another point, as an addendum to what @Log said: There will always be more internet content published to promote scams, bubbles, conspiracy theories, and superstitions than debunking these ideas. The people promoting the ideas feel they have an incentive to work hard to spread their ideas, while the debunkers are merely performing a public service on a volunteer basis. Thus the promoters will inevitably outwork the debunkers, and the factually wrong ideas will amass more content (evidence?) in their favor than the reality-based worldview of the debunkers.

I guess I need to stop replying to you because of things like this, where you cite numerous irrelevant things.  Do I need to refute each one?  Bitcoin is not a superstition - it's something we can see in the blockchain data.  It's not a conspiracy theory - there's nothing secret about it: you can view 100% of the data and 100% of the code running it.  Which is why it wouldn't be a scam, because revealing 100% of the data and 100% of the code is not how scams work.

People have bought Bitcoin, and later paid someone else using Bitcoin.  I've done it - I've paid for VPN service with Bitcoin.  So to claim it's not based in reality is another false point, and I'm not sure I see the value in "debunking" every thing you say.  If evidence is valuable, where is your evidence for anything other than a bubble?

Maybe it's a bubble - but why not just dicuss that, instead of all kinds of clearly irrelevant examples?

[LateStarter]

During this same time, my leveraged real estate went up around 10% and I'm increasing rents by 10% for my annual leases. I do self-manage and it requires about 200 hours/year of my time with me performing some repairs that I like to do. I hire out the stuff that I don't like to do.

How much time do you spend "researching" crypto trends? Some people claim to be experts because they consumed massive amounts of information for the past 6 months. That doesn't seem passive to me.

In terms of "passiveness" there is no comparison.

My very modest amount of bitcoin required some education when I first got interested in 2013 (just like learning any new thing, I imagine you did a fair bit of reading and talking with people to figure out the legalities of being a landlord and learning by doing for the maintenance you do yourself). Since then the entirely of the time I've had to spend to maintain that ownership was figuring out how to extract my private keys from my wallet on the very old laptop I used in 2013 and transferring them to a new one. Let's say that took two hours.

So 120 minutes/9 years = 13 minutes year vs your estimate of 12,000 minutes a year for real estate. That's close to a 1000x difference in passitivity. Which I'm pretty sure is not a word but it should be. 

There are plenty of other differences between real estate and bitcoin. Really it's an apples to oranges comparison. But you specifically brought up which is more active or passive so I wanted to speak to that.

Good points. A couple other things to consider.

1) Because bitcoin is so volatile, there is a larger market for media on speculating on future price. The typical bitcoin investor is going to spend more time clicking on articles and listening to podcasts and speculate on future price.

2) Time spent on investment should be weighted by dollar amount invested. If you are investing 10K in bitcoin, but spend 50 hours/year (1 hour/week) on reading articles, you are spending 1 hour/year for each $200 invested.

I probably consume 1.5 hours/week of media related to real estate. I like to listen to a bigger pockets podcast during a workout. I probably average 1-2 each week. However, I have 2.35 million invested in real estate. If I add my 200 hours + 75 hours for podcasts, it's 275 hours/year. I average 1 hour of time for every $8,545 invested. I'm 40 times more efficient with my time allocated to investments.

Is "time spent researching" a relevant measure in passive investing ? I might be fascinated by stock market movements and spend every waking hour following the ups and downs of the SP500, but so long as I leave my investments alone (or just keep DCAing if in accumulation phase) and I'm not trying to beat the market, I'm a passive investor.

What's your motivation for your real estate research ? If you feel a need to devote some time to keeping up with the latest news etc., that sounds like "work" - and that time is a cost. If you're genuinely interested and enjoy learning about the topic, that's more like "fun" time - so why worry about the time spent ? - it's zero-cost - up to a point, the more the better.

[talltexan]

I had a friend who was searching for a new tenant for his rental property a few years ago. He and his wife were interviewing a potential tenant, and it turned out that--in addition to a career in finance--she also had a part time gig as a Carolina Panthers cheerleader. She looked amazing.

My friend--who is a tinkerer and finds plenty of excuses to perform maintenance tasks at the rental property--was disappointed when his wife decided to pass on this particular prospect. "[if we rent to her,] You will be over at that house all the time," she told him.

So--just as there are people who love following investing (including crypto-), I imagine there are people who own/manage rental property and find those types of tasks fun.

[LateStarter]

I had a friend who was searching for a new tenant for his rental property a few years ago. He and his wife were interviewing a potential tenant, and it turned out that--in addition to a career in finance--she also had a part time gig as a Carolina Panthers cheerleader. She looked amazing.

My friend--who is a tinkerer and finds plenty of excuses to perform maintenance tasks at the rental property--was disappointed when his wife decided to pass on this particular prospect. "[if we rent to her,] You will be over at that house all the time," she told him.

So--just as there are people who love following investing (including crypto-), I imagine there are people who own/manage rental property and find those types of tasks fun.

For clarity, we are in full agreement. I wasn't suggesting that real estate = work, and crypto = fun. Either can be either.

My point was simply that whilst "work" probably warrants some accounting, "fun" does not.

[Shane]

Anyone thinking of buying crypto should listen to Dan Olson's informed thoughts on the subject, first: Line Goes Up - The Problem With NFTs. If you don't already own crypto, keep in mind when listening to the ideas of people who do, that your interests and theirs are, most likely, not aligned.

[Scandium]

I was initially skeptical/ignorant of Crypto for quite a while. I listen to a particular rich-white-guy's podcast who occasionally gets into Crypto (or "Web3" as the evangelists like to call it in order to invoke the FOMO of something as influential as Web2) and so I started to learn more about it and try to open my minds to any real, value-producing implications of the space. I've tried to be really open-minded about what alternative use-cases NFTs might create beyond being receipts with links to JPEGs.

I've come back around to thinking it's all just a massive pump-and-dump scheme. The billionaires and multi-millionaires and Instagram influencers with no moral compass can whip up a furor about a new currency or a new drop of NFTs and walk away with their money while the common rube gets nothing. These entirely fabricated hypothetical futures of widespread adoption of Bitcoin or Web3 applications lend some air of legitimacy to the whole thing while the billionaires laugh their way to the bank. The whole space is owned and manipulated by the oligarchs of the world. It started with pumping up new currencies, but then the supply of gullible chumps who hadn't already been burned started to run dry so they needed to start actually presenting real "uses" of Web3, to tap into that artificial sense of legitimacy, so the NFT craze started. Now they're on to these scammy NFT games. Zuck is trying to get a head start on hyping up the applications of NFTs for the Metaverse.

None of these things do anything. Web3 is a giant lie to get gullible people to keep falling for the same old scam dressed up with new "applications." Every single person who evangelizes about Crypto and Web3 application directly profits off of new people "entering the space." People will believe whatever they're told if they stand to make money off of believing it. I would say most Crypto enthusiasts who aren't 1) immoral billionaires/hundred-millionaires or 2) gullible idiots, are just people who 3) started by just buying some "just in case," and then got whipped up into more and more of a frenzy about it as they stood to gain more financially from other people believing in it.

For most people (at least the ones that don't fall for cults) the more one read about crypto the more it's obviously a less-than-worthless scam with no redeeming values, unless you're trying to burn the planet down as quickly as possible. It has zero utility beyond criminal activity today, and no serious promise of solving anything in the future. It's just a pump and dump ponzi scheme for some of the most disgusting people; libertarian, tech bro billionaires.
To answer the OP; no more use than "diversifying" into lottery tickets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-sNSjS8cq0

[joe189man]

Per the thread title, "a low % of crypto allocation" is adding some crypto.  It is not "simply take our portfolios to a casino roulette table".  You're creating a false choice of 100% or 0% of your portfolio - you can choose 5% crypto.  Further, it's well known casinos profit of the money that comes in, leaving the average gambler poorer.  Bitcoin has provided a profit to early buyers who sold later - there's no casino taking more than half the profits away.

i think adding a low % of crypto is ok. i am starting to build a small position, currently the crypto balance is 0.68% of liquid net worth and 0.42% of total net worth. i could see a 5% allocation of LNW being ok, BUT i fully admit i know nothing and could be wrong. NFTs seem like Beanie babies to me other than the niche cases of die hard fans getting access or exclusive content from their favorite artists and bands, staying away from those. Crypto could easily be a ponzi scheme, we will see.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I've switched one thing about my small percent crypto allocation - I'm now favoring ETH over BTC  (roughly 67% / 33%).  I hold both, I just think more new coins and the like are launched from ETH... it's working on ETH 2.0 reducing it's environmental footprint.. etc.  BTC is doing none of that, and you hear people talking more about "digital gold" and less about solving transaction problems.  To me, crypto has to be able to do something to be interesting - to have a future potential which may or may not work out.

Anyone considering buy crypto probably ought to listen to Dan Olson's thoughts on the subject, first: Line Goes Up - The Problem With NFTs.

IMHO, NFTs != crypto

[StashingAway]

I've switched one thing about my small percent crypto allocation - I'm now favoring ETH over BTC  (roughly 67% / 33%).  I hold both, I just think more new coins and the like are launched from ETH... it's working on ETH 2.0 reducing it's environmental footprint.. etc.  BTC is doing none of that, and you hear people talking more about "digital gold" and less about solving transaction problems.  To me, crypto has to be able to do something to be interesting - to have a future potential which may or may not work out.

Anyone considering buy crypto probably ought to listen to Dan Olson's thoughts on the subject, first: Line Goes Up - The Problem With NFTs.

IMHO, NFTs != crypto

I'm guessing you haven't watched the video? The first 2/3 of it are his abbreviated version of history leading to NFTs, which are inherently entangled with crypto. If you are into crypto and haven't watched it, it is good to watch, if just to expose yourself to counterarguments. I find the video very compelling, whether or not that is confirmation bias I cannot tell.

NFT's and Crypto are entangled in the blockchain magic that have a distinct "don't look behind the curtain" vibe. A "too good to be true" issue that just seems like trading something bad for something worse.

[Scandium]

I've switched one thing about my small percent crypto allocation - I'm now favoring ETH over BTC  (roughly 67% / 33%).  I hold both, I just think more new coins and the like are launched from ETH... it's working on ETH 2.0 reducing it's environmental footprint.. etc.  BTC is doing none of that, and you hear people talking more about "digital gold" and less about solving transaction problems.  To me, crypto has to be able to do something to be interesting - to have a future potential which may or may not work out.

Anyone considering buy crypto probably ought to listen to Dan Olson's thoughts on the subject, first: Line Goes Up - The Problem With NFTs.

IMHO, NFTs != crypto

I'm guessing you haven't watched the video? The first 2/3 of it are his abbreviated version of history leading to NFTs, which are inherently entangled with crypto. If you are into crypto and haven't watched it, it is good to watch, if just to expose yourself to counterarguments. I find the video very compelling, whether or not that is confirmation bias I cannot tell.

NFT's and Crypto are entangled in the blockchain magic that have a distinct "don't look behind the curtain" vibe. A "too good to be true" issue that just seems like trading something bad for something worse.

Exactly this, that video is fantastic. NFTs are just the next step for the major backers of crypto-scams to drive more hard cash into crypto so they can keep pumping it and cash out. The two are inextricably linked. People saying NFTs are dumb, but still boosting equally useless crypto coins is hilarious.

[Telecaster]

Note that "put options" gives the holder the option, but not the requirement, to sell shares at the given price.  No additional liquidity is required.

I'm mostly exploring the idea that people who dislike crypto will not put money behind their idea.  There's a certainty that crypto is wrong, but not a certainty to invest against it.

I'm reasonably certain crypto will not succeed, but I have no method to estimate what the price will be one year or ten years from now.  Crypto prices are based solely on enthusiasm and who knows how long the enthusiasm will last?  Stocks have an enterprise value, and I can make a reasonable estimate what future returns are likely to be. 

[BeanCounter]

I was initially skeptical/ignorant of Crypto for quite a while. I listen to a particular rich-white-guy's podcast who occasionally gets into Crypto (or "Web3" as the evangelists like to call it in order to invoke the FOMO of something as influential as Web2) and so I started to learn more about it and try to open my minds to any real, value-producing implications of the space. I've tried to be really open-minded about what alternative use-cases NFTs might create beyond being receipts with links to JPEGs.

I've come back around to thinking it's all just a massive pump-and-dump scheme. The billionaires and multi-millionaires and Instagram influencers with no moral compass can whip up a furor about a new currency or a new drop of NFTs and walk away with their money while the common rube gets nothing. These entirely fabricated hypothetical futures of widespread adoption of Bitcoin or Web3 applications lend some air of legitimacy to the whole thing while the billionaires laugh their way to the bank. The whole space is owned and manipulated by the oligarchs of the world. It started with pumping up new currencies, but then the supply of gullible chumps who hadn't already been burned started to run dry so they needed to start actually presenting real "uses" of Web3, to tap into that artificial sense of legitimacy, so the NFT craze started. Now they're on to these scammy NFT games. Zuck is trying to get a head start on hyping up the applications of NFTs for the Metaverse.

None of these things do anything. Web3 is a giant lie to get gullible people to keep falling for the same old scam dressed up with new "applications." Every single person who evangelizes about Crypto and Web3 application directly profits off of new people "entering the space." People will believe whatever they're told if they stand to make money off of believing it. I would say most Crypto enthusiasts who aren't 1) immoral billionaires/hundred-millionaires or 2) gullible idiots, are just people who 3) started by just buying some "just in case," and then got whipped up into more and more of a frenzy about it as they stood to gain more financially from other people believing in it.

For most people (at least the ones that don't fall for cults) the more one read about crypto the more it's obviously a less-than-worthless scam with no redeeming values, unless you're trying to burn the planet down as quickly as possible. It has zero utility beyond criminal activity today, and no serious promise of solving anything in the future. It's just a pump and dump ponzi scheme for some of the most disgusting people; libertarian, tech bro billionaires.
To answer the OP; no more use than "diversifying" into lottery tickets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-sNSjS8cq0

^^^ THIS
That video is great. The part where he explains that it is simply a "bigger fools scam" is spot on. I can't understand why others don't see it.

[SpaceCow]

I "rebalanced" my crypto allocation last week. I sold about 70% of my ETH, leaving me with 5.7 leftover or about $19,000 at todays prices. This is still a high allocation (13%) given my low net worth, but it is much less than before. Reading this thread wore down my faith-based belief in crypto. I simply can't come up with a good reason to hold a bunch of money in crypto now. There are so many "buy at whatever price and never sell" types in crypto. I'll happily take the $50,000 gain that I've locked in.

The whole "using your lottery winnings to keep buying tickets" argument did me in.

[Scandium]

I was initially skeptical/ignorant of Crypto for quite a while. I listen to a particular rich-white-guy's podcast who occasionally gets into Crypto (or "Web3" as the evangelists like to call it in order to invoke the FOMO of something as influential as Web2) and so I started to learn more about it and try to open my minds to any real, value-producing implications of the space. I've tried to be really open-minded about what alternative use-cases NFTs might create beyond being receipts with links to JPEGs.

I've come back around to thinking it's all just a massive pump-and-dump scheme. The billionaires and multi-millionaires and Instagram influencers with no moral compass can whip up a furor about a new currency or a new drop of NFTs and walk away with their money while the common rube gets nothing. These entirely fabricated hypothetical futures of widespread adoption of Bitcoin or Web3 applications lend some air of legitimacy to the whole thing while the billionaires laugh their way to the bank. The whole space is owned and manipulated by the oligarchs of the world. It started with pumping up new currencies, but then the supply of gullible chumps who hadn't already been burned started to run dry so they needed to start actually presenting real "uses" of Web3, to tap into that artificial sense of legitimacy, so the NFT craze started. Now they're on to these scammy NFT games. Zuck is trying to get a head start on hyping up the applications of NFTs for the Metaverse.

None of these things do anything. Web3 is a giant lie to get gullible people to keep falling for the same old scam dressed up with new "applications." Every single person who evangelizes about Crypto and Web3 application directly profits off of new people "entering the space." People will believe whatever they're told if they stand to make money off of believing it. I would say most Crypto enthusiasts who aren't 1) immoral billionaires/hundred-millionaires or 2) gullible idiots, are just people who 3) started by just buying some "just in case," and then got whipped up into more and more of a frenzy about it as they stood to gain more financially from other people believing in it.

For most people (at least the ones that don't fall for cults) the more one read about crypto the more it's obviously a less-than-worthless scam with no redeeming values, unless you're trying to burn the planet down as quickly as possible. It has zero utility beyond criminal activity today, and no serious promise of solving anything in the future. It's just a pump and dump ponzi scheme for some of the most disgusting people; libertarian, tech bro billionaires.
To answer the OP; no more use than "diversifying" into lottery tickets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-sNSjS8cq0

^^^ THIS
That video is great. The part where he explains that it is simply a "bigger fools scam" is spot on. I can't understand why others don't see it.

They are either so dumb they don't see it (this is a lot of people), or they do see it and believe they can be the "lesser fool" and scam themselves rich.

It's no accident there's a lot of crossover between crypto folks and arrogant, overconfident, toxic masculinity tech bro/libertarian culture

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I've switched one thing about my small percent crypto allocation - I'm now favoring ETH over BTC  (roughly 67% / 33%).  I hold both, I just think more new coins and the like are launched from ETH... it's working on ETH 2.0 reducing it's environmental footprint.. etc.  BTC is doing none of that, and you hear people talking more about "digital gold" and less about solving transaction problems.  To me, crypto has to be able to do something to be interesting - to have a future potential which may or may not work out.

Anyone considering buy crypto probably ought to listen to Dan Olson's thoughts on the subject, first: Line Goes Up - The Problem With NFTs.

IMHO, NFTs != crypto

I'm guessing you haven't watched the video? The first 2/3 of it are his abbreviated version of history leading to NFTs, which are inherently entangled with crypto. If you are into crypto and haven't watched it, it is good to watch, if just to expose yourself to counterarguments. I find the video very compelling, whether or not that is confirmation bias I cannot tell.

NFT's and Crypto are entangled in the blockchain magic that have a distinct "don't look behind the curtain" vibe. A "too good to be true" issue that just seems like trading something bad for something worse.

I prefer to avoid YouTube as a form of research.

Crypto existed for years before NFTs existed.  They are not "entangled", because Bitcoin has existed, and can exist, without NFTs.  That is why I commented "NFTs != crypto".

Blockchains are not "magic", they are computer code that anyone can view.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin

You could lose 100% of the money you spend investing in crypto.  It could be a bubble.  Most people hate it.  None of that says "too good to be true" to me.

[StashingAway]

I prefer to avoid YouTube as a form of research.

Crypto existed for years before NFTs existed.  They are not "entangled", because Bitcoin has existed, and can exist, without NFTs.  That is why I commented "NFTs != crypto".

Your response exposes a lot.

We all know what blockchains are in this thread, btw

Edit: my comment was a bit rude. The magic that I'm talking about isn't in how blockchains work. The magic is that a secure, public, immutable ledger is proposed to be an unquestionable solution to many large global problems. That's not to say that the problems aren't real (although some of them aren't) or that blockchain is a technical black box. It's saying that it is perhaps prudent to thoroughly question its proposed and/or actual utility for things like money, public records, and the current system. The proposed goals are questionable in and of themselves, and the actual functionality is even messier.

Criticizing crypto isn't the same as approving of the current baking system, etcetera.

the video is well sourced and documented, btw

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I prefer to avoid YouTube as a form of research.

Crypto existed for years before NFTs existed.  They are not "entangled", because Bitcoin has existed, and can exist, without NFTs.  That is why I commented "NFTs != crypto".

Your response exposes a lot.

I think your lack of response says more than the specifics I gave.

We all know what blockchains are in this thread, btw

Which is it : Are blockchains "magic" or do you understand what blockchains are?

NFT's and Crypto are entangled in the blockchain magic that have a distinct "don't look behind the curtain" vibe. A "too good to be true" issue that just seems like trading something bad for something worse.

[StashingAway]

I prefer to avoid YouTube as a form of research.

Crypto existed for years before NFTs existed.  They are not "entangled", because Bitcoin has existed, and can exist, without NFTs.  That is why I commented "NFTs != crypto".

Your response exposes a lot.

I think your lack of response says more than the specifics I gave.

We all know what blockchains are in this thread, btw

Which is it : Are blockchains "magic" or do you understand what blockchains are?

NFT's and Crypto are entangled in the blockchain magic that have a distinct "don't look behind the curtain" vibe. A "too good to be true" issue that just seems like trading something bad for something worse.

See my above edit for further explanation (I realized it was vague on many levels). I know how blockchains work, we can get into that if you want. 

It would be much easier to have this conversation if you had actual criticisms of the video rather than theoretical ones.

[Shane]

I've switched one thing about my small percent crypto allocation - I'm now favoring ETH over BTC  (roughly 67% / 33%).  I hold both, I just think more new coins and the like are launched from ETH... it's working on ETH 2.0 reducing it's environmental footprint.. etc.  BTC is doing none of that, and you hear people talking more about "digital gold" and less about solving transaction problems.  To me, crypto has to be able to do something to be interesting - to have a future potential which may or may not work out.

Anyone considering buy crypto probably ought to listen to Dan Olson's thoughts on the subject, first: Line Goes Up - The Problem With NFTs.

IMHO, NFTs != crypto

I'm guessing you haven't watched the video? The first 2/3 of it are his abbreviated version of history leading to NFTs, which are inherently entangled with crypto. If you are into crypto and haven't watched it, it is good to watch, if just to expose yourself to counterarguments. I find the video very compelling, whether or not that is confirmation bias I cannot tell.

NFT's and Crypto are entangled in the blockchain magic that have a distinct "don't look behind the curtain" vibe. A "too good to be true" issue that just seems like trading something bad for something worse.

I prefer to avoid YouTube as a form of research.

Crypto existed for years before NFTs existed.  They are not "entangled", because Bitcoin has existed, and can exist, without NFTs.  That is why I commented "NFTs != crypto".

Blockchains are not "magic", they are computer code that anyone can view.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin

You could lose 100% of the money you spend investing in crypto.  It could be a bubble.  Most people hate it.  None of that says "too good to be true" to me.

So, if Dan's video essay, clearly outlining the underlying some of the underlying issues with both crypto and nfts, were on a different platform, something besides YT, then it would be okay to include in your 'research', but since it is on YT, you won't listen? Uh, okay. I guess.

Also, referring to buying into crypto as "investing" seems like a stretch. Kind of like saying, "You could lose 100% of the money you spend 'investing' in black at the roulette table." There's really no difference between buying crypto and Lotto tickets or playing slots.

[jnw]

Buffet said trading crypto was like trading tulips. Munger says its like trading turds.

[Shane]

Tech leaders are delusional if they think Web3 will give power back to the people.

This so-called decentralization of power out of the hands of a few has, in fact, been a recentralization of power into the hands of even fewer. Take Bitcoin, for example. The top 2% of account addresses own 95% of the more than $800 billion supply of Bitcoin. Even worse, these crypto projects are becoming more centralized as the market matures. When Ethereum launched seven years ago, insiders controlled just 15%. But more recently, Web3 projects have launched with insider ownership of 30% to 40%. The new guard also looks older and more guardian than the old guard. Specifically, these are dudes from Stanford or Harvard who serve under the delusion they are giving the power back to the people while accidentally making billions. Every member of Forbes' 2021 crypto-billionaires list is a man. A third of them attended Stanford or Harvard. What could go wrong? Out of the 12 men on the list, only one isn't White.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

You could lose 100% of the money you spend investing in crypto.  It could be a bubble.  Most people hate it.  None of that says "too good to be true" to me.

Also, referring to buying into crypto as "investing" seems like a stretch. Kind of like saying, "You could lose 100% of the money you spend 'investing' in black at the roulette table." There's really no difference between buying crypto and Lotto tickets or playing slots.

Buying crypto is not "investing", I was wrong to use that term.  I usually try to use terms like "speculation" and "price increases" to accomodate the possibility crypto is a bubble, but I slipped up that time.  I believe Bitcoin's price could change by a multiple, and I think both 3x and 0x are possible.

[ChpBstrd]

Tech leaders are delusional if they think Web3 will give power back to the people.

This so-called decentralization of power out of the hands of a few has, in fact, been a recentralization of power into the hands of even fewer. Take Bitcoin, for example. The top 2% of account addresses own 95% of the more than $800 billion supply of Bitcoin. Even worse, these crypto projects are becoming more centralized as the market matures. When Ethereum launched seven years ago, insiders controlled just 15%. But more recently, Web3 projects have launched with insider ownership of 30% to 40%. The new guard also looks older and more guardian than the old guard. Specifically, these are dudes from Stanford or Harvard who serve under the delusion they are giving the power back to the people while accidentally making billions. Every member of Forbes' 2021 crypto-billionaires list is a man. A third of them attended Stanford or Harvard. What could go wrong? Out of the 12 men on the list, only one isn't White.

What the enthusiasts don't recognize is an actual implementation the cryptocurrency dream would be as dystopian a world as the old communist bloc - or a modern version of feudalism. Control over the economy would steadily accumulate in a few hands, and these oligarchs would be our feudal lords. As the ones with all the power, they could tilt the rules of the currencies to engineer permanent deflation - a state where their wealth increases automatically and the price of labor steadily declines. Various currency forks would be used in an Orwellian way to give people false hope and stimulate them to work, but in the end nothing would change. Accumulating wealth would be near-impossible for the working / peasant class as the economic value of labor would keep falling faster than people could save up assets. Real assets and property would steadily come under oligarchic control using ultra-cheap margin loans backed by enormous crypto portfolios. This is serfdom.

And if you ever questioned the fairness of all this, your digital assets would be seized, your account blacklisted, and all the people economically adjacent to you would be investigated using the blockchain. Resistors could be deprived of the ability to earn anything, deprived even of the ability to receive gifts or charity.

What the people in our dollar-based economy complaining about $5/gal gasoline and difficult money transfers don't understand is that inflation and barriers to the transfer of financial information are the only things preventing such a feudal/communistic dystopia from occurring. Inflation forces the investment of assets in productive endeavors, which at least spreads wealth even if it creates temporary concentrations of wealth. Deflation, on the other hand, is the granting of economic power to people who hold vast amounts of currency without any economic benefit being produced, and it is also a cheapening of the purchasing power we get in exchange for our labor. A lack of universal financial transparency offers you one of the last forms of semi-privacy still in existence, and deprives the politically powerful of many ways they could coerce you. The most wasteful, costly, and non-transparent currency format of all - physical paper notes - serves as a sort of safety net so that people can anonymously support persecuted activists, political opponents, etc. and prevent them from actually starving when the political apparatus says they are no longer allowed to hold accounts. Today, we dread recessions because they inconvenience us, but we fail to recognize that recessions increase wealth equality by knocking down the net worth of the wealthy a lot more than the non-wealthy (e.g. a business owner whose company has to close three branches at a cost of $3M loses a lot more than a worker who is unemployed 6 months at a cost of $30k). In a world without recessions to knock down the wealthy, oligarchic wealth would accumulate generation after generation until such people had an insurmountable amount of power over the rest of us.

[talltexan]

Tech leaders are delusional if they think Web3 will give power back to the people.

This so-called decentralization of power out of the hands of a few has, in fact, been a recentralization of power into the hands of even fewer. Take Bitcoin, for example. The top 2% of account addresses own 95% of the more than $800 billion supply of Bitcoin. Even worse, these crypto projects are becoming more centralized as the market matures. When Ethereum launched seven years ago, insiders controlled just 15%. But more recently, Web3 projects have launched with insider ownership of 30% to 40%. The new guard also looks older and more guardian than the old guard. Specifically, these are dudes from Stanford or Harvard who serve under the delusion they are giving the power back to the people while accidentally making billions. Every member of Forbes' 2021 crypto-billionaires list is a man. A third of them attended Stanford or Harvard. What could go wrong? Out of the 12 men on the list, only one isn't White.

Control over the economy would steadily accumulate in a few hands, and these oligarchs would be our feudal lords.

 Today, we dread recessions because they inconvenience us, but we fail to recognize that recessions increase wealth equality by knocking down the net worth of the wealthy a lot more than the non-wealthy (e.g. a business owner whose company has to close three branches at a cost of $3M loses a lot more than a worker who is unemployed 6 months at a cost of $30k). In a world without recessions to knock down the wealthy, oligarchic wealth would accumulate generation after generation until such people had an insurmountable amount of power over the rest of us.

I think you've mostly got this right in arguing against a deflationary monetary base, but I do think we need to account for the fact that the average household who misses out on half a year of labor income is in danger of serious privation, i.e. lacking access to basic necessities, while the business owner that you describe can smooth consumption over the business cycle and never confront that same urgency of want.

[ChpBstrd]

Tech leaders are delusional if they think Web3 will give power back to the people.

This so-called decentralization of power out of the hands of a few has, in fact, been a recentralization of power into the hands of even fewer. Take Bitcoin, for example. The top 2% of account addresses own 95% of the more than $800 billion supply of Bitcoin. Even worse, these crypto projects are becoming more centralized as the market matures. When Ethereum launched seven years ago, insiders controlled just 15%. But more recently, Web3 projects have launched with insider ownership of 30% to 40%. The new guard also looks older and more guardian than the old guard. Specifically, these are dudes from Stanford or Harvard who serve under the delusion they are giving the power back to the people while accidentally making billions. Every member of Forbes' 2021 crypto-billionaires list is a man. A third of them attended Stanford or Harvard. What could go wrong? Out of the 12 men on the list, only one isn't White.

Control over the economy would steadily accumulate in a few hands, and these oligarchs would be our feudal lords.

 Today, we dread recessions because they inconvenience us, but we fail to recognize that recessions increase wealth equality by knocking down the net worth of the wealthy a lot more than the non-wealthy (e.g. a business owner whose company has to close three branches at a cost of $3M loses a lot more than a worker who is unemployed 6 months at a cost of $30k). In a world without recessions to knock down the wealthy, oligarchic wealth would accumulate generation after generation until such people had an insurmountable amount of power over the rest of us.

I think you've mostly got this right in arguing against a deflationary monetary base, but I do think we need to account for the fact that the average household who misses out on half a year of labor income is in danger of serious privation, i.e. lacking access to basic necessities, while the business owner that you describe can smooth consumption over the business cycle and never confront that same urgency of want.

Yes, from a humanitarian perspective the laborer has it worse. But from a power perspective, the laborer is gaining back a little bit of ground relative to the rich business owner. The business owner remains more powerful after the recession, but their lead has decreased.

[talltexan]

Theoretically, this is very appealing.

It doesn't match what feels like the narrative of the 2020 crisis, which was that those who were ahead largely stayed farther ahead, as asset prices rebounded quickly.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

So, if Dan's video essay, clearly outlining the underlying some of the underlying issues with both crypto and nfts, were on a different platform, something besides YT, then it would be okay to include in your 'research', but since it is on YT, you won't listen? Uh, okay. I guess.

I wouldn't call a 2 hour and 20 min video an "essay", when that's longer than watching a marathon.  Are you trying to mock my 'research' by putting in quotes?  I wonder how you would even know what that is.

I'm guessing you haven't watched the video? The first 2/3 of it are his abbreviated version of history leading to NFTs, which are inherently entangled with crypto.

I think you're saying the first 1 hour and 45 minutes of that video does not talk about NFTs, even though that's the title of the 2 hour and 20 minute video.  But you have found people who like it, so maybe it's worthwhile for you to create a separate thread about NFTs.

... that video is fantastic. NFTs are just the next step for the major backers of crypto-scams to drive more hard cash into crypto ...

NFTs could be another topic for a different thread.  If you view crypto as a scam, where is the scam for Bitcoin?  All code and transactions are available to download for free - it's 100% transparent.

[Shane]

NFTs could be another topic for a different thread.  If you view crypto as a scam, where is the scam for Bitcoin?  All code and transactions are available to download for free - it's 100% transparent.

This so-called decentralization of power out of the hands of a few has, in fact, been a recentralization of power into the hands of even fewer. Take Bitcoin, for example. The top 2% of account addresses own 95% of the more than $800 billion supply of Bitcoin. Even worse, these crypto projects are becoming more centralized as the market matures. When Ethereum launched seven years ago, insiders controlled just 15%. But more recently, Web3 projects have launched with insider ownership of 30% to 40%. The new guard also looks older and more guardian than the old guard. Specifically, these are dudes from Stanford or Harvard who serve under the delusion they are giving the power back to the people while accidentally making billions. Every member of Forbes' 2021 crypto-billionaires list is a man. A third of them attended Stanford or Harvard. What could go wrong? Out of the 12 men on the list, only one isn't White.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

where is the scam for Bitcoin?  All code and transactions are available to download for free - it's 100% transparent.

The top 2% of account addresses own 95% of the more than $800 billion supply of Bitcoin. Even worse, these crypto projects are becoming more centralized as the market matures ... Every member of Forbes' 2021 crypto-billionaires list is a man.

How many of those account addresses are crypto exchanges?  Trading on a bitcoin exchange shouldn't be classified as over-centralization.  It's certainly not treated that way when retail investors participate on stock market exchanges.
https://coinmarketcap.com/rankings/exchanges/

Is lack of diversity the main shortcoming of crypto?  Because it's not that specific - every former President of the United States is a man, as well.

[StashingAway]

I'm guessing you haven't watched the video? The first 2/3 of it are his abbreviated version of history leading to NFTs, which are inherently entangled with crypto.

NFTs could be another topic for a different thread.  If you view crypto as a scam, where is the scam for Bitcoin?  All code and transactions are available to download for free - it's 100% transparent.

This is all in the video. Again, I don't have a problem with you not watching it, but I have a hard time with you criticizing it without even being able to summarize it (much less having watched it). You're not presenting very good faith conversation here.

[boarder42]

Hahahahahah this guy ^^^^

[Shane]

where is the scam for Bitcoin?  All code and transactions are available to download for free - it's 100% transparent.

The top 2% of account addresses own 95% of the more than $800 billion supply of Bitcoin. Even worse, these crypto projects are becoming more centralized as the market matures ... Every member of Forbes' 2021 crypto-billionaires list is a man.

How many of those account addresses are crypto exchanges?  Trading on a bitcoin exchange shouldn't be classified as over-centralization.  It's certainly not treated that way when retail investors participate on stock market exchanges.
https://coinmarketcap.com/rankings/exchanges/

Is lack of diversity the main shortcoming of crypto?  Because it's not that specific - every former President of the United States is a man, as well.

No, the shortcoming of crypto is that it's literally a scam. Early adopters get rich by convincing suckas who come along later to add a "low% of crypto" to their portfolios. Anyone who already owns crypto is NOT a reliable source of unbiased information about crypto.

[talltexan]

You may have this right. But if Bitcoin were only a scam, I don't know how to interpret all the early adopters doing things like buying pizza for a slug of Bitcoin that would ultimately be worth many multiples of that pizza just a few years later.

[Shane]

You may have this right. But if Bitcoin were only a scam, I don't know how to interpret all the early adopters doing things like buying pizza for a slug of Bitcoin that would ultimately be worth many multiples of that pizza just a few years later.

Marketing?

People who already own Bitcoin have a strong incentive to push the narrative that it has some practical, useful applications, e.g., that it can be used to buy pizza at Dominos. That's why it hurt when Elon stopped accepting them as payment for Teslas. NFTs are another attempt to come up with something, anything, that crypto can be used to purchase because, in reality, there isn't much, aside from, maybe, illegal drugs on the darkweb.

[Juan Ponce de León]

So let me get this straight, when I pay my bills every month and buy stock ETFs with my crypto defi yield, that's a scam?

[Shane]

It's like Amway. As long as there's a steady stream of suckas willing to buy in to the fantasy that crypto has some real value, everything works fine and early adopters keep on getting richer and richer. At some point, though, you're going to run out of suckas, or some event will pull back the curtain and make it obvious to everyone that the emperor has no clothes.

[Juan Ponce de León]

It's like Amway. As long as there's a steady stream of suckas willing to buy in to the fantasy that crypto has some real value, everything works fine and early adopters keep on getting richer and richer. At some point, though, you're going to run out of suckas, or some event will pull back the curtain and make it obvious to everyone that the emperor has no clothes.

So early adopters are going to get richer and richer?  Thank you sir I appreciate your help.

[BeanCounter]

So let me get this straight, when I pay my bills every month and buy stock ETFs with my crypto defi yield, that's a scam?

It works until it doesn't work. Take the Beanie Baby craze. If you bought and sold them at a profit in the early 90s when there was a market of collectors that were willing to pay a premium to get one then you could use the profit to pay your bills. But now the market is dried up and anyone who has a Beanie Baby can't sell for a profit to pay their bills.

The scam is that the only value crypto has is if other people WANT it. If/when that dries up you have no more defi yield to pay your bills.

[Juan Ponce de León]

So let me get this straight, when I pay my bills every month and buy stock ETFs with my crypto defi yield, that's a scam?

It works until it doesn't work. Take the Beanie Baby craze. If you bought and sold them at a profit in the early 90s when there was a market of collectors that were willing to pay a premium to get one then you could use the profit to pay your bills. But now the market is dried up and anyone who has a Beanie Baby can't sell for a profit to pay their bills.

The scam is that the only value crypto has is if other people WANT it. If/when that dries up you have no more defi yield to pay your bills.

And if my aunt had wheels she'd be a bike.  I don't deal in 'ifs' I deal in the here and now.  Crypto defi literally prints money and I like money.  I guess people that don't like money should avoid it.

[the_gastropod]

Yep! Best not to think too deeply about where that “printed” money is coming from.

[Juan Ponce de León]

Yep! Best not to think too deeply about where that “printed” money is coming from.

It comes out of thin air, remarkably similar to where printed fiat money is coming from.