Author Topic: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation  (Read 82198 times)

onecoolcat

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 617
  • Age: 35
  • Location: SoFla
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #850 on: January 30, 2022, 10:11:24 PM »
Bitcoin is a terrible investment because this one time it went from $1,000 to $19,000 and crashed all the way down to $3,800.  And another time, it went from $8,000 to $69,000 and crashed all the way down to $35,000.  Moral of the story, don't buy Bitcoin because you know it will crash.

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4584
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #851 on: January 30, 2022, 10:51:46 PM »
Bitcoin is a terrible investment because this one time it went from $1,000 to $19,000 and crashed all the way down to $3,800.  And another time, it went from $8,000 to $69,000 and crashed all the way down to $35,000.  Moral of the story, don't buy Bitcoin because you know it will crash.

I can't tell if you are being serious or not, but I bought in at $450.

Telecaster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2913
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #852 on: January 30, 2022, 11:13:06 PM »
Bitcoin is a terrible investment because this one time it went from $1,000 to $19,000 and crashed all the way down to $3,800.  And another time, it went from $8,000 to $69,000 and crashed all the way down to $35,000.  Moral of the story, don't buy Bitcoin because you know it will crash.

I can't tell if you are being serious or not, but I bought in at $450.

Pretty sure the previous poster is serious, but it illustrates a problem:  Bitcoin is touted as being better than gold. But it has wild price fluctuations.  If the value isn't there when you need it, then it doesn't have much utility in that regard.

If you buy it with the expectation it will always trend up, that's a different thing.

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4584
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #853 on: January 30, 2022, 11:14:49 PM »
OK. Crypto bros. These are the current facts. Please stop repeating false statements.
I do realize that you believe that propaganda would work. Nope, not here in MMM forum.
Do not play Putin's game. A lie repeated 100 times does not make it true.

Quote
Cryptos/blockchain values:

1. As a currency (superior to fiat USD).
Aka utility. There is i think already a wide consensus that this not happening. Almost no-one claims (anymore) in the last year that crypto's feature is utility.

2. As an inflation hedge (against legacy fiat).
Proven recently that it is not true.

3. As AA not correlated to the market.
Proven recently that it is not true.

4. As a store of value?
This item is often mentioned. If something has (intrinsic) value, then why in the last few weeks the value halfed? Is any logical reason why? Nope, just a sentiment. What kind of value it is?
So, this cannot be considered as stored value.

5. As an amazing tech changing our lives.
Blockchain/crypto is already over 10y old, and no (really) useful application was born. Give it another 10y? 

6. Killing the planet for absolutely nothing back.
If e.g. someone invents effective food production that is not killing the planet, but uses a lot if electricity that would be fine with me.

Can I intuit from your post that you are not a believer in the efficient market hypothesis?

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4584
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #854 on: January 30, 2022, 11:16:19 PM »
Pretty sure the previous poster is serious, but it illustrates a problem:  Bitcoin is touted as being better than gold. But it has wild price fluctuations.  If the value isn't there when you need it, then it doesn't have much utility in that regard.

If you buy it with the expectation it will always trend up, that's a different thing.

I might be in the minority, but I just think of it as a shitty currency. Better than venezuelan bolívar but worse than the US dollar.

ChpBstrd

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4216
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #855 on: January 31, 2022, 08:29:49 AM »
Pretty sure the previous poster is serious, but it illustrates a problem:  Bitcoin is touted as being better than gold. But it has wild price fluctuations.  If the value isn't there when you need it, then it doesn't have much utility in that regard.

If you buy it with the expectation it will always trend up, that's a different thing.

I might be in the minority, but I just think of it as a shitty currency. Better than venezuelan bolívar but worse than the US dollar.

IDK, with the Venezuelan bolivar, there is at least some intrinsic value in the gag gift market:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/384703155545?hash=item5992184d59:g:NNEAAOSwPfBhU6PO

Plus, Venezuela is getting to be too poor to print any more banknotes, and they are routinely destroyed as a way to build campfires, so it's actually deflationary from a collectibles perspective. I have a feeling there is a deeper truth about crypto buried here, but I just can't quite grasp it.

LateStarter

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 91
  • Location: UK
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #856 on: January 31, 2022, 12:43:25 PM »
OK. Crypto bros. These are the current facts. Please stop repeating false statements.
I do realize that you believe that propaganda would work. Nope, not here in MMM forum.
Do not play Putin's game. A lie repeated 100 times does not make it true.

Quote
Cryptos/blockchain values:

1. As a currency (superior to fiat USD).
Aka utility. There is i think already a wide consensus that this not happening. Almost no-one claims (anymore) in the last year that crypto's feature is utility.

2. As an inflation hedge (against legacy fiat).
Proven recently that it is not true.

3. As AA not correlated to the market.
Proven recently that it is not true.

4. As a store of value?
This item is often mentioned. If something has (intrinsic) value, then why in the last few weeks the value halfed? Is any logical reason why? Nope, just a sentiment. What kind of value it is?
So, this cannot be considered as stored value.

5. As an amazing tech changing our lives.
Blockchain/crypto is already over 10y old, and no (really) useful application was born. Give it another 10y? 

6. Killing the planet for absolutely nothing back.
If e.g. someone invents effective food production that is not killing the planet, but uses a lot if electricity that would be fine with me.

"A lie repeated 100 times does not make it true" says ArnoldK - repeating his own opinions as if that made them true . . .

LateStarter

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 91
  • Location: UK
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #857 on: January 31, 2022, 03:01:18 PM »
I get it that the Bitcoin energy issue is a topic worthy of examination and discussion, but the reporting in the general media is pretty shabby. Supposedly reliable sources are randomly conflating "electricity" comparisons with "energy" comparisons.

"The cryptocurrency consumes more energy than Norway." - not true
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/30/how-do-we-solve-bitcoins-carbon-problem

"Bitcoin uses more energy than Argentina - if Bitcoin was a country, it would be in the top 30 energy users worldwide"not true
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56012952

and there's plenty of similar examples out there  . . .

Simple careless errors ? Intentional scaremongering ? Either way, it's nonsense.

windytrail

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #858 on: January 31, 2022, 03:15:00 PM »
I get it that the Bitcoin energy issue is a topic worthy of examination and discussion, but the reporting in the general media is pretty shabby. Supposedly reliable sources are randomly conflating "electricity" comparisons with "energy" comparisons.

"The cryptocurrency consumes more energy than Norway." - not true
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/30/how-do-we-solve-bitcoins-carbon-problem

"Bitcoin uses more energy than Argentina - if Bitcoin was a country, it would be in the top 30 energy users worldwide"not true
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56012952

and there's plenty of similar examples out there  . . .

Simple careless errors ? Intentional scaremongering ? Either way, it's nonsense.

This source (https://www.moneysupermarket.com/gas-and-electricity/features/crypto-energy-consumption/) states that a single Bitcoin transaction uses an average of 1,173 Kilowatt Hours (kWh), enough to power a typical UK home for more than three months. Are you saying this is incorrect? If so, where are your sources?

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4584
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #859 on: January 31, 2022, 03:29:52 PM »
This source (https://www.moneysupermarket.com/gas-and-electricity/features/crypto-energy-consumption/) states that a single Bitcoin transaction uses an average of 1,173 Kilowatt Hours (kWh), enough to power a typical UK home for more than three months. Are you saying this is incorrect? If so, where are your sources?

Indeed. Bitcoin is the MySpace of cryptocurrencies. I would imagine that eventually people will catch on.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20073
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #860 on: January 31, 2022, 03:38:19 PM »
I get it that the Bitcoin energy issue is a topic worthy of examination and discussion, but the reporting in the general media is pretty shabby. Supposedly reliable sources are randomly conflating "electricity" comparisons with "energy" comparisons.

"The cryptocurrency consumes more energy than Norway." - not true
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/30/how-do-we-solve-bitcoins-carbon-problem

"Bitcoin uses more energy than Argentina - if Bitcoin was a country, it would be in the top 30 energy users worldwide"not true
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56012952

and there's plenty of similar examples out there  . . .

Simple careless errors ? Intentional scaremongering ? Either way, it's nonsense.

Do you have evidence that your claims here are valid?

LateStarter

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 91
  • Location: UK
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #861 on: January 31, 2022, 04:23:33 PM »
I get it that the Bitcoin energy issue is a topic worthy of examination and discussion, but the reporting in the general media is pretty shabby. Supposedly reliable sources are randomly conflating "electricity" comparisons with "energy" comparisons.

"The cryptocurrency consumes more energy than Norway." - not true
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/30/how-do-we-solve-bitcoins-carbon-problem

"Bitcoin uses more energy than Argentina - if Bitcoin was a country, it would be in the top 30 energy users worldwide"not true
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56012952

and there's plenty of similar examples out there  . . .

Simple careless errors ? Intentional scaremongering ? Either way, it's nonsense.

This source (https://www.moneysupermarket.com/gas-and-electricity/features/crypto-energy-consumption/) states that a single Bitcoin transaction uses an average of 1,173 Kilowatt Hours (kWh), enough to power a typical UK home for more than three months. Are you saying this is incorrect? If so, where are your sources?

Irrelevant. I think you misunderstood my point.

LateStarter

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 91
  • Location: UK
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #862 on: January 31, 2022, 04:24:03 PM »
I get it that the Bitcoin energy issue is a topic worthy of examination and discussion, but the reporting in the general media is pretty shabby. Supposedly reliable sources are randomly conflating "electricity" comparisons with "energy" comparisons.

"The cryptocurrency consumes more energy than Norway." - not true
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/30/how-do-we-solve-bitcoins-carbon-problem

"Bitcoin uses more energy than Argentina - if Bitcoin was a country, it would be in the top 30 energy users worldwide"not true
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56012952

and there's plenty of similar examples out there  . . .

Simple careless errors ? Intentional scaremongering ? Either way, it's nonsense.

Do you have evidence that your claims here are valid?

The source for most of the articles seems to be this Cambridge Uni data.
Bitcoin's electricity usage (131 tWh pa) is greater than Norway's electricity usage (124 tWh pa). I've not seen anyone arguing against this comparison. I'm happy to believe it's probably true.
https://ccaf.io/cbeci/index/comparisons - scroll down to "country ranking".


Bitcoin's electricity/energy usage (131 tWh pa) is NOT greater than Norway's energy usage (500 tWh pa).
https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/norway#how-much-energy-does-the-country-consume-each-year

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20073
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #863 on: January 31, 2022, 04:34:34 PM »
I get it that the Bitcoin energy issue is a topic worthy of examination and discussion, but the reporting in the general media is pretty shabby. Supposedly reliable sources are randomly conflating "electricity" comparisons with "energy" comparisons.

"The cryptocurrency consumes more energy than Norway." - not true
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/30/how-do-we-solve-bitcoins-carbon-problem

"Bitcoin uses more energy than Argentina - if Bitcoin was a country, it would be in the top 30 energy users worldwide"not true
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56012952

and there's plenty of similar examples out there  . . .

Simple careless errors ? Intentional scaremongering ? Either way, it's nonsense.

Do you have evidence that your claims here are valid?

The source for most of the articles seems to be this Cambridge Uni data.
Bitcoin's electricity usage (131 tWh pa) is greater than Norway's electricity usage (124 tWh pa). I've not seen anyone arguing against this comparison. I'm happy to believe it's probably true.
https://ccaf.io/cbeci/index/comparisons - scroll down to "country ranking".


Bitcoin's electricity/energy usage (131 tWh pa) is NOT greater than Norway's energy usage (500 tWh pa).
https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/norway#how-much-energy-does-the-country-consume-each-year


Comparing bitcoin's electricity usage is not going to be greater than Norway's total energy usage - because you're comparing apples and oranges.  That's invalid.

Calculate bitcoin's energy usage.  You need to find the total energy costs of not just the servers running, but of all the air conditioning necessary to host the server farms, all the energy used in the concrete that builds the buildings that hold the servers, all of the energy costs associated with the heavy marketing of bitcoin, etc.  Then get back with a number.  That's what they've tried to do here (https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/) for example.

For the moment, there is still no evidence you've brought forth supporting the claim that Bitcoin's energy usage is less than Norway's.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2022, 04:36:12 PM by GuitarStv »

Vienna4ever

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #864 on: January 31, 2022, 05:21:04 PM »

https://jacobinmag.com/2022/01/cryptocurrency-scam-blockchain-bitcoin-economy-decentralization

Cryptocurrency Is a Giant Ponzi Scheme

...Given that cryptocurrencies don’t produce anything of material value, this enormous waste of resources renders the whole enterprise a negative-sum game. Investors can only cash out by selling their coins to other investors — but only after the miners and various cryptocurrency service providers take the house’s rake. In other words, investors cannot — in the aggregate — cash out for even what they put in, as cryptocurrencies are inefficient by design.

This makes them a poor and costly form of currency and absolutely ludicrous as a long-term investment. We could dismiss them as a doomed experiment in the “greater fool” theory of investing, in which investors attempt to profit on overvalued or even worthless assets by selling them on to the next “greater fool” — think of it as gambling on a high-stakes game of musical chairs — if the rising price of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies were simply a function of demand.

This isn’t the case. Price manipulation plays as much or more of a role than demand in driving prices higher....

...Tether has become integral to the functioning of global crypto markets. The majority of Bitcoin trades are now conducted in Tether, 70 percent by volume. By comparison, only 8 percent of trade volume is conducted in real dollars, with the remainder being other crypto-to-crypto pairs. Many industry skeptics, and even proponents, see this as a systemic risk and ticking time bomb. The whole system relies on traders actually being able to exchange tethers for real cash or — far more commonly in practice — other traditional cryptocurrencies that can be sold for cash on banked exchanges like Coinbase or Gemini, both headquartered in the United States...

...No one knows exactly how this would shake out, but we know that investors will never be able to realize the gains they have made on paper. The cryptocurrency market’s oft-touted $2 trillion market cap, calculated by multiplying existing coins by the latest spot price, is a meaningless figure. Nowhere near that much has actually been invested into cryptocurrencies, and nowhere near that much will ever come out of them.

In fact, investors won’t — on average — be able to cash out for even as much as they put in. Much of that money went to cryptocurrency mining. Recent analysis shows that around $25 billion and growing has already gone to Bitcoin miners, who, by best estimates, are now spending $1 billion just on electricity every month, possibly more....







LateStarter

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 91
  • Location: UK
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #865 on: January 31, 2022, 05:41:13 PM »
I get it that the Bitcoin energy issue is a topic worthy of examination and discussion, but the reporting in the general media is pretty shabby. Supposedly reliable sources are randomly conflating "electricity" comparisons with "energy" comparisons.

"The cryptocurrency consumes more energy than Norway." - not true
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/30/how-do-we-solve-bitcoins-carbon-problem

"Bitcoin uses more energy than Argentina - if Bitcoin was a country, it would be in the top 30 energy users worldwide"not true
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56012952

and there's plenty of similar examples out there  . . .

Simple careless errors ? Intentional scaremongering ? Either way, it's nonsense.

Do you have evidence that your claims here are valid?

The source for most of the articles seems to be this Cambridge Uni data.
Bitcoin's electricity usage (131 tWh pa) is greater than Norway's electricity usage (124 tWh pa). I've not seen anyone arguing against this comparison. I'm happy to believe it's probably true.
https://ccaf.io/cbeci/index/comparisons - scroll down to "country ranking".


Bitcoin's electricity/energy usage (131 tWh pa) is NOT greater than Norway's energy usage (500 tWh pa).
https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/norway#how-much-energy-does-the-country-consume-each-year


Comparing bitcoin's electricity usage is not going to be greater than Norway's total energy usage - because you're comparing apples and oranges.  That's invalid.

Calculate bitcoin's energy usage.  You need to find the total energy costs of not just the servers running, but of all the air conditioning necessary to host the server farms, all the energy used in the concrete that builds the buildings that hold the servers, all of the energy costs associated with the heavy marketing of bitcoin, etc.  Then get back with a number.  That's what they've tried to do here (https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/) for example.

For the moment, there is still no evidence you've brought forth supporting the claim that Bitcoin's energy usage is less than Norway's.

If you use the digiconomist figure for Bitcoin energy of 205 tWh pa, that's still only 41% of Norway's 500 tWh pa. I don't know if the figures are directly comparable in every respect, but that's a pretty wide safety margin.
I'll back off on my claim that Bitcoin DEFINITELY uses less energy than Norway as there is some uncertainty there, but that would still seem to be the most reasonable conclusion.

The main point I was making is that the media claims I quoted, that Bitcoin uses more energy than Norway/Argentina based purely on electricity usage data is, without question, bullshit.

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4584
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #866 on: January 31, 2022, 05:54:21 PM »
...Given that cryptocurrencies don’t produce anything of material value, this enormous waste of resources renders the whole enterprise a negative-sum game. Investors can only cash out by selling their coins to other investors — but only after the miners and various cryptocurrency service providers take the house’s rake. In other words, investors cannot — in the aggregate — cash out for even what they put in, as cryptocurrencies are inefficient by design.

How is that different from dollar bills or the MasterCard network?

EDITed to add - I mined most of my crypto. Maybe I should start mining again.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2022, 06:32:54 PM by PDXTabs »

the_gastropod

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Brooklyn, NY
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #867 on: February 02, 2022, 08:00:00 AM »
...Given that cryptocurrencies don’t produce anything of material value, this enormous waste of resources renders the whole enterprise a negative-sum game. Investors can only cash out by selling their coins to other investors — but only after the miners and various cryptocurrency service providers take the house’s rake. In other words, investors cannot — in the aggregate — cash out for even what they put in, as cryptocurrencies are inefficient by design.

How is that different from dollar bills or the MasterCard network?

EDITed to add - I mined most of my crypto. Maybe I should start mining again.

I feel like this has been answered before, but let's do it again: because nobody "invests" in dollar bills or MasterCard transactions (whatever that even would mean). Most governments strive to make their currencies inflationary, precisely to discourage hoarding—the opposite of what people advocate you do with Bitcoin and other cryptos.

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4584
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #868 on: February 02, 2022, 08:09:51 AM »
...Given that cryptocurrencies don’t produce anything of material value, this enormous waste of resources renders the whole enterprise a negative-sum game. Investors can only cash out by selling their coins to other investors — but only after the miners and various cryptocurrency service providers take the house’s rake. In other words, investors cannot — in the aggregate — cash out for even what they put in, as cryptocurrencies are inefficient by design.

How is that different from dollar bills or the MasterCard network?

EDITed to add - I mined most of my crypto. Maybe I should start mining again.

I feel like this has been answered before, but let's do it again: because nobody "invests" in dollar bills or MasterCard transactions (whatever that even would mean). Most governments strive to make their currencies inflationary, precisely to discourage hoarding—the opposite of what people advocate you do with Bitcoin and other cryptos.

Perhaps we are actually in agreement. I disagree with the premise that cryptocurrency (or the MasterCard network) is useless but it could well turn out to have its value inflated away, if not in this generation than the next. But again, there are professional currency traders. You can earn a living doing that.

But people absolutely do invest in MasterCard transactions. Why do you think that businesses pay the fee and investors buy MA?

EDITed to add - Economist: Billions of banknotes are missing. Why does nobody care?. Perhaps people do "invest" in dollars.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2022, 08:11:47 AM by PDXTabs »

clarkfan1979

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2815
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Pueblo West, CO
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #869 on: February 02, 2022, 08:11:57 AM »
Pretty sure the previous poster is serious, but it illustrates a problem:  Bitcoin is touted as being better than gold. But it has wild price fluctuations.  If the value isn't there when you need it, then it doesn't have much utility in that regard.

If you buy it with the expectation it will always trend up, that's a different thing.

I might be in the minority, but I just think of it as a shitty currency. Better than venezuelan bolívar but worse than the US dollar.

This is pretty close to my opinion, which isn't worth much in this space.

I listened to a podcast on biggerpockets two years ago. Some rich guy has 1% of his net worth in bitcoin. He talked about the Venezuelan Bolivar. Many of the residents use Bitcoin because it's more stable than the Bolivar. The interview made total sense. The story illustrated clear value. However, the application was only toward countries with extremely unstable currencies. 

I'm still in the accumulation phase and I'm having tons of fun with stocks and real estate. I really don't like it when people with a very low net worth tell me that I need to be buying bitcoin, otherwise I will miss out. I firmly believe that I will never buy Bitcoin, when I'm in the accumulation phase. However, if I ever end up with way more money than I need, I could see a 1% allocation based on the application of value discussed above.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2022, 08:15:57 AM by clarkfan1979 »

the_gastropod

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Brooklyn, NY
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #870 on: February 02, 2022, 08:17:44 AM »
...Given that cryptocurrencies don’t produce anything of material value, this enormous waste of resources renders the whole enterprise a negative-sum game. Investors can only cash out by selling their coins to other investors — but only after the miners and various cryptocurrency service providers take the house’s rake. In other words, investors cannot — in the aggregate — cash out for even what they put in, as cryptocurrencies are inefficient by design.

How is that different from dollar bills or the MasterCard network?

EDITed to add - I mined most of my crypto. Maybe I should start mining again.

I feel like this has been answered before, but let's do it again: because nobody "invests" in dollar bills or MasterCard transactions (whatever that even would mean). Most governments strive to make their currencies inflationary, precisely to discourage hoarding—the opposite of what people advocate you do with Bitcoin and other cryptos.

Perhaps we are actually in agreement. I disagree with the premise that cryptocurrency (or the MasterCard network) is useless but it could well turn out to have its value inflated away, if not in this generation than the next. But again, there are professional currency traders. You can earn a living doing that.

But people absolutely do invest in MasterCard transactions. Why do you think that businesses pay the fee and investors buy MA?

EDITed to add - Economist: Billions of banknotes are missing. Why does nobody care?. Perhaps people do "invest" in dollars.

Perhaps. This is one of the difficulties in talking about Bitcoin. Its true believers believe (nonsensically, I might add) that Bitcoin is simultaneously: a great currency and a great asset for investment. These two things are strictly at odds.

Investing in MasterCard, the business, is fundamentally different from investing in Bitcoin for a multitude of reasons. Among them is: MasterCard is a profitable business. Its stockholders receive earnings via profits, which come from legitimate business activity.

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4584
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #871 on: February 02, 2022, 08:30:14 AM »
Perhaps. This is one of the difficulties in talking about Bitcoin. Its true believers believe (nonsensically, I might add) that Bitcoin is simultaneously: a great currency and a great asset for investment. These two things are strictly at odds.

Investing in MasterCard, the business, is fundamentally different from investing in Bitcoin for a multitude of reasons. Among them is: MasterCard is a profitable business. Its stockholders receive earnings via profits, which come from legitimate business activity.

I agree entirely about BTC, I sold all of mine (that I purchased as a means of exchange) years ago. If cryptocurrency is going to be a thing, I don't think that BTC's first mover advantage is going to save it.

But in my MasterCard analogy the miners and stakers are the network. If you are invested in a Proof of Stake cryptocurrency then you get paid dividends in the form of more cryptocurrency.

the_gastropod

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Brooklyn, NY
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #872 on: February 02, 2022, 09:06:13 AM »
I agree entirely about BTC, I sold all of mine (that I purchased as a means of exchange) years ago. If cryptocurrency is going to be a thing, I don't think that BTC's first mover advantage is going to save it.

But in my MasterCard analogy the miners and stakers are the network. If you are invested in a Proof of Stake cryptocurrency then you get paid dividends in the form of more cryptocurrency.

I think we keep losing sight of the big picture. Users of the MasterCard network overwhelmingly are buying/selling goods and services—not MasterCard tokens/points/shares/etc. MasterCard provides a useful service—including consumer protections, etc. for a fee they charge per transaction.

Users of cryptocurrencies almost exclusively are buying and selling these cryptocurrencies themselves in speculative manners. Sure, there are some micro-economies—especially for illegal goods/services—using cryptocurrencies. But the lion's share of crypto users are exclusively interested in "investing". In such a system, network operators collecting a fee are much less analogous to MasterCard and are much more analogous to a casino or—as I've argued—a Ponzi operator.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2022, 09:11:22 AM by the_gastropod »

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4584
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #873 on: February 02, 2022, 09:11:22 AM »
I agree entirely about BTC, I sold all of mine (that I purchased as a means of exchange) years ago. If cryptocurrency is going to be a thing, I don't think that BTC's first mover advantage is going to save it.

But in my MasterCard analogy the miners and stakers are the network. If you are invested in a Proof of Stake cryptocurrency then you get paid dividends in the form of more cryptocurrency.

I think we keep losing sight of the big picture. Users of the MasterCard network overwhelmingly are buying/selling goods and services. MasterCard provides a useful service—including consumer protections, etc. for a fee they charge per transaction.

Users of cryptocurrencies almost exclusively are buying and selling these cryptocurrencies in speculative manners. Sure, there are some micro-economies—especially for illegal goods/services—using cryptocurrencies. But the lion's share of crypto users are exclusively interested in "investing". In such a system, network operators collecting a fee are much less analogous to MasterCard and are much more analogous to a casino or—as I've argued—a Ponzi operator.

That might be why I have a hard time agreeing: I've owned multiple cryptocurrencies but I've never purchased it speculatively hoping for it to go up. I've mined it to be part of the network and I've purchased it to buy goods. So I've used it as an actual currency and not an investment.

the_gastropod

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Brooklyn, NY
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #874 on: February 02, 2022, 09:17:01 AM »
That might be why I have a hard time agreeing: I've owned multiple cryptocurrencies but I've never purchased it speculatively hoping for it to go up. I've mined it to be part of the network and I've purchased it to buy goods. So I've used it as an actual currency and not an investment.

Understandable. But the title of this thread: "What do you think about adding a low % of crypto allocation" is about speculation. It's not titled "What do you think about buying groceries with Dogecoin?"

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4584
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #875 on: February 02, 2022, 09:22:24 AM »
That might be why I have a hard time agreeing: I've owned multiple cryptocurrencies but I've never purchased it speculatively hoping for it to go up. I've mined it to be part of the network and I've purchased it to buy goods. So I've used it as an actual currency and not an investment.

Understandable. But the title of this thread: "What do you think about adding a low % of crypto allocation" is about speculation. It's not titled "What do you think about buying groceries with Dogecoin?"

I agree entirely, and I'm answering that question.

Or maybe I'll put it another way: when I invest in cryptocurrency I do so by mining it and paying my taxes on the profits allowing me to invest into a SEP-IRA or to deduct the losses from my ordinary income. I would also seriously considering staking.

But as long as people say "stop mining beanie babies it's a fraud" I'll keep replying.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20073
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #876 on: February 02, 2022, 09:30:45 AM »
That might be why I have a hard time agreeing: I've owned multiple cryptocurrencies but I've never purchased it speculatively hoping for it to go up. I've mined it to be part of the network and I've purchased it to buy goods. So I've used it as an actual currency and not an investment.

Understandable. But the title of this thread: "What do you think about adding a low % of crypto allocation" is about speculation. It's not titled "What do you think about buying groceries with Dogecoin?"

I agree entirely, and I'm answering that question.

Or maybe I'll put it another way: when I invest in cryptocurrency I do so by mining it and paying my taxes on the profits allowing me to invest into a SEP-IRA or to deduct the losses from my ordinary income. I would also seriously considering staking.

But as long as people say "stop mining beanie babies it's a fraud" I'll keep replying.

I'm curious . . . what sorts of stuff are you buying with your cryptocurrency?

the_gastropod

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Brooklyn, NY
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #877 on: February 02, 2022, 09:31:48 AM »
You don't get to just hand-wave away significant chunks of the system, and pretend they're not there, because you like some of the concepts of parts of the system.

Tether exists. BlockFI exists. Bitcoin exists. Bitcoin maximalists like Michael Saylor, the Winklevoss twins, and so on... they exist, and serve to pump the speculation ever-higher. And, speculators do make up the vast majority of participants in the cryptocurrency ecosystems.

The activities you find in these communities is directly as a result of the system as it was designed. The system is fraudulent—whether that was the intent or not.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2022, 09:36:20 AM by the_gastropod »

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4584
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #878 on: February 02, 2022, 09:40:44 AM »
You don't get to just hand-wave away significant chunks of the system, and pretend they're not there, because you like some of the concepts of parts of the system.

I think that I do, actually. People do that all the time for all sorts of systems. But I'm not pretending that they don't exist, I've written multiple times in this thread that due to the problems with BTC I will no longer support it.

Tether exists. BlockFI exists. Bitcoin exists. Bitcoin maximalists like Michael Saylor, the Winklevoss twins, and so on... they exist, and serve to pump the speculation ever-higher.

BlockFI is old school capitalism. They make their money through financial arbitrage. Libertarians exist, should I condemn the US dollar?

The activities you find in these communities is directly as a result of the system as it was designed. The system is fraudulent—whether that was the intent or not.

It's not fraud if it is unintentional.

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4584
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #879 on: February 02, 2022, 09:41:34 AM »
I'm curious . . . what sorts of stuff are you buying with your cryptocurrency?

Gray market goods from international sellers that MasterCard doesn't want on their network even if the goods are legal to sell.

the_gastropod

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Brooklyn, NY
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #880 on: February 02, 2022, 09:53:21 AM »
BlockFI is old school capitalism. They make their money through financial arbitrage. Libertarians exist, should I condemn the US dollar?

Bit of an aside, but in addition to their "old school capitalism" game of borrowing crypto from retail, and lending it to institutional investors at a higher rate, they also decided it'd be a good idea to become a prop fund, too. They are one of the largest holders of Grayscale BTC—buying it for the premium. That premium dropped, and trades at a ~20% discount to NAV. In other words, if you borrow retail investors BTC to create GBTC shares which are locked up for a year... What could go wrong?!

Source: https://www.coindesk.com/business/2021/03/11/crypto-lender-blockfi-raises-350m-at-a-3b-valuation/

It's not fraud if it is unintentional.

You're, of course, right. I don't mean that anyone will be legally liable for "fraud". But law is generally written after bad things happen. We don't have a law or regulation around this beast, yet. That doesn't make it ethical, sensible, or a good thing.

index

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 438
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #881 on: February 02, 2022, 10:23:11 AM »
I'm curious . . . what sorts of stuff are you buying with your cryptocurrency?

Gray market goods from international sellers that MasterCard doesn't want on their network even if the goods are legal to sell.

Like certain items illegal at the Federal level but legal in Oregon?


The activities you find in these communities is directly as a result of the system as it was designed. The system is fraudulent—whether that was the intent or not.

It's not fraud if it is unintentional.

Shitcoins are pumped by the beneficiaries. The Saylors of the world want the value to stay high so they can get out. Let the Meme Apes trade a few coins back and forth, bid up the price, and slowly turn your shitcoin position into a real asset.

The real utility of crypto is crime as you attested. The "value" of these shitcoins is the zero sum game of victims trading real assets for coins and bidding the price up in return. The mania will subside at some point, and the Meme Apes will have been fleeced by the Saylors.

Is it fraud? It's a digital coin with the only recognized utility of supporting crime and is pumped by those controlling the supply of digital coins. Where is all the shitcoin wealth coming from?   
« Last Edit: February 02, 2022, 10:25:11 AM by index »

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4584
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #882 on: February 02, 2022, 10:33:25 AM »
I'm curious . . . what sorts of stuff are you buying with your cryptocurrency?

Gray market goods from international sellers that MasterCard doesn't want on their network even if the goods are legal to sell.

Like certain items illegal at the Federal level but legal in Oregon?

No, I buy those with drug money, AKA US currency, from my local dealer.

Telecaster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2913
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #883 on: February 02, 2022, 11:14:21 AM »
It's not fraud if it is unintentional.

In talking with Bitcoin proponents here and elsewhere I'm convinced they are all true believers.  They all share the viewpoint that Bitcoin has desirable properties and will become widely adopted some day.  If they were an early adopter, then their viewpoint has been financially well rewarded, which I'm sure reinforces their viewpoints. 

But promoting your point of view, even if it is mistaken, is not fraud.  Saylor might be talking his book, but he's also buying Bitcoin.  He's a believer.   If more people want to own Bitcoin in the future, the price will go up.  If not the price will go down.  I believe that due to the inherent problems with Bitcoin there will be a maximum number of people who want to own it.   My belief does not make Bitcoin a fraud.   

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20073
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #884 on: February 02, 2022, 11:17:36 AM »
I'm curious . . . what sorts of stuff are you buying with your cryptocurrency?

Gray market goods from international sellers that MasterCard doesn't want on their network even if the goods are legal to sell.

Ah.  That makes sense.

Semi-legal to illegal markets seem to have seen the biggest acceptance of crypto as a currency.

ChpBstrd

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4216
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #885 on: February 02, 2022, 11:25:36 AM »
It's not fraud if it is unintentional.

In talking with Bitcoin proponents here and elsewhere I'm convinced they are all true believers.  They all share the viewpoint that Bitcoin has desirable properties and will become widely adopted some day.  If they were an early adopter, then their viewpoint has been financially well rewarded, which I'm sure reinforces their viewpoints. 

But promoting your point of view, even if it is mistaken, is not fraud.  Saylor might be talking his book, but he's also buying Bitcoin.  He's a believer.   If more people want to own Bitcoin in the future, the price will go up.  If not the price will go down.  I believe that due to the inherent problems with Bitcoin there will be a maximum number of people who want to own it.   My belief does not make Bitcoin a fraud.

What if I get involved with a pyramid scheme, and start recruiting others into the scheme, but it's because I'm a true religious convert and actually in my heart of hearts think it "can't go tits-up!" and will increase in value for the next 100 years.

The person who recruited me by doing the exact same behaviors knows exactly how these scams work and is on the bottom floor of his 5th pyramid scheme with one foot out the door with the profits.

Is my behavior legal/ethical but his behavior is illegal/unethical even though they are objectively the same behavior due to something that is unobservable to anyone else - our inner thoughts? How is a jury or a law enforcement officer supposed to decide which person acted with whatever intent? Moreover, was I not actually promoting a scam because I drank the Kool-aid? I.e. did the nature of the investment change because of what I believed?



the_gastropod

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Brooklyn, NY
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #886 on: February 02, 2022, 11:41:31 AM »
What if I get involved with a pyramid scheme, and start recruiting others into the scheme, but it's because I'm a true religious convert and actually in my heart of hearts think it "can't go tits-up!" and will increase in value for the next 100 years.

The person who recruited me by doing the exact same behaviors knows exactly how these scams work and is on the bottom floor of his 5th pyramid scheme with one foot out the door with the profits.

Is my behavior legal/ethical but his behavior is illegal/unethical even though they are objectively the same behavior due to something that is unobservable to anyone else - our inner thoughts? How is a jury or a law enforcement officer supposed to decide which person acted with whatever intent? Moreover, was I not actually promoting a scam because I drank the Kool-aid? I.e. did the nature of the investment change because of what I believed?

Agreed. Much of the legal system attempts to deal with this stuff—like the distinctions between murder, manslaughter, reckless endangerment, etc. And while it's certainly interesting in its own respect, for our discussion—that is, the way cryptocurrency systems function—I think the questions are pretty boring and irrelevant. They're only relevant when it comes to punishing people. The system of cryptocurrency is harmful. The legal systems are adjusting and will increasingly weigh in on how to treat cryptocurrencies. Until then, I think it's perfectly fair to look at how these systems operate, and acknowledge the hubbub.

Before speeding laws were written and put into place, it was still negligent to drive a car at high speeds through highly-populated areas. It wasn't always clear who was responsible for traffic deaths—the auto manufacturer? The driver? Law decided that after-the-fact. Similarly, it's unclear who—if anyone—is ultimately responsible for the fraud occurring in cryptocurrencies today. This does not mean that no fraud has occurred.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2022, 11:56:03 AM by the_gastropod »

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4584
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #887 on: February 02, 2022, 12:42:19 PM »
Before speeding laws were written and put into place, it was still negligent to drive a car at high speeds through highly-populated areas. It wasn't always clear who was responsible for traffic deaths—the auto manufacturer? The driver? Law decided that after-the-fact. Similarly, it's unclear who—if anyone—is ultimately responsible for the fraud occurring in cryptocurrencies today. This does not mean that no fraud has occurred.

Fun fact: it was actually more illegal to kill someone with your car before the speed laws. This is well documented in Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City by Peter D. Norton. Once it became in the corporate interests to sell more cars the criminal negligence standard was loosened. Which is exactly what I expect to see happen with the cryptocurrencies that benefit large institutional invests.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2022, 12:44:08 PM by PDXTabs »

lifeanon269

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 552
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #888 on: February 02, 2022, 02:25:02 PM »
It is hard to have a honest discussion related to the use of the word "fraud" when the conversation so easily flip flops between referring to bitcoin and/or referring to cryptocurrencies in general. There is a ton of fraud in the overall cryptocurrency space. As thousands of these tokens have come and gone over the last several years, there are well documented cases of fraud. Tezos and Ripple for example have lawsuits against them for just that. The space is ripe with fraud. It is akin to venture-capitalism that pushes hype above product. If your argument is against fraud in the whole space in general, then I'd agree completely with many of the comments being said. I think that is perhaps one of the largest hurdles for bitcoin to overcome, and that is trying to separate itself from the dirt of the overall industry.

Fidelity, coincidentally in fact, just came out with a new report titled "Bitcoin First" about how and why bitcoin is differentiated against the rest of the crowd.

https://www.fidelitydigitalassets.com/articles/bitcoin-first?sf253214177=1

If your argument then is that bitcoin itself is fraud, then I'd have to completely disagree with that stance. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue fraud in this instance where you have a completely open protocol that is completely decentralized without any authority or owner and everyone is free to educate and understand what this open network of participants is. There might be individual cases of fraud where an individual is "peddling" bitcoin as something it isn't or taking advantage of individuals' wealth in some fraud scheme unrelated to bitcoin itself. But I think it would be difficult to argue that bitcoin itself is the fraud. Anyone is free to participant and come and go as they please and the entire system is open and transparent. It is so transparent that anyone can host their own bitcoin node and completely verify every bitcoin transaction that has ever taken place. You can also completely verify the current supply yourself as well as verify the monetary rules that will dictate future supply. I'd love to hear genuine valid arguments as to how fraud applies here. The "ponzi" and "pyramid" arguments already fell flat, so if we're now just going with a general blanket "fraud" statement, I'd love to hear well reasoned arguments on how it applies here.

As I mentioned earlier, people often confused the speculative nature that often drives upward price swings with the idea that bitcoin has no utility outside of that speculation. But I'd love to hear them say that to #EndSARS protesters (Feminist Coalition) against police brutality in Nigeria who switched to funding their protests solely with bitcoin as the government shut off access to their bank accounts. Or the Russian opposition leader Navalny who raised over $3 million in bitcoin as his bank accounts were similarly shut down. Or the palestinians who used bitcoin to transact across the border during their conflict. Or the Belarus non-profit that used bitcoin to help fund protesters there. Or the impoverished family seeking remittances from their family member abroad. Or the Hong Kong protesters that turned to bitcoin for funding. Or the almost 2 billion people currently facing double-digit inflation or the 53% percent of the world living under an authoritarian government.

It is easy to falsely claim that bitcoin is used by criminals (even though less than 0.5% is used for actual illicit activity), when in reality bitcoin is used as a tool in fighting for individual freedom worldwide. What is clearly apparent in these forums (unsurprisingly) is that we have a bunch of privileged wealthy individuals who don't know what it is like to not have easy access to trustworthy financial services. We all have easy access to the stock market and transact from our reputable neighborhood credit unions that are all protected with countless consumer protection laws. We also are fortunate to earn our wealth with a currency that is backed by the strongest military in the world that also happens to hold reserve status around the world. They say we can pick our friend, but not our family. Well we also can't pick the country we're born into and for all too many their countries are stricken with government corruption and monetary instability.

Feel free to research any of the above instances I mentioned as they're all factual and there are countless more cases like them. This is bitcoin's utility right here and claiming that it can't do a lot of good for people in the world while sitting and an ivory tower and ignoring these cases isn't going to help your argument of claiming it is fraud.

the_gastropod

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Brooklyn, NY
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #889 on: February 02, 2022, 02:44:25 PM »
It is hard to have a honest discussion related to the use of the word "fraud" when the conversation so easily flip flops between referring to bitcoin and/or referring to cryptocurrencies in general. There is a ton of fraud in the overall cryptocurrency space. As thousands of these tokens have come and gone over the last several years, there are well documented cases of fraud. Tezos and Ripple for example have lawsuits against them for just that. The space is ripe with fraud. It is akin to venture-capitalism that pushes hype above product. If your argument is against fraud in the whole space in general, then I'd agree completely with many of the comments being said. I think that is perhaps one of the largest hurdles for bitcoin to overcome, and that is trying to separate itself from the dirt of the overall industry.

Fidelity, coincidentally in fact, just came out with a new report titled "Bitcoin First" about how and why bitcoin is differentiated against the rest of the crowd.

https://www.fidelitydigitalassets.com/articles/bitcoin-first?sf253214177=1

If your argument then is that bitcoin itself is fraud, then I'd have to completely disagree with that stance. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue fraud in this instance where you have a completely open protocol that is completely decentralized without any authority or owner and everyone is free to educate and understand what this open network of participants is. There might be individual cases of fraud where an individual is "peddling" bitcoin as something it isn't or taking advantage of individuals' wealth in some fraud scheme unrelated to bitcoin itself. But I think it would be difficult to argue that bitcoin itself is the fraud. Anyone is free to participant and come and go as they please and the entire system is open and transparent. It is so transparent that anyone can host their own bitcoin node and completely verify every bitcoin transaction that has ever taken place. You can also completely verify the current supply yourself as well as verify the monetary rules that will dictate future supply. I'd love to hear genuine valid arguments as to how fraud applies here. The "ponzi" and "pyramid" arguments already fell flat, so if we're now just going with a general blanket "fraud" statement, I'd love to hear well reasoned arguments on how it applies here.

No, I stand by my statement that Bitcoin, itself, is fraud. And that it is, for all intents-and-purposes, a Ponzi scheme. I don't believe anyone even responded to my—I think—fairly reasoned arguments from this previous post that classify it as such.

As I mentioned earlier, people often confused the speculative nature that often drives upward price swings with the idea that bitcoin has no utility outside of that speculation. But I'd love to hear them say that to #EndSARS protesters (Feminist Coalition) against police brutality in Nigeria who switched to funding their protests solely with bitcoin as the government shut off access to their bank accounts. Or the Russian opposition leader Navalny who raised over $3 million in bitcoin as his bank accounts were similarly shut down. Or the palestinians who used bitcoin to transact across the border during their conflict. Or the Belarus non-profit that used bitcoin to help fund protesters there. Or the impoverished family seeking remittances from their family member abroad. Or the Hong Kong protesters that turned to bitcoin for funding. Or the almost 2 billion people currently facing double-digit inflation or the 53% percent of the world living under an authoritarian government.

It is easy to falsely claim that bitcoin is used by criminals (even though less than 0.5% is used for actual illicit activity), when in reality bitcoin is used as a tool in fighting for individual freedom worldwide.

Ok, this is an important thing to clarify:

1. It stands that the VAST majority of people who own/use Bitcoin are doing so for speculative purposes
2. It also stands that the things you are describing are, in fact, illegal. Often times, law is very immoral. And in these cases, this is a good use-case. But it's important to acknowledge what's happening here—you're advocating for tools for bypassing the law.

What is clearly apparent in these forums (unsurprisingly) is that we have a bunch of privileged wealthy individuals who don't know what it is like to not have easy access to trustworthy financial services. We all have easy access to the stock market and transact from our reputable neighborhood credit unions that are all protected with countless consumer protection laws. We also are fortunate to earn our wealth with a currency that is backed by the strongest military in the world that also happens to hold reserve status around the world. They say we can pick our friend, but not our family. Well we also can't pick the country we're born into and for all too many their countries are stricken with government corruption and monetary instability.

Feel free to research any of the above instances I mentioned as they're all factual and there are countless more cases like them. This is bitcoin's utility right here and claiming that it can't do a lot of good for people in the world while sitting and an ivory tower and ignoring these cases isn't going to help your argument of claiming it is fraud.

Oh, please. Firstly: the average crypto investor is a 38 year old white man who makes $111k/year. 74% of crypto investors are men. 71% are white. Source: https://cheddar.com/media/crypto-investor-white-male-survey-demographic-change

What absolutely drives me nuts about this type of response, is it's such obvious bullshit. Crypto enthusiasts only/ care about "the unbanked" or fighting authoritarianism when they can use it as a cheap talking point to pump crypto. Bitcoin was not designed from first-principles to fix these things. It's been post-hoc rationalized as a great solution for everything from venue ticketing to fixing iced tea, to solving inequality and poverty in a cynical attempt to reverse-robinhood steal from these poor people.

Look at the El Salvador situation. Crypto zealots hate authoritarians. Unless they also help shill crypto. Bukele is now like a demi-god amongst bitcoiners. They cheer him on as he day-trades with public funds and hires known fraudsters to head up volcano bonds or bitcoin beach events.

Yes. We are generally a fortunate bunch here. There are lots of people with lots of terrible and difficult-to-solve problems in the world. It is the height of arrogance to think this thing you just so happen to profit from increased adoption of, is the solution to those problems.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2022, 03:00:07 PM by the_gastropod »

Telecaster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2913
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #890 on: February 02, 2022, 02:47:32 PM »
What if I get involved with a pyramid scheme, and start recruiting others into the scheme, but it's because I'm a true religious convert and actually in my heart of hearts think it "can't go tits-up!" and will increase in value for the next 100 years.

The person who recruited me by doing the exact same behaviors knows exactly how these scams work and is on the bottom floor of his 5th pyramid scheme with one foot out the door with the profits.

Is my behavior legal/ethical but his behavior is illegal/unethical even though they are objectively the same behavior due to something that is unobservable to anyone else - our inner thoughts? How is a jury or a law enforcement officer supposed to decide which person acted with whatever intent? Moreover, was I not actually promoting a scam because I drank the Kool-aid? I.e. did the nature of the investment change because of what I believed?

Let's look at a real world example:  Bernie Madoff.  His wealthy clients would tell their wealthy friends about how great their investment advisor was, and recommend they move their money to Madoff, and the circle of investors just kept growing to include Hollywood celebrities and so on.   They all saw paper statements about how great their money was doing so they would continue to recommend Madoff to their friends. 

However the statements were fraudulent which was unknown to the clients.  So when the pyramid collapsed, Madoff and his top circle were arrested because they were in on it, but none of the clients were arrested--even though the clients made objectively bad recommendations to their friends.  In fact, the law treated the clients as victims, and helped them claw some of their money back. 

In your example, the person who recruited you committed fraud because he falsely and knowingly misrepresented the system to you in order to enrich himself.  The fact he lied is proof of his intent.   So he's culpable.  You were unaware the system was fraudulent, so you are not culpable.   

Now let's put Saylor in your example.  Let's say he doesn't really believe everything he is saying is true, but he's just trying to pump up the value of his Bitcoin so he can sell it at a higher price later.   In this case (which I think is what you were getting at) it would be pretty hard to prove intent, because you'd have to show that he was lying about what he really believed in order to make a financial gain.  It is possible he is trying to commit a type of fraud, but I find it unlikely we will ever know.

That said, Bitcoin proponents all seem to truly believe what they are saying.  Since they aren't lying (as far as I know) and acting with good intent,  there is no fraud.   

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4584
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #891 on: February 02, 2022, 03:37:04 PM »
What is clearly apparent in these forums (unsurprisingly) is that we have a bunch of privileged wealthy individuals who don't know what it is like to not have easy access to trustworthy financial services. We all have easy access to the stock market and transact from our reputable neighborhood credit unions that are all protected with countless consumer protection laws. We also are fortunate to earn our wealth with a currency that is backed by the strongest military in the world that also happens to hold reserve status around the world. They say we can pick our friend, but not our family. Well we also can't pick the country we're born into and for all too many their countries are stricken with government corruption and monetary instability.

Feel free to research any of the above instances I mentioned as they're all factual and there are countless more cases like them. This is bitcoin's utility right here and claiming that it can't do a lot of good for people in the world while sitting and an ivory tower and ignoring these cases isn't going to help your argument of claiming it is fraud.

Oh, please. Firstly: the average crypto investor is a 38 year old white man who makes $111k/year. 74% of crypto investors are men. 71% are white. Source: https://cheddar.com/media/crypto-investor-white-male-survey-demographic-change
...
Yes. We are generally a fortunate bunch here. There are lots of people with lots of terrible and difficult-to-solve problems in the world. It is the height of arrogance to think this thing you just so happen to profit from increased adoption of, is the solution to those problems.

I'm with lifeanon269. I know actual people who actually still transact real estate deals with gold and cut jewels in a certain third world country because they don't trust their local currency. We are incredibly fortunate to have access to the US banking system.

But, on the off chance that I'm wrong, I guess it's going to be a bunch of wealthy younger white men who get hurt. So what do you care?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20073
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #892 on: February 02, 2022, 03:54:49 PM »
But, on the off chance that I'm wrong, I guess it's going to be a bunch of wealthy younger white men who get hurt.

Yeah.  Like how the 2007 housing market crash only impacted the wealthy white bankers who caused it.  That's how things unfolded, right?

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4584
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #893 on: February 02, 2022, 03:58:14 PM »
But, on the off chance that I'm wrong, I guess it's going to be a bunch of wealthy younger white men who get hurt.

Yeah.  Like how the 2007 housing market crash only impacted the wealthy white bankers who caused it.  That's how things unfolded, right?

I do not recall only wealthy younger white men owning houses. Also, as of right now the US housing market is ~$43T. The total world crypto market cap is ~$3T.

I, personally, am more worried about the housing market.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2022, 04:04:09 PM by PDXTabs »

boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9341
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #894 on: February 02, 2022, 04:04:54 PM »
But, on the off chance that I'm wrong, I guess it's going to be a bunch of wealthy younger white men who get hurt.

Yeah.  Like how the 2007 housing market crash only impacted the wealthy white bankers who caused it.  That's how things unfolded, right?

I do not recall only wealthy younger white men owning houses. Also, as of right now the US housing market is ~$43T. The total world crypto market cap is ~$3T.

I, personally, am more worried about the housing market.

Oh for fucks sake recency bias to the max. I really wanted to leave this thread but this is fucking ridiculous.

Telecaster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2913
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #895 on: February 02, 2022, 04:05:56 PM »
I don't want anyone to get hurt.  That's why I try to mention the limitations of Bitcoin.   

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4584
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #896 on: February 02, 2022, 04:10:00 PM »
I, personally, am more worried about the housing market.

Oh for fucks sake recency bias to the max. I really wanted to leave this thread but this is fucking ridiculous.

It's not recency bias to worry about the US housing market in a rising rate environment. Especially if either political party got their act together to build affordable housing or reduce regulatory barriers to building high density housing.

boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9341
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #897 on: February 02, 2022, 04:15:34 PM »
I, personally, am more worried about the housing market.

Oh for fucks sake recency bias to the max. I really wanted to leave this thread but this is fucking ridiculous.

It's not recency bias to worry about the US housing market in a rising rate environment. Especially if either political party got their act together to build affordable housing or reduce regulatory barriers to building high density housing.

That statement and literally the title of this thread are recency bias.

I'm more worried about something that provides one of the three basic needs and has a shortage of supply relative to demand. Than the fart I just jarred from my unicorn failing. Fuck

I'm out.

Sorry I'll bookmark this thread to return in 10 years to say told ya so and dance on the tears of the followers. Maybe sooner.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2022, 04:21:02 PM by boarder42 »

clarkfan1979

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2815
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Pueblo West, CO
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #898 on: February 02, 2022, 04:30:54 PM »
I, personally, am more worried about the housing market.

Oh for fucks sake recency bias to the max. I really wanted to leave this thread but this is fucking ridiculous.

It's not recency bias to worry about the US housing market in a rising rate environment. Especially if either political party got their act together to build affordable housing or reduce regulatory barriers to building high density housing.

What concept within the housing market are you worried? Are you worried that prices will go down and people with have negative equity? Are you worried that people will not be able make their payments? All of the above?

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4584
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #899 on: February 02, 2022, 04:34:02 PM »
I, personally, am more worried about the housing market.

Oh for fucks sake recency bias to the max. I really wanted to leave this thread but this is fucking ridiculous.

It's not recency bias to worry about the US housing market in a rising rate environment. Especially if either political party got their act together to build affordable housing or reduce regulatory barriers to building high density housing.

What concept within the housing market are you worried? Are you worried that prices will go down and people with have negative equity? Are you worried that people will not be able make their payments? All of the above?

First of all, since the global crypto market is $3T I'm 0% worried about it. So it is easy to be more worried than that.

But specifically the "user cost" of owning correlates pretty well with rental prices. Or to quote Assessing High House Prices: Bubbles, Fundamentals and Misperceptions by Himmelberg et al, "House Prices are More Sensitive to Changes in Real Interest Rates When Rates are Already Low." Basically, even if an incredibly constrained market, why would you pay substantially more to buy than to rent? And the user cost to owning depends greatly on interest rates. EDITed to add: but yes, people underwater in the USA.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2022, 04:35:56 PM by PDXTabs »