Author Topic: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation  (Read 31360 times)

forgerator

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #500 on: November 05, 2021, 04:57:06 PM »
That is an interesting scheme. But couldn’t, e.g., Ticketmaster do the same thing in a centralized fashion significantly more simply using a standard database? What value does the decentralized aspect bring, when ultimately you’re depending on the concert venue to recognize this ticket?

I think based on same decentralization value proposition i.e. cut out the middle-man. The cut that TicketMaster would otherwise take, would be distributed to the miners / validators participating in the blockchain.

the_gastropod

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Brooklyn, NY
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #501 on: November 05, 2021, 05:12:34 PM »
BTW I haven't been following the NFT discussion all that closely as NFTs aren't really an interest of mine, I tend to actively avoid them.  But my understanding of using the NFTs for ticketing is they can hardwire in a transaction fee for change of ownership using smart contracts, so for example if a scalper was to onsell a concert ticket for $100, it would actually cost say $120 with the smart contract sending $20 back to the concert promoter each time the ticket changes hands.  This obviously does solve a problem where scalpers make a heap of money reselling tickets and the concert promoters don't really get a fair cut of that inflated price.  Businesses are obviously going to use blockchain technology to try and make more revenue, not less.

That is an interesting scheme. But couldn’t, e.g., Ticketmaster do the same thing in a centralized fashion significantly more simply using a standard database? What value does the decentralized aspect bring, when ultimately you’re depending on the concert venue to recognize this ticket?

So I've just demonstrated a way that blockchain technology solves a problem for ticket promoters and your question is, can't they think of some other way that doesn't involve blockchain technology because you don't like blockchain technology solving a problem?

I don’t think that categorization is accurate. If someone suggested that someone might create foot bridges out of running combustion lawnmower engines, and you said “well, you could. But.. you could also use wood or stone or steel”, that wouldn’t mean you don’t like combustion engines solving problems. It’s just that that problem—bridge building—isn’t solved more effectively by using combustion engines as a construction material than by other widely-used existing options.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2021, 06:05:37 PM by the_gastropod »

Juan Ponce de León

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #502 on: November 05, 2021, 05:14:16 PM »
That is an interesting scheme. But couldn’t, e.g., Ticketmaster do the same thing in a centralized fashion significantly more simply using a standard database? What value does the decentralized aspect bring, when ultimately you’re depending on the concert venue to recognize this ticket?

I think based on same decentralization value proposition i.e. cut out the middle-man. The cut that TicketMaster would otherwise take, would be distributed to the miners / validators participating in the blockchain.

Ticketmaster don't want to cut out the middleman, they ARE the middelman.  They want to cut in the middleman where previously scalpers were cutting them out.

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6353
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #503 on: November 05, 2021, 05:23:45 PM »
Ticketmaster don't want to cut out the middleman, they ARE the middelman.  They want to cut in the middleman where previously scalpers were cutting them out.

I'd guess individual venues would be happy to cut out Ticketmaster if they could find an easy way to do so without losing attendees.

forgerator

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #504 on: November 05, 2021, 06:06:24 PM »
That is an interesting scheme. But couldn’t, e.g., Ticketmaster do the same thing in a centralized fashion significantly more simply using a standard database? What value does the decentralized aspect bring, when ultimately you’re depending on the concert venue to recognize this ticket?

I think based on same decentralization value proposition i.e. cut out the middle-man. The cut that TicketMaster would otherwise take, would be distributed to the miners / validators participating in the blockchain.

Ticketmaster don't want to cut out the middleman, they ARE the middelman.  They want to cut in the middleman where previously scalpers were cutting them out.
Yes that's what I meant, that a decentralized blockchain based solution will cut out Ticketmaster which acts as the middleman.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 19309
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #505 on: November 05, 2021, 06:57:48 PM »
That is an interesting scheme. But couldn’t, e.g., Ticketmaster do the same thing in a centralized fashion significantly more simply using a standard database? What value does the decentralized aspect bring, when ultimately you’re depending on the concert venue to recognize this ticket?

I think based on same decentralization value proposition i.e. cut out the middle-man. The cut that TicketMaster would otherwise take, would be distributed to the miners / validators participating in the blockchain.

Ticketmaster don't want to cut out the middleman, they ARE the middelman.  They want to cut in the middleman where previously scalpers were cutting them out.

You're acting like Ticketmaster doesn't like scalping.  I mean, Ticketmaster has been working with scalpers to make sure that they get the tickets they want for events for a long time - https://liveforlivemusic.com/news/ticketmaster-tradedesk-scalp/.

Scalpers and Ticketmaster are close and friendly business partners.  Not sure why they would jeopardize that relationship that they've spent so much time and effort to build for NFTs.

Telecaster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2772
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #506 on: November 05, 2021, 07:52:48 PM »
Ticketmaster don't want to cut out the middleman, they ARE the middelman.  They want to cut in the middleman where previously scalpers were cutting them out.

I'd guess individual venues would be happy to cut out Ticketmaster if they could find an easy way to do so without losing attendees.

Ticketmaster pays robust fees to venues to be the sole ticket provider. 

Telecaster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2772
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #507 on: November 05, 2021, 08:28:00 PM »
That is an interesting scheme. But couldn’t, e.g., Ticketmaster do the same thing in a centralized fashion significantly more simply using a standard database? What value does the decentralized aspect bring, when ultimately you’re depending on the concert venue to recognize this ticket?

I think based on same decentralization value proposition i.e. cut out the middle-man. The cut that TicketMaster would otherwise take, would be distributed to the miners / validators participating in the blockchain.

The venues accept kick-backs from Ticketmaster.  In your scenario, the vig goes to the miners/validators instead of to Ticketmaster and the venues.  Why would they willingly give that up?


Juan Ponce de León

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #508 on: November 05, 2021, 08:35:00 PM »
That is an interesting scheme. But couldn’t, e.g., Ticketmaster do the same thing in a centralized fashion significantly more simply using a standard database? What value does the decentralized aspect bring, when ultimately you’re depending on the concert venue to recognize this ticket?

I think based on same decentralization value proposition i.e. cut out the middle-man. The cut that TicketMaster would otherwise take, would be distributed to the miners / validators participating in the blockchain.

The venues accept kick-backs from Ticketmaster.  In your scenario, the vig goes to the miners/validators instead of to Ticketmaster and the venues.  Why would they willingly give that up?

Uhm this isn't really a thing, the miners get transaction fees but you'd be talking fractions of a cent when applied to a small purchase like a concert ticket.  You wouldn't do it on a crypto network with high transaction fees you would use one of the low cost chains.

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6353
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #509 on: November 05, 2021, 08:37:14 PM »
Ticketmaster don't want to cut out the middleman, they ARE the middelman.  They want to cut in the middleman where previously scalpers were cutting them out.

I'd guess individual venues would be happy to cut out Ticketmaster if they could find an easy way to do so without losing attendees.

Ticketmaster pays robust fees to venues to be the sole ticket provider.

Ah, right you are! It sounds like ticketmaster's big innovation was charging fans rather than venues which drove all the venues to adopt it. I hadn't read up on their business model before. 

Quote
It took more than smart code, however, to turn Ticketmaster into one of the world's most powerful entertainment companies. It took the arrival in 1982 of a new leader—Fred Rosen, a fast-talking lawyer and amateur comedian who had a profound realization: Ticketing isn't about the bands or the fans. It's about the venues.

Shortly after he was hired, Rosen systematically contacted the biggest concert halls and arenas in the country and made them all the same spectacular offer: Where Ticketron charged venues for its service (adding a minimal fee for customers—$1 per ticket), Rosen offered to actually pay the venues. He would increase service fees and split the money with whoever housed a concert or sporting event. Everybody signed up

So I guess in this business model the people whose ox is being gored are the acts and the fans. The venue mandates that act has to use ticketmaster. Ticketmaster tacks on a lot of fees the fans have to pay (which ticketmaster splits with the venue). The acts aren't able to charge as much for tickets to their shows because they know their fans are paying 20-35% in fees on top of the ticket price to the ticket reseller the venues force the acts to work with.

It should would be nice to cut out this particular middleman but yeah I don't know that a more distributed way to exchange and retrade tickets would be enough to take this particular failure of the free market down.

Juan Ponce de León

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #510 on: November 05, 2021, 08:39:29 PM »
That is an interesting scheme. But couldn’t, e.g., Ticketmaster do the same thing in a centralized fashion significantly more simply using a standard database? What value does the decentralized aspect bring, when ultimately you’re depending on the concert venue to recognize this ticket?

I think based on same decentralization value proposition i.e. cut out the middle-man. The cut that TicketMaster would otherwise take, would be distributed to the miners / validators participating in the blockchain.

Ticketmaster don't want to cut out the middleman, they ARE the middelman.  They want to cut in the middleman where previously scalpers were cutting them out.

You're acting like Ticketmaster doesn't like scalping.  I mean, Ticketmaster has been working with scalpers to make sure that they get the tickets they want for events for a long time - https://liveforlivemusic.com/news/ticketmaster-tradedesk-scalp/.

Scalpers and Ticketmaster are close and friendly business partners.  Not sure why they would jeopardize that relationship that they've spent so much time and effort to build for NFTs.

You're right they don't want to stop the scalpers, but I do think they'd like to make sure they get their cut when tickets change hands.

Juan Ponce de León

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #511 on: November 05, 2021, 08:42:42 PM »
Ticketmaster don't want to cut out the middleman, they ARE the middelman.  They want to cut in the middleman where previously scalpers were cutting them out.

I'd guess individual venues would be happy to cut out Ticketmaster if they could find an easy way to do so without losing attendees.

Ticketmaster pays robust fees to venues to be the sole ticket provider.

Ah, right you are! It sounds like ticketmaster's big innovation was charging fans rather than venues which drove all the venues to adopt it. I hadn't read up on their business model before. 

Quote
It took more than smart code, however, to turn Ticketmaster into one of the world's most powerful entertainment companies. It took the arrival in 1982 of a new leader—Fred Rosen, a fast-talking lawyer and amateur comedian who had a profound realization: Ticketing isn't about the bands or the fans. It's about the venues.

Shortly after he was hired, Rosen systematically contacted the biggest concert halls and arenas in the country and made them all the same spectacular offer: Where Ticketron charged venues for its service (adding a minimal fee for customers—$1 per ticket), Rosen offered to actually pay the venues. He would increase service fees and split the money with whoever housed a concert or sporting event. Everybody signed up

So I guess in this business model the people whose ox is being gored are the acts and the fans. The venue mandates that act has to use ticketmaster. Ticketmaster tacks on a lot of fees the fans have to pay (which ticketmaster splits with the venue). The acts aren't able to charge as much for tickets to their shows because they know their fans are paying 20-35% in fees on top of the ticket price to the ticket reseller the venues force the acts to work with.

It should would be nice to cut out this particular middleman but yeah I don't know that a more distributed way to exchange and retrade tickets would be enough to take this particular failure of the free market down.

Wouldn't ticketmaster also be responsible for marketing and promoting the event?  It's not just a blind cash grab they are providing a specialised service I would imagine.

Telecaster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2772
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #512 on: November 05, 2021, 10:30:39 PM »
You're right they don't want to stop the scalpers, but I do think they'd like to make sure they get their cut when tickets change hands.

They already do:

https://www.ticketmaster.com/verified

Edit:  See also

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/20/649666928/ticketmaster-has-its-own-secret-scalping-program-canadian-journalists-report

« Last Edit: November 05, 2021, 10:34:24 PM by Telecaster »

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4473
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #513 on: November 05, 2021, 11:03:57 PM »
According to coin market cap, the top 3 cryptos are BTC, ETH and BNB.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/BNB-USD/

I'm missing something about Bitcoin Cash (BNB)... you pay transaction fees with it?  And so it's gone from $42 to $600 this year because of that?  I'm missing something.

These are two different coins.
Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is popular for payments around the world. It was a fork that split off the original Bitcoin.
Not to be confused with bitcoin.

The BNB Binance Coin was created by the Binance exchange.  https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/binance-coin-bnb.asp
It is similar to the FTX coin issued by the FTX exchange.

Basically, you get a credit on your transaction fees, and if you use defi - in their own network like CAKE,
it is easier to swap coins on their defi dex incl bitcoin.
An important feature is that the defi dex CAKE has coins you can't get on the big exchanges because they are not yet listed there.

I read somewhere the BNB offered a couple of other perks, you can probably google that.
Binance is by far the largest exchange worldwide and continues to build its own network.
Oops, I have no idea why I typed Bitcoin cash, when I meant Binance Coin (BNB).  I mentioned transaction fees because I thought I was discussing the sole benefit of BNB.  But your link mentions travel and other purchases, as well as smart contracts running on Binance chain.

Binance has been pouring 1/5th of it's quarterly profits into buying and destroying (burning) BNB every quarter.  Seems like the world's largest crypto exchange is pushing for BNB to replace ETH or BTC.  They already do more transactions than ETH, and has the ingredients to push usage more broadly.

I think I should consider how much to diversify my BTC + ETH into buying BNB.  If BNB displaces the other two, their value could drop while BNB continues climbing.

Juan Ponce de León

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #514 on: November 05, 2021, 11:23:05 PM »
You're right they don't want to stop the scalpers, but I do think they'd like to make sure they get their cut when tickets change hands.

They already do:

https://www.ticketmaster.com/verified

Edit:  See also

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/20/649666928/ticketmaster-has-its-own-secret-scalping-program-canadian-journalists-report

Yeah fair enough!

Juan Ponce de León

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #515 on: November 05, 2021, 11:29:39 PM »
According to coin market cap, the top 3 cryptos are BTC, ETH and BNB.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/BNB-USD/

I'm missing something about Bitcoin Cash (BNB)... you pay transaction fees with it?  And so it's gone from $42 to $600 this year because of that?  I'm missing something.

These are two different coins.
Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is popular for payments around the world. It was a fork that split off the original Bitcoin.
Not to be confused with bitcoin.

The BNB Binance Coin was created by the Binance exchange.  https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/binance-coin-bnb.asp
It is similar to the FTX coin issued by the FTX exchange.

Basically, you get a credit on your transaction fees, and if you use defi - in their own network like CAKE,
it is easier to swap coins on their defi dex incl bitcoin.
An important feature is that the defi dex CAKE has coins you can't get on the big exchanges because they are not yet listed there.

I read somewhere the BNB offered a couple of other perks, you can probably google that.
Binance is by far the largest exchange worldwide and continues to build its own network.
Oops, I have no idea why I typed Bitcoin cash, when I meant Binance Coin (BNB).  I mentioned transaction fees because I thought I was discussing the sole benefit of BNB.  But your link mentions travel and other purchases, as well as smart contracts running on Binance chain.

Binance has been pouring 1/5th of it's quarterly profits into buying and destroying (burning) BNB every quarter.  Seems like the world's largest crypto exchange is pushing for BNB to replace ETH or BTC.  They already do more transactions than ETH, and has the ingredients to push usage more broadly.

I think I should consider how much to diversify my BTC + ETH into buying BNB.  If BNB displaces the other two, their value could drop while BNB continues climbing.

The advantage of BNB over ETH has been a faster network with far cheaper gas fees, that drove huge growth on the BSC network earlier this year and great gains for holding coins like BNB and CAKE.  The disadvantage (to some) is that BSC is a far more centralized network and that Binance themselves have a lot of control over the direction of BNB.  I don't mind, Binance have demonstrated that they can and will step in to support the BNB price and pump money into the BSC network to grow it.

However now there are other low cost networks maturing like SOL and AVAX and also I think ETH v2 is supposed to fix the gas fees on ETH, eventually, one day, maybe.  While I think it's undervalued, the easy and rapid growth days for BNB might be already done.

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4473
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #516 on: November 06, 2021, 04:14:50 AM »
In U.S. stock markets, the meme stocks don't break the top 500.  But in crypto currencies, the #4 coin by 24h volume is "Shiba Inu" (SHIB), started as a joke.  It has 80% of the volume of ETH, one of the two major crypto currencies.  It's goal is to displace another joke coin, DOGE, which if you rank by 24h volume comes in at #19.  Neither of these coins have a use, so they at least show speculation is reaching the top ranks.  Maybe it's like the dot-com era, where a few stocks survived (like Apple, Amazon) while most didn't have any long term value and collapsed.

Back to BNB, SOL and AVAX - is there any website that tracks transaction volume?  Not just people buying/selling the coins themselves, but merchant transactions of crypto coins.  Like when someone pays for travel with BNB.  I would find that kind of information really valuable.  That, to me, shows usage that doesn't include things like DOGE and SHIB.

Juan Ponce de León

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #517 on: November 06, 2021, 04:31:41 AM »
Back to BNB, SOL and AVAX - is there any website that tracks transaction volume?  Not just people buying/selling the coins themselves, but merchant transactions of crypto coins. 

The 3 aren't just coins, they are networks.  Like ETH, they are the native currency of their network.  For example on Binance Smart Chain, you can't do anything on the network without BNB in your wallet.  Everything you do on BSC is done with BNB.  Most transactions on BSC would be movements of coins between wallets and dapps and swaps between BNB and other tokens on a Dex like pancakeswap.  Every transaction costs a small gas fee which is paid in BNB.

I pay my CC with BNB, so I guess that counts.  Honestly Doge is a great cryptocurrency that is accepted by many online stores.  If I want to spend some crypto to buy giftcards or something similar and they don't take BNB (and most don't) I would usually use something like doge or litecoin as they are cheaper and faster to use than the bitcoin network which I've actually never used.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2021, 04:48:37 AM by Juan Ponce de León »

Malcat

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9478
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #518 on: November 06, 2021, 06:27:29 AM »
Ticketmaster don't want to cut out the middleman, they ARE the middelman.  They want to cut in the middleman where previously scalpers were cutting them out.

I'd guess individual venues would be happy to cut out Ticketmaster if they could find an easy way to do so without losing attendees.

Ticketmaster pays robust fees to venues to be the sole ticket provider.

Ah, right you are! It sounds like ticketmaster's big innovation was charging fans rather than venues which drove all the venues to adopt it. I hadn't read up on their business model before. 

Quote
It took more than smart code, however, to turn Ticketmaster into one of the world's most powerful entertainment companies. It took the arrival in 1982 of a new leader—Fred Rosen, a fast-talking lawyer and amateur comedian who had a profound realization: Ticketing isn't about the bands or the fans. It's about the venues.

Shortly after he was hired, Rosen systematically contacted the biggest concert halls and arenas in the country and made them all the same spectacular offer: Where Ticketron charged venues for its service (adding a minimal fee for customers—$1 per ticket), Rosen offered to actually pay the venues. He would increase service fees and split the money with whoever housed a concert or sporting event. Everybody signed up

So I guess in this business model the people whose ox is being gored are the acts and the fans. The venue mandates that act has to use ticketmaster. Ticketmaster tacks on a lot of fees the fans have to pay (which ticketmaster splits with the venue). The acts aren't able to charge as much for tickets to their shows because they know their fans are paying 20-35% in fees on top of the ticket price to the ticket reseller the venues force the acts to work with.

It should would be nice to cut out this particular middleman but yeah I don't know that a more distributed way to exchange and retrade tickets would be enough to take this particular failure of the free market down.

This was EXACTLY my much earlier point.

Ticketmaster doesn't actually exist to fill a *customer* need. It's a pure middle man operation that is entirely unnecessary from the perspective of providing a service to the consumer.

Venues have always had the ability to sell tickets directly to consumers. I just bought tickets a few weeks ago directly from the venue instead of a ticket broker.

Ticketmaster basically *is* a scalper who gives kickbacks to venues.

Why would Ticketmaster or venues give up this lucrative arrangement? It doesn't exist because of a currency issue, so how would a new currency solve anything?

I'm all for hearing about uses of blockchain, but this was never a currency issue to begin with so how on earth does blockchain solve a problem that never even existed?

Middle men muscle into all major industries, it's a business model as old as time. I don't see how blockchain is going to magically eliminate that.

Middle men exist because of the flow of business, not the details of the exchange of money. Ive just spent the last month debating with a startup that I have a minority stake in about whether our business model will include working with a middle man or not. There are pros and cons to both, but none of the considerations have anything to do with the actual exchange of money. That's just a non issue.

The existence or absence of blockchain would have no impact on whether ot not we do business through a middle man. This is why I struggle to understand.

People always give examples where blockchain would be better for the consumer, but businesses don't design their functions to be better for the consumer. So where I get kind of lost is seeing why I, a person developing a business would prioritize doing transactions through blockchain.

What are the pressures that would make me, a product developer need to utilize blockchain if I choose to sell to a middle man? And what would motivate that middle man to use blockchain in their distribution? And what would motivate the next entity in the distribution to use block chain? And then what would motivate the use of blockchain to sell directly to consumers?

What problem gets solved?
« Last Edit: November 06, 2021, 06:39:54 AM by Malcat »

Rosy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2600
  • Location: Florida
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #519 on: November 06, 2021, 01:03:24 PM »
Back to BNB, SOL and AVAX - is there any website that tracks transaction volume?  Not just people buying/selling the coins themselves, but merchant transactions of crypto coins. 

The 3 aren't just coins, they are networks.  Like ETH, they are the native currency of their network.  For example on Binance Smart Chain, you can't do anything on the network without BNB in your wallet.  Everything you do on BSC is done with BNB.  Most transactions on BSC would be movements of coins between wallets and dapps and swaps between BNB and other tokens on a Dex like pancakeswap.  Every transaction costs a small gas fee which is paid in BNB.

I pay my CC with BNB, so I guess that counts.  Honestly Doge is a great cryptocurrency that is accepted by many online stores.  If I want to spend some crypto to buy giftcards or something similar and they don't take BNB (and most don't) I would usually use something like doge or litecoin as they are cheaper and faster to use than the bitcoin network which I've actually never used.

1. SOL - AVAX - ETH - BNB - ADA - DOT - KSM - LUNA - FTM...
A well-established network is crucial and is a huge factor in determining the price of a coin like ETH.
There are thousands of projects built on ETH with real-life use and new projects continue to be built on ETH.
ETH averted an attempt at a 51% attack about a month ago. ETH is huge, it is a behemoth, a decentralized chain in the process of changing from POW to POS.

Think of the networks as Apple vs Android - they each have their own products - fierce competition - dedicated users:). In the case of crypto, there are long-term communities of people who stake their coins and want to see their project succeed.
Most projects within a network also have their own coin and instead of buying say SOL you can buy a coin/project in their network like say Raydium. 
 
SOL is new, barely on the Mainnet, and has had smart contract capability for only a couple of months. It stumbled a bit out of the gate but it is fast and efficient and it uses neither Proof of Work nor Proof of Stake. It is built on Proof of History unique to SOL.

It has strong, repeat VC's in its favor and the advantage of avoiding all the problems ETH had in the past. It has support from Alameda Research (Sam Friedman) FTX exchange - easy wallet and staking with bridges enhancing interoperability and instant transactions with FTX.
If you make it easy to use a coin, network, wallet, people will use it - interoperability is key.

Competition is fierce, there are projects moving from ETH to SOL and in an unbelievably short time, SOL has over a thousand projects built on it in various stages of implementation, growing exponentially. SOL is impressive and the developers and people behind it are experienced and dedicated, the best in the business.
   
2. I get your approach about looking at the top coins. I did that too, in the beginning, to determine what makes them a success and whether they fit my investment goals.
Why not just buy the top ten and be done with it? Crypto is more complicated than that.

3. I have no interest in messing with a sh$t coin, meme coin which have no function whatsoever. If I were a gambling trader who had money coming out of my ears - maybe, but even then it makes no sense to me. I'd rather support a real project and see it grow like a mini VC:).
Sh$t coins are a detriment and damage the public view and understanding of crypto - they do nothing but harm.

I have to side with Juan, Doge is the exception. It still has serious supporters and has gained new VCs and developers to improve the payment platform. It was built on ETH and has actual functionality with new projects in the wings. So in my totally unqualified opinion, this doggie may live to fight another day. But hey, I could be wrong.:)

Besides, crypto is coming of age, there are blue-chip coins, that are not ever talked about in the news but keep everything running and connected in the background or serve a unique function. I want those in my portfolio to balance out the more volatile coins.

3. BNB or CAKE will never be part of my portfolio for many reasons but I can understand why both work great for Juan. He's a pro and has more experience with defi, but the point is you need the right coins to operate within the network. He understands the ins and outs of navigating the network(s). I do not feel comfortable with defi yet, but once I choose my defi passive income source(s) I'll experiment a bit. 

To your question about transactions, yes there are stats on how many transactions per day.   https://ycharts.com/indicators/ethereum_transactions_per_day

boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9215
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #520 on: November 06, 2021, 01:22:45 PM »
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/06/autograph-ceo-dillon-rosenblatt-why-you-spend-so-much-money-on-nfts.html

So this is what I was talking about with nfts having some function in society. 

Now I don't think the path to riches lies thru a collectible. But it doesnt mean it's not a use case for Blockchain. Society has collected all sorts of shit that isn't a proven path to riches for the length of time that historic stock market returns have a track record for. And most of these collections are fad phases.

Doesn't mean nft isn't a use case for Blockchain that could store the lineage of digital assets forever and just bc it's not a proven path to riches doesn't mean it couldn't exist for a long time.

It just doesn't really have a place in a portfolio built for predictable wealth accumulation and withdrawals.

There will be fad's that come and go throughout your entire existence. I mean why isnt there a current thread about sneaker trading. Bc that shit is blowing up and man it's crazy.

The other major issue I personally take with alot here is they appear to constantly be using terms used to convince people the stock market isn't a big risk. Like hold thru the crash it will come back it's proven it can. Yeah for less than 8 years. This information clutters the already ridiculously cluttered personal finance space. Stop comparing your shit coins to the same almost infinitely long term return expectations of the stock market. Sweet i hit 100k 6 years ahead of plan with crypto. Going to keep holding they the multi annual crashes like always bc it goes up. It goes up doesn't apply to this collectible the same way it applies to companies in the stock market. Further the returns of any given index or sector of stocks is driven by about 4% of that. Then add to that the stocks that lead it the last 10 years don't typically lead that performance in the future.

So here we've got people using the term blue chip for crypto. Bc they're so desperate for it to fit into this mold of predictable long term growth the markets have provided for decades. While this tech has existed for about 1 decade. Further all of your current " diversification". Isn't close to large enough to capture enough of winners should these things turn into reputable long-term investments. In fact most are heavily invested in the top 2 or 3 cryptos today per their comments here. Amongst an almost infinitely large space that is crypto.

I mean it's like the anti thesis for investing.  Most got into it bc it was surfing and didn't want to miss the boat. And it has to just keep doing this.

Not only do I think BTC will be worth almost nothing compared to it's current valuation I think it's going to lead to a large market crash.   No one here has articulated any exit plan from a lottery ticket your bought and haven't realized gains in infact most have indicated the exact opposite. To hold til the very end. Or after it's next hyperbolic runup I'm cashing in.  What if it never comes history doesn't tell us it will come.

Back to nfts of course athletes love this market I can create 1billion digitally signed objects in seconds. Actually signing then takes longer. The value of 1billion signed things is low. But if I say one of them is unique and includes a feature none of the rest do I and this feature will only be revealed once all signatures have been purchased.  Now I've created a market with mass speculation and want. Effectively a lottery. Then apply this pass down logic of the MLM model y'all are touting with tickets where I can repeat a cut of every resale. Nfts are a real thing humans will consume for decades to come. And it will just funnel money back up to the already rich people at the top through all these channels you claim can solve tickets.

Really would just like to see a functionally productive case for Blockchain deployed that uses infinitely less energy than is consumed today to collect something. Bc that's all y'all are doing with BTC as admitted multiple times here. A store of value is a collectible.

Juan Ponce de León

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #521 on: November 06, 2021, 04:28:55 PM »
Not only do I think BTC will be worth almost nothing compared to it's current valuation

Not only are you wrong, you're just completely guessing, more like hoping honestly.

boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9215
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #522 on: November 06, 2021, 05:57:47 PM »
Not only do I think BTC will be worth almost nothing compared to it's current valuation

Not only are you wrong, you're just completely guessing, more like hoping honestly.

Yep I'm wrong.

You're not guessing/hoping at all

Thing is if I'm wrong I'm still a multi millionaire. If you're wrong you may be worth nothing
« Last Edit: November 06, 2021, 06:02:20 PM by boarder42 »

Juan Ponce de León

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #523 on: November 06, 2021, 06:15:54 PM »
Not only do I think BTC will be worth almost nothing compared to it's current valuation

Not only are you wrong, you're just completely guessing, more like hoping honestly.

Yep I'm wrong.

You're not guessing/hoping at all

Thing is if I'm wrong I'm still a multi millionaire. If you're wrong you may be worth nothing

This is where I don't understand you.  You're rich, but you sound really upset and bitter that maybe some others are making gains and catching up.

Let's look at the reality, the here and now.  There is a fake internet coin currently worth $61,400.  It's 'worth nothing' but it costs $61,400 and is traded all day every day in massive volume.  It has over $1Trillion market cap and the total crypto market cap is approaching $3Trillion.  There are people/entities with billions of dollars invested, I was just looking at a $1Billion wallet the other day which was invested in many of the same projects as I am.  Obviously just looking to throw it all away and be 'worth nothing', that's right, this massive industry that is now built around crypto and everyone invested in it is just going to pack up and go home.  It'll all crash to zero, put a fork in it, it's done!  LMAO.  We'll all just forget about Bitcoin and Ethereum and decentralized finance and the Binance exchange will just pack up shop and start selling Beanie Babies and Tulip Bulbs.

Meanwhile I've made a few hundred k this year, paid all my bills, cashed out my initial investment so I'm free-carried yet I'm somehow the dumb one and you're a genius?  In January my crypto PF was 8K.  LMAO.  Why are you so emotional about this?  I'm not and I've got 50% of everything riding on it.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2021, 06:17:39 PM by Juan Ponce de León »

boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9215
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #524 on: November 06, 2021, 06:23:16 PM »
Not only do I think BTC will be worth almost nothing compared to it's current valuation

Not only are you wrong, you're just completely guessing, more like hoping honestly.

Yep I'm wrong.

You're not guessing/hoping at all

Thing is if I'm wrong I'm still a multi millionaire. If you're wrong you may be worth nothing

This is where I don't understand you.  You're rich, but you sound really upset and bitter that maybe some others are making gains and catching up.

Let's look at the reality, the here and now.  There is a fake internet coin currently worth $61,400.  It's 'worth nothing' but it costs $61,400 and is traded all day every day in massive volume.  It has over $1Trillion market cap and the total crypto market cap is approaching $3Trillion.  There are people/entities with billions of dollars invested, I was just looking at a $1Billion wallet the other day which was invested in many of the same projects as I am.  Obviously just looking to throw it all away and be 'worth nothing', that's right, this massive industry that is now built around crypto and everyone invested in it is just going to pack up and go home.  It'll all crash to zero, put a fork in it, it's done!  LMAO.  We'll all just forget about Bitcoin and Ethereum and decentralized finance and the Binance exchange will just pack up shop and start selling Beanie Babies and Tulip Bulbs.

Meanwhile I've made a few hundred k this year, paid all my bills, cashed out my initial investment so I'm free-carried yet I'm somehow the dumb one and you're a genius?  In January my crypto PF was 8K.  LMAO.  Why are you so emotional about this?  I'm not and I've got 50% of everything riding on it.

Glad you agree it's beanie babies and tulip bulbs. They're all but forgotten as far as money is concerned.

So now we can add too big to fail to fomo and it only goes up got it.



Not sure what emotion you think is in this. Is that like a personal crutch you lean on without a better response. You keep citing emotion being a factor.   


Juan Ponce de León

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #525 on: November 06, 2021, 06:27:57 PM »
Your whole argument appears to be that the current reality isn't real, because you don't like it.

boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9215
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #526 on: November 06, 2021, 06:32:51 PM »
Current reality?  Pretty sure Tesla made more in the last few weeks than BTC did. Curious as to why you haven't moved to that reality?  What's your timetable for this reality you are living in? 

Malcat

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9478
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #527 on: November 06, 2021, 07:39:07 PM »
Not only do I think BTC will be worth almost nothing compared to it's current valuation

Not only are you wrong, you're just completely guessing, more like hoping honestly.

Yep I'm wrong.

You're not guessing/hoping at all

Thing is if I'm wrong I'm still a multi millionaire. If you're wrong you may be worth nothing

This is where I don't understand you.  You're rich, but you sound really upset and bitter that maybe some others are making gains and catching up.

Lol, I'm sorry, but it's always kind of entertaining to watch people get riled up arguing with B42. If you aren't familiar with him, then I can see why you think there's bitterness of personal feelings, but those who have known him for years know that's just his style.

I doubt he has anything even close to a personal feeling about other people making money in crypto. He's not arguing with you so aggressively because he has aggressive feelings about crypto, he's arguing with you aggressively because...well...he argues aggressively.

If an argument doesn't make sense to him, this is how he reacts. He's not upset, he's just tenacious and rigorous in his arguments.

He'll chew this bone as long as you try to pull it from him, and then he'll go merrily along his way totally unaffected by it. He's not bitter or angry, he's just fucking tenacious. And he's not going to let it go unless and until your arguments make sense to him.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2021, 08:19:33 PM by Malcat »

Juan Ponce de León

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #528 on: November 06, 2021, 07:52:57 PM »
^^ LMAO okay.  I think i'll leave it there in that case.  It's pointless arguing about it honestly, noone is going to change their minds.  The best thing about these crypto deniers is they will never be wrong, no matter what happens they can always say "It'll go to zero, any day now".

BTC 1k = bitcoin is not backed by anything, worthless and going to zero
BTC 10k = bitcoin is not backed by anything, worthless and going to zero
BTC 30k = bitcoin is not backed by anything, worthless and going to zero
BTC 60k = bitcoin is not backed by anything, worthless and going to zero
BTC 100k = bitcoin is not backed by anything, worthless and going to zero
BTC 1000k = bitcoin is not backed by anything, worthless and going to zero

There's just no winning that argument is there..

Malcat

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9478
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #529 on: November 06, 2021, 08:22:49 PM »
^^ LMAO okay.  I think i'll leave it there in that case.  It's pointless arguing about it honestly, noone is going to change their minds.  The best thing about these crypto deniers is they will never be wrong, no matter what happens they can always say "It'll go to zero, any day now".

BTC 1k = bitcoin is not backed by anything, worthless and going to zero
BTC 10k = bitcoin is not backed by anything, worthless and going to zero
BTC 30k = bitcoin is not backed by anything, worthless and going to zero
BTC 60k = bitcoin is not backed by anything, worthless and going to zero
BTC 100k = bitcoin is not backed by anything, worthless and going to zero
BTC 1000k = bitcoin is not backed by anything, worthless and going to zero

There's just no winning that argument is there..

I don't see this as an argument against anything he's said.

I'm not saying his predictions are right, but I have yet to see anyone truly dismantle the basis of his position.

As I've said many times, I'm looking to be convinced, but so far, that hasn't happened, and B42 is making a lot of sense to me even if I don't necessarily buy his predictions. His arguments can be right, but his predictions wrong.

Meanwhile, I have yet to see a solid crypto argument that fully makes sense to me other than the fact that there's potential to make a lot of money. That can also be true along side most things B42 argues being correct.

This is what's so frustrating about the debate.

Malcat

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9478
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #530 on: November 07, 2021, 06:03:33 AM »
Thing is if I'm wrong I'm still a multi millionaire.

Someone who both brags about being a multi millionaire, and yet qualifies for medicaid children's insurance.

Need to explore CHIP now and understand how that works and what limitations are if anyone knows or has data that'd be great.
"Eligible within the state’s CHIP income range, based on family income, and any other state specified rules in the CHIP state plan."
https://www.medicaid.gov/chip/eligibility/index.html

How is this relevant to crypto??

waltworks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5082
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #531 on: November 07, 2021, 07:54:03 AM »
I'm a FIRED multimillionaire and keeping your kids off of CHIP is actually quite difficult, as it's entirely income based. It's one of the reasons I still do a little bit of work. When our kids ended up on CHIP it was a big problem as there were no providers nearby, so I can see how Boarder42 would be interested in the topic.

If you're not a young(ish) FIRE person with kids, it might sound like B42 is being a weird hypocrite cheapskate or something, but this is actually a common issue for some of us simply because your income level, regardless of assets, determines your CHIP status. Furthermore there is *nothing you can do* to get off of CHIP and buy your own insurance if your income is too low.

And of course it has zero to do with crypto; I assume you were just trying to mock B42 for some reason.

-W

boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9215
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #532 on: November 07, 2021, 08:46:01 AM »
I'm a FIRED multimillionaire and keeping your kids off of CHIP is actually quite difficult, as it's entirely income based. It's one of the reasons I still do a little bit of work. When our kids ended up on CHIP it was a big problem as there were no providers nearby, so I can see how Boarder42 would be interested in the topic.

If you're not a young(ish) FIRE person with kids, it might sound like B42 is being a weird hypocrite cheapskate or something, but this is actually a common issue for some of us simply because your income level, regardless of assets, determines your CHIP status. Furthermore there is *nothing you can do* to get off of CHIP and buy your own insurance if your income is too low.

And of course it has zero to do with crypto; I assume you were just trying to mock B42 for some reason.

-W

Thanks for that info. Proximity of care is important and something that would help us determine what we should do with our income level since in RE it's in our control. 

Great to detail a thread about something that's not related to fire with something that's very valuable to people on the path to fire.

I can figure out all the monetary costs and advantages myself which including childcare start to get extremely beneficial to early retirees with young care. My original plan was to keep them off chip. But I'm not 100% sure now as again the money works out as a hedge against early sorr since most social programs and tax credits are income based so we can obtain significantly lower cash out flows early.

You can debate the morality of such things til you're blue in the face but in reality we're likely going to contribute way more long term due to RMDs. The optimal thing if we could assume we'll have no large drop in the first 6 years would be to convert to the max of the 12% which kills most of these services. But the short term risk is cash outflows to combat sorr and that's much more important to an early firee.


boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9215
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #533 on: November 07, 2021, 09:37:03 AM »
Man crypto is such a hit it's pulling in some valuable new forum members with alot to say.

Jeferson

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #534 on: November 07, 2021, 10:20:23 AM »
I think it's not a bad idea, I am not saying to put all your money in crypto as I don't do that either. But a small portion of my funds is located in crypto. In the past, I focused primarily on stacking BTC and ADA, but recently I focus on SOL which is predicted to perform very well in the upcoming years. It's basically like a better version of Cardano, with more potential.

Juan Ponce de León

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #535 on: November 07, 2021, 11:39:43 AM »
Bitcoin doesn't go up in value because it may one day be used in businesses to buy goods and services.  It goes up in value because it is a scarce asset  that people want to hold and don't want to sell.  There's only 21 million bitcoins and that's all there will ever be.  The network is still in its growth phase with millions of new users coming in and we're all just fighting for a piece of that pie.  The amount traded on exchanges which sets the price is actually very low, the vast majority of bitcoin is stored away in offline wallets for the long term, no one is looking to spend it in shops, noone spends gold bullion or apple shares in shops either, it's a long term investment.

So bitcoin isn't a currency. It's an asset?

It's literally called a cryptocurrency.

It's quite obviously an asset, it has a current market cap of nearly $1.2Trillion.  You can call it whatever you want and by this stage it doesn't matter what the original intentions of some supposed Japanese guy in a basement were when he created Bitcoin, bitcoin is now it's own beast and all that matters now is how bitcoin is being used and valued and adopted globally and where it is headed into the future.  Bitcoin and crypto in general is here to stay, I honestly would not want to be one of the people who knew all about bitcoin in these early days, argued about it on the internet all day until they were blue in the face but never owned any and completely missed the bus. 

Soon Bitcoins market cap value will flip silver and after that there is only Amazon, Google, Saudi Aramco, Apple and Microsoft to go on the way to flipping Gold which is about a 10x away for BTC.  For reference BTC has done roughly a 238x since 2015.  It has been said that Bitcoin is a monetary black hole that will suck up and dominate all other asset classes.  I'm yet to see anything to suggest that it is not progressively doing exactly that.

so its only gone up since 2015 so based on that information i've decided it can only go up and dominate the world.  Good luck 6 years is an infinitely small time in the money game.

and FOMO sorry i missed that part of your post in the middle there. 

so there we have it folks the reason to hold BTC is FOMO and it always goes up.  If you don't have FOMO over this and don't believe 6 years of it always goes up makes it "a long term investment" there is no reason to be in it.

You sound very upset, please try not to get emotional over this.  I'll stick to my opinion and you stick to yours.  My opinion has made me a lot of money this year so I'm fairly happy with it for now.  Let's see what the future brings.  So exciting isn't it.

@Juan Ponce de León , are there conditions under which you'd sell some Bitcoin to lock in those gains?
Hello

Sent from my CPH2217 using Tapatalk

I did already answer that question LMAO. 

FLBiker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1445
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Canada
    • Chop Wood Carry FIRE
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #536 on: November 08, 2021, 07:53:05 AM »
As I've said many times, I'm looking to be convinced, but so far, that hasn't happened, and B42 is making a lot of sense to me even if I don't necessarily buy his predictions. His arguments can be right, but his predictions wrong.

Meanwhile, I have yet to see a solid crypto argument that fully makes sense to me other than the fact that there's potential to make a lot of money. That can also be true along side most things B42 argues being correct.

This is what's so frustrating about the debate.

I think one of the problems with this thread is that we're really comparing apples and oranges.  I don't think it really makes sense to compare crypto to index fund investing.  I think it would make more sense to compare it to day trading or forex.  I don't mean this as a knock -- plenty of people do this, and some of them make a lot more money than I'll ever have.  For me, though, a big appeal of the investment strategy that I've followed (index funds) is that it is reliable, and requires no luck, special knowledge, or timing.  I don't need to do a lot of research or pay attention to prices.  It's simple.  For these same reasons, I don't day trade or use options or margin.  For me, having a strategy that is simple, proven over time, and reproducible (meaning anyone can do it and expect to get similar results) is what makes this stuff a real source of freedom.

I have a 6 year old.  When she starts working (say in 10-15 years) and is making her first investment choices, I suspect she would still be able to do what I did and get a similar result.  I started investing seriously at 30 and have a portfolio of $1.3 million 15 years later.  Crypto could be very popular (in terms of being used as a payment platform) by that time, but I think it will look very different as an investment (either because it will have stabilized or crashed).  The alternative would be that the prices continue to increase dramatically forever, but I don't think that anyone believes that.

It's undeniable that Bitcoin has outgained the stock market over the last 10 years.  But it's also undeniable that the stock market has a much longer track record of delivering returns that have consistently out performed inflation, bonds, etc.  So, ultimately, I think it comes down to what you're looking for.  Do you want to find the current strategy for beating the market, or are you interested in a much longer-used strategy for reaching financial independence?  With the former (whether it's crypto or something else) you could make tons of money but it will take a lot more work and engagement, and the risk of going bust is higher.  The latter, on the other hand, is much more simple and reliable, but it isn't necessarily the fastest.  I'm in the latter camp, but I recognize that this is a matter of personal preference (much like risk tolerance).

I have enjoyed the back and forth of this thread, though, as it has helped me to clarify my own ideas.

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4473
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #537 on: November 08, 2021, 09:29:54 AM »
Economist Mohamed A. El-Erian said the stock and bond markets are split right now.  Stocks are relatively calm, while the bond market's volatility reflects uncertainty over what central banks will do.  Surprisingly, he suggested the situation could get more money moving into crypto.  There's fears of inflation, but uncertainty in bonds, which gives crypto an opportunity.

(Warning: Video and audio will play - not a text article)
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2021/11/08/bond-and-equity-markets-are-showing-a-big-split-right-now-mohamed-el-erian.html

Malcat

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9478
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #538 on: November 08, 2021, 09:31:03 AM »
As I've said many times, I'm looking to be convinced, but so far, that hasn't happened, and B42 is making a lot of sense to me even if I don't necessarily buy his predictions. His arguments can be right, but his predictions wrong.

Meanwhile, I have yet to see a solid crypto argument that fully makes sense to me other than the fact that there's potential to make a lot of money. That can also be true along side most things B42 argues being correct.

This is what's so frustrating about the debate.

I think one of the problems with this thread is that we're really comparing apples and oranges.  I don't think it really makes sense to compare crypto to index fund investing.  I think it would make more sense to compare it to day trading or forex.  I don't mean this as a knock -- plenty of people do this, and some of them make a lot more money than I'll ever have.  For me, though, a big appeal of the investment strategy that I've followed (index funds) is that it is reliable, and requires no luck, special knowledge, or timing.  I don't need to do a lot of research or pay attention to prices.  It's simple.  For these same reasons, I don't day trade or use options or margin.  For me, having a strategy that is simple, proven over time, and reproducible (meaning anyone can do it and expect to get similar results) is what makes this stuff a real source of freedom.

I have a 6 year old.  When she starts working (say in 10-15 years) and is making her first investment choices, I suspect she would still be able to do what I did and get a similar result.  I started investing seriously at 30 and have a portfolio of $1.3 million 15 years later.  Crypto could be very popular (in terms of being used as a payment platform) by that time, but I think it will look very different as an investment (either because it will have stabilized or crashed).  The alternative would be that the prices continue to increase dramatically forever, but I don't think that anyone believes that.

It's undeniable that Bitcoin has outgained the stock market over the last 10 years.  But it's also undeniable that the stock market has a much longer track record of delivering returns that have consistently out performed inflation, bonds, etc.  So, ultimately, I think it comes down to what you're looking for.  Do you want to find the current strategy for beating the market, or are you interested in a much longer-used strategy for reaching financial independence?  With the former (whether it's crypto or something else) you could make tons of money but it will take a lot more work and engagement, and the risk of going bust is higher.  The latter, on the other hand, is much more simple and reliable, but it isn't necessarily the fastest.  I'm in the latter camp, but I recognize that this is a matter of personal preference (much like risk tolerance).

I have enjoyed the back and forth of this thread, though, as it has helped me to clarify my own ideas.

To be fair, when I say I'm looking to be convinced, I don't mean that I'm looking to be convinced to buy individual crypto coins.

It's already been established by people on both sides of the debate that in my particular case, because I'm perfectly happy with my level of wealth and returns that there's no argument to buy coins at this point except as speculation.

That was my first question: is there any argument to be made that I will miss out on anything except gains by not buying these coins now? As if they becomes integrated more into the regular economy, they'll just become part of the financial ecosystem and be captured by index funds and pension funds eventually. I'll just miss out on possible outsized gains that I don't care about.

Okay cool. That was established. No need for me to bother thinking about buying one of these individual coins. That provided me A LOT of clarity through the noise from both sides.

Now, when I say I'm looking to still be convinced, what I mean is that I'm still looking to be convinced about the utility and predictions around crypto.

I *get* that an enormous amount of people delve into understanding crypto and then become overwhelmingly convinced about how AMAZING and REVOLUTIONARY it is. And when I talk to actual crypto experts and read endless articles, I don't experience the same reaction. I see a lot of potential, but no clear path forward in terms of utility, and every example I'm given, like the Ticketmaster, example, seems to be offering a solution to a problem that doesn't exist because of a currency issue and wouldn't be solved by a new currency either.

That said, I'm am definitely starting to wrap my mind around NFTs. It kind of baffles me, because I contrary to my high level of activity here, I am NOT a child of the internet. You see me here all the time because this is basically the only social media I use. So NFTs sounds absurd to me personally, but as someone who has dated A LOT of software dudes who went fucking gaga for Sims and Second Life back in the day, I can grasp the mentality of the population that sees value in NFTs.

Coins though? In their current form?
My brain just refuses to grasp the hype, and the moment I find myself resistant to something new, the moment I have a reaction of the old man sitting on his porch ranting about "Young kids these days with their internet dog money! Back in my day you wrapped your bills in a rubber band and that was good enough for me!" I immediately start seeking out information to disprove my intuitive position.

And I will either become convinced of the value of current individual coins, or it will take so long that history happens in the meantime and I get my answer.

What I've been looking at are top coins that aren't sky rocketing in value, that aren't projected to sky rocket in value, and trying to understand why they are still touted as big players.

An example is EOS. It's worth about $5 a coin and sky high projections put it at hitting a whopping $22 in 2022. It was called the "Etherium killer" and has had some struggles, but many sources are still really bullish on it. It also apparently runs some of the highest number of actual transactions, which means it's actually used more than the most valuable coins.

I've read at least 100 articles about why this is, and I still can't put my finger on *exactly* why it seems to be immune to explosive value compared to other, similar coins.

As I said, I understand its issues and drawbacks, but the other coins have equally huge or bigger drawbacks, especially in terms of energy consumption, and everything else noted in this thread, particularly about Bitcoin.

So if someone can give me a common sense explanation as to why certain coins blow up to such extreme levels and others, which are hyped just as much done, I would appreciate that.

ChpBstrd

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3702
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #539 on: November 08, 2021, 09:35:55 AM »
As I've said many times, I'm looking to be convinced, but so far, that hasn't happened, and B42 is making a lot of sense to me even if I don't necessarily buy his predictions. His arguments can be right, but his predictions wrong.

Meanwhile, I have yet to see a solid crypto argument that fully makes sense to me other than the fact that there's potential to make a lot of money. That can also be true along side most things B42 argues being correct.

This is what's so frustrating about the debate.

I think one of the problems with this thread is that we're really comparing apples and oranges.  I don't think it really makes sense to compare crypto to index fund investing.  I think it would make more sense to compare it to day trading or forex.  I don't mean this as a knock -- plenty of people do this, and some of them make a lot more money than I'll ever have.  For me, though, a big appeal of the investment strategy that I've followed (index funds) is that it is reliable, and requires no luck, special knowledge, or timing.  I don't need to do a lot of research or pay attention to prices.  It's simple.  For these same reasons, I don't day trade or use options or margin.  For me, having a strategy that is simple, proven over time, and reproducible (meaning anyone can do it and expect to get similar results) is what makes this stuff a real source of freedom.

I have a 6 year old.  When she starts working (say in 10-15 years) and is making her first investment choices, I suspect she would still be able to do what I did and get a similar result.  I started investing seriously at 30 and have a portfolio of $1.3 million 15 years later.  Crypto could be very popular (in terms of being used as a payment platform) by that time, but I think it will look very different as an investment (either because it will have stabilized or crashed).  The alternative would be that the prices continue to increase dramatically forever, but I don't think that anyone believes that.

It's undeniable that Bitcoin has outgained the stock market over the last 10 years.  But it's also undeniable that the stock market has a much longer track record of delivering returns that have consistently out performed inflation, bonds, etc.  So, ultimately, I think it comes down to what you're looking for.  Do you want to find the current strategy for beating the market, or are you interested in a much longer-used strategy for reaching financial independence?  With the former (whether it's crypto or something else) you could make tons of money but it will take a lot more work and engagement, and the risk of going bust is higher.  The latter, on the other hand, is much more simple and reliable, but it isn't necessarily the fastest.  I'm in the latter camp, but I recognize that this is a matter of personal preference (much like risk tolerance).

I have enjoyed the back and forth of this thread, though, as it has helped me to clarify my own ideas.

I can relate @FLBiker. I feel a bit of gratitude every time I think about how lucky I am to live in an era when I can click a button and invest in the outcomes of thousands of companies - which is essentially the growth of the overall economy as occurs as more and more people worldwide increase their productivity and seek out ways to create more value as humanity continues its march from subsistence activities to industrial work. Compare this world to my prospects had I been born in 1900, or 1800, or 1100. Back then, either there were no markets whereby a person could retire or they were generally unavailable to regular folks. Back then I would have had to farm for any meager wealth I had, with the strength of my body being the upper limit on my productivity and earnings potential, and having lots of children would have been the only "social security" imaginable for when I could no longer work. "Retirement" was not a concept except for the political elites.

In this awesome generation, though, I can ponder whether I want to spend 30 years of my life in a state of leisure, or 40, and the only tradeoffs to consider are NOT buying a bunch of crap that was not available to or needed by people a few generations ago! Never has humanity been offered such a bargain. It's mine for the taking. It's proven to work, and this is not a gamble or a long shot, because the plan involves owning the means of production. 

To look at this wild opportunity and say "that's not enough, I want to YOLO everything I own on speculative collectibles as a long shot bid to get rich quick, mostly because they went up in the past" seems like passing up on an outstanding opportunity to retire after only 10-15 years of work in order to chase the dream of retiring after only 5-6 years of work. It also sounds like the setup to every investment bubble story.

Sure, time is valuable, but so is risk. At some point, the risks involved with attempts to shave off time to retirement become so high, only a fraction of people taking such risks succeed. We won't hear about the failed cases, just like we didn't hear much about the people who worked another 20 years because they put it all in Pets.com, Beanie Babies, silver futures, or any one of dozens of hedge funds that had a great few years followed by collapse, but they were real people. Even if one gambles with only a portion of one's assets, why take such gambles when one's alternative is about as good an outcome as any human can reasonably expect? And if one is going to gamble in zero-sum markets for things with no utility, why not pick any other gamble? Forex, commodity contracts, options YOLOs, or day trading at least involve things with utility? Betting on both black and red in roulette yields steady returns until it doesn't. Why must everyone gamble on the same one particular thing being talked about incessantly by financial media?

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4473
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #540 on: November 08, 2021, 09:40:08 AM »
Juan Ponce de León - That's helpful, thanks.  I'm trying to view crypto as a speculation on what might be used in the future.  Established networks seem to fit that approach.  It's still hard to figure out how much is people buying and holding, and how much is transactions.

Malcat - I prefer Google as middle man over the phone book.  Crypto could replace an existing middle man.  As to my post you wondered about, the other poster claimed they would still be a multi-millionaire if crypto crashed, which seems to me like a bullying tactic.  I'm surprised all my ELI5 explanations got nothing from you, but this caught your attention.

Rosy - The number of transactions would include both speculators and people conducting business, wouldn't it?  Meaning, if I sell my ETH to someone who pays me USD, that's speculation.  If I sell my ETH to buy a product from a store, that's closer to a payment network.  Right now, I don't have a good way to separate speculation from payment network usage.


boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9215
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #541 on: November 08, 2021, 10:02:01 AM »
As I've said many times, I'm looking to be convinced, but so far, that hasn't happened, and B42 is making a lot of sense to me even if I don't necessarily buy his predictions. His arguments can be right, but his predictions wrong.

Meanwhile, I have yet to see a solid crypto argument that fully makes sense to me other than the fact that there's potential to make a lot of money. That can also be true along side most things B42 argues being correct.

This is what's so frustrating about the debate.

I think one of the problems with this thread is that we're really comparing apples and oranges.  I don't think it really makes sense to compare crypto to index fund investing.  I think it would make more sense to compare it to day trading or forex.  I don't mean this as a knock -- plenty of people do this, and some of them make a lot more money than I'll ever have.  For me, though, a big appeal of the investment strategy that I've followed (index funds) is that it is reliable, and requires no luck, special knowledge, or timing.  I don't need to do a lot of research or pay attention to prices.  It's simple.  For these same reasons, I don't day trade or use options or margin.  For me, having a strategy that is simple, proven over time, and reproducible (meaning anyone can do it and expect to get similar results) is what makes this stuff a real source of freedom.

I have a 6 year old.  When she starts working (say in 10-15 years) and is making her first investment choices, I suspect she would still be able to do what I did and get a similar result.  I started investing seriously at 30 and have a portfolio of $1.3 million 15 years later.  Crypto could be very popular (in terms of being used as a payment platform) by that time, but I think it will look very different as an investment (either because it will have stabilized or crashed).  The alternative would be that the prices continue to increase dramatically forever, but I don't think that anyone believes that.

It's undeniable that Bitcoin has outgained the stock market over the last 10 years.  But it's also undeniable that the stock market has a much longer track record of delivering returns that have consistently out performed inflation, bonds, etc.  So, ultimately, I think it comes down to what you're looking for.  Do you want to find the current strategy for beating the market, or are you interested in a much longer-used strategy for reaching financial independence?  With the former (whether it's crypto or something else) you could make tons of money but it will take a lot more work and engagement, and the risk of going bust is higher.  The latter, on the other hand, is much more simple and reliable, but it isn't necessarily the fastest.  I'm in the latter camp, but I recognize that this is a matter of personal preference (much like risk tolerance).

I have enjoyed the back and forth of this thread, though, as it has helped me to clarify my own ideas.

I can relate @FLBiker. I feel a bit of gratitude every time I think about how lucky I am to live in an era when I can click a button and invest in the outcomes of thousands of companies - which is essentially the growth of the overall economy as occurs as more and more people worldwide increase their productivity and seek out ways to create more value as humanity continues its march from subsistence activities to industrial work. Compare this world to my prospects had I been born in 1900, or 1800, or 1100. Back then, either there were no markets whereby a person could retire or they were generally unavailable to regular folks. Back then I would have had to farm for any meager wealth I had, with the strength of my body being the upper limit on my productivity and earnings potential, and having lots of children would have been the only "social security" imaginable for when I could no longer work. "Retirement" was not a concept except for the political elites.

In this awesome generation, though, I can ponder whether I want to spend 30 years of my life in a state of leisure, or 40, and the only tradeoffs to consider are NOT buying a bunch of crap that was not available to or needed by people a few generations ago! Never has humanity been offered such a bargain. It's mine for the taking. It's proven to work, and this is not a gamble or a long shot, because the plan involves owning the means of production. 

To look at this wild opportunity and say "that's not enough, I want to YOLO everything I own on speculative collectibles as a long shot bid to get rich quick, mostly because they went up in the past" seems like passing up on an outstanding opportunity to retire after only 10-15 years of work in order to chase the dream of retiring after only 5-6 years of work. It also sounds like the setup to every investment bubble story.

Sure, time is valuable, but so is risk. At some point, the risks involved with attempts to shave off time to retirement become so high, only a fraction of people taking such risks succeed. We won't hear about the failed cases, just like we didn't hear much about the people who worked another 20 years because they put it all in Pets.com, Beanie Babies, silver futures, or any one of dozens of hedge funds that had a great few years followed by collapse, but they were real people. Even if one gambles with only a portion of one's assets, why take such gambles when one's alternative is about as good an outcome as any human can reasonably expect? And if one is going to gamble in zero-sum markets for things with no utility, why not pick any other gamble? Forex, commodity contracts, options YOLOs, or day trading at least involve things with utility? Betting on both black and red in roulette yields steady returns until it doesn't. Why must everyone gamble on the same one particular thing being talked about incessantly by financial media?

This is how i view it.  I took very quickly to the thought of index investing upon finding this in 2014.  I think my history of trading stocks actively since I was 10 until finding this at 27 plays into my opinion on speculative investing like this. I "tried" to get rich faster for 17 years albeit with considerably smaller amounts of money but losing half your money at 11 years old in the dot com bubble still hurts b/c its relative.  So when i see stuff like this come up here i'm just like cool some new flashy thing that some people will get rich on and some people will get poor on.  And in this particular case the entire planet gets hurt b/c of it. 

The shockingly simple math and the double edged sword of cutting expenses combined with predictable long term index investing is already the cheat code to life.  And now we're seeing people be like maybe i can get there in half the time and trade none of my lifestyle.  Maybe you can but its not a predictable bet its a pure gamble at this point. 

There will always be some hot new thing and this is the same as daytrading etc which is why so many are vocally against it.  What are the risks that come up every time someone mentions allocating a certain portion of their investment to individual stock picking or daytrading or options etc.  Well the biggest risk is you do really well and win big and think you've got it all figured out and then you FIRE on your 6% SWR that your strategy supports only to find out it doesn't work long term you got lucky for a little bit.  Maybe you even get out at the right time. What happens when the next crypto like craze hits and you go more into it this time maybe all in and it turns out to be tulips and beanie babies. (which this still could be regardless of what personal opinion is - Overwhelming BTC has been deemed a "store of value" by supporters of it in this thread which means its a collectible)

So what do i think of adding a low % of crypto - I still think its a fundamentally bad play for the avg investor in the world which is what most people are.  But people like to gamble and win so its likely better than playing black jack or buying a lottery ticket if you can completely compartmentalize the money you have there and not increase your stake based on emotions.

Malcat

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9478
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #542 on: November 08, 2021, 10:13:24 AM »
Malcat - I prefer Google as middle man over the phone book.  Crypto could replace an existing middle man.  As to my post you wondered about, the other poster claimed they would still be a multi-millionaire if crypto crashed, which seems to me like a bullying tactic.  I'm surprised all my ELI5 explanations got nothing from you, but this caught your attention.

Because I don't need crypto explained to me like I'm 5.

But when I see a specific use case presented that doesn't make sense to me, I ask my clarifying questions.

I understand how Google displaces Yellopages. I can't grasp how crypto would displace Ticketmaster. I'm not saying it won't, but I am failing to perceive the market forces that would cause it to be displaced, since every argument I've seen is how crypto would benefit the consumer and Ticketmaster has never benefited the consumer in the first place, and yet still exists. So if their lack of utility to the consumer was a market force that would make them disappear, they would have disappeared ages ago.

Unfortunately, "being beneficial to the consumer" is not the driving force behind, well, the vast overwhelming majority of businesses. Sometimes utility is what's used to gain market share, that's what people are sold on as the benefit of capitalism, but that's not actually how it works, it's only part of the picture.

forgerator

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #543 on: November 08, 2021, 04:10:02 PM »
To be honest, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have the exact opposite experience where I lost a ton in the stock market but gained orders of magnitude back through crypto. Yet we cannot say one or the other is the right investment for anyone.

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2455
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #544 on: November 08, 2021, 05:32:10 PM »
So on these meme coins which have gone up a million percent or more, who is on the losing side of this?  Everyone who is cashing out, someone is going to be left holding a bag.

onecoolcat

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 603
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SoFla
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #545 on: November 08, 2021, 05:49:25 PM »
So on these meme coins which have gone up a million percent or more, who is on the losing side of this?  Everyone who is cashing out, someone is going to be left holding a bag.

I haven't checked this thread in a couple days but as far as I know none is advocating for meme coins here.

boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9215
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #546 on: November 08, 2021, 06:06:23 PM »
To be honest, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have the exact opposite experience where I lost a ton in the stock market but gained orders of magnitude back through crypto. Yet we cannot say one or the other is the right investment for anyone.

You might be the only person in this entire thread claiming to not invest in the stock market bc it's a losing battle. If you lost in the stock market you were clearly not following the basic investing advice given here. Now with some short term speculation in a current fad you made some money.

FLBiker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1445
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Canada
    • Chop Wood Carry FIRE
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #547 on: November 09, 2021, 06:11:46 AM »
To be honest, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have the exact opposite experience where I lost a ton in the stock market but gained orders of magnitude back through crypto. Yet we cannot say one or the other is the right investment for anyone.

Yes and no.  Perhaps comes down to the question that we're trying to answer.

For me, the question has been something like "What is the best way for me to almost certainly reach financial independence in a reasonable amount of time?"  For others, the question appears to be something like "What is the best way for me to potentially reach financial independence as quickly as possible?"  The question may be a matter of personal opinion.  Once you know the target, though, I do think there are objectively better and worse ways of reaching it.

If, like me, your primary financial question is the former, it's objectively true that you're better off investing in broad-based, low-fee index funds than trying to pick individual stocks or crypto coins.  This isn't necessarily the answer to the second question, though, which is why I think folks are sometimes talking past each other on this thread.

At the same time, there is a part of me that thinks that the first question is objectively better.  If the goal is financial independence, surely certainty / reliability / reproducibility has to be part of it, no?  Otherwise, by definition, the approach will work for some, fail for more, and thus isn't (as I understand it) a true source of independence.  I'm willing to concede, though, that this may not be objectively true -- it might just be that I hold my opinion very strongly.

Or perhaps I'm articulating the second question incorrectly.  It isn't mine, after all.  Maybe it's more accurate to express it as "What is the best way for me to potentially make a lot of money as quickly as possible?" and it isn't explicitly about a desire for financial independence.  If that's the case, taking chances makes more sense.  Again, though, that isn't a mindset I can really relate to, so I could still be stating it incorrectly.  Regardless, I've definitely found this thread to be helpful in clarifying some fundamental aspects of my investing philosophy.

boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9215
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #548 on: November 09, 2021, 06:24:10 AM »
To be honest, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have the exact opposite experience where I lost a ton in the stock market but gained orders of magnitude back through crypto. Yet we cannot say one or the other is the right investment for anyone.

Yes and no.  Perhaps comes down to the question that we're trying to answer.

For me, the question has been something like "What is the best way for me to almost certainly reach financial independence in a reasonable amount of time?"  For others, the question appears to be something like "What is the best way for me to potentially reach financial independence as quickly as possible?"  The question may be a matter of personal opinion.  Once you know the target, though, I do think there are objectively better and worse ways of reaching it.

If, like me, your primary financial question is the former, it's objectively true that you're better off investing in broad-based, low-fee index funds than trying to pick individual stocks or crypto coins.  This isn't necessarily the answer to the second question, though, which is why I think folks are sometimes talking past each other on this thread.

At the same time, there is a part of me that thinks that the first question is objectively better.  If the goal is financial independence, surely certainty / reliability / reproducibility has to be part of it, no?  Otherwise, by definition, the approach will work for some, fail for more, and thus isn't (as I understand it) a true source of independence.  I'm willing to concede, though, that this may not be objectively true -- it might just be that I hold my opinion very strongly.

Or perhaps I'm articulating the second question incorrectly.  It isn't mine, after all.  Maybe it's more accurate to express it as "What is the best way for me to potentially make a lot of money as quickly as possible?" and it isn't explicitly about a desire for financial independence.  If that's the case, taking chances makes more sense.  Again, though, that isn't a mindset I can really relate to, so I could still be stating it incorrectly.  Regardless, I've definitely found this thread to be helpful in clarifying some fundamental aspects of my investing philosophy.

I'd say both of your 2nd two questions are not what this forum is actually about and what the blog was founded upon.  there are plenty of sites and forums like reddit wall street bets for people following that 2nd path. 

The question posed here could be posed about litterally any asset that isnt a broad based index

what do you think of adding a low percent of corn futures
what do you think of adding a low percent of tsla
what do you think of adding a low percent of forex
what do you think of adding a low percent of blackjack bets
what do you think of adding a low percent of air jordans
what do you think of adding a low percent of teletubbies - (you guys just don't get it, its coming back and these things going to be the next shiba inu!)

I mean the answer to most of these is probably shouldn't mess with it.  but many here do have a small percentage of money they allocate to play around with b/c I'd wager most never really got the chance to play around much with money in the stock market and gambling releases biological responses that humans crave.  Being cognizant of this and knowing it could affect your larger pile of money in the future when say the sp500 makes 0% for 10 years and your play money makes you crypto gains like the last 10 years - you may start to question your foundational structure you built your FI plans on.  This is the biggest risk to any amount of alternative play money IMO.

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4473
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #549 on: November 09, 2021, 06:30:12 AM »
Malcat - I prefer Google as middle man over the phone book.  Crypto could replace an existing middle man.  As to my post you wondered about, the other poster claimed they would still be a multi-millionaire if crypto crashed, which seems to me like a bullying tactic.  I'm surprised all my ELI5 explanations got nothing from you, but this caught your attention.
I understand how Google displaces Yellopages. I can't grasp how crypto would displace Ticketmaster. I'm not saying it won't, but I am failing to perceive the market forces that would cause it to be displaced, since every argument I've seen is how crypto would benefit the consumer and Ticketmaster has never benefited the consumer in the first place, and yet still exists. So if their lack of utility to the consumer was a market force that would make them disappear, they would have disappeared ages ago.

Unfortunately, "being beneficial to the consumer" is not the driving force behind, well, the vast overwhelming majority of businesses. Sometimes utility is what's used to gain market share, that's what people are sold on as the benefit of capitalism, but that's not actually how it works, it's only part of the picture.
Who are you quoting after the word "Unfortunately"?  It's not me.  It looks like you're creating a strawman argument with your quote, and then disagreeing with the quote you made up.