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.
That's because your response wasn't well reasoned. 1) You move the goalposts on what the definition of a ponzi is and in the same sentence as saying that the definition of a ponzi scheme doesn't matter you turn around and say that "in layman's terms" it fits. 2) You then outline those terms as being the reason why bitcoin fits the bill of a ponzi:
1. People invest into it because they expect large profits
2. That expectation is sustained by such profits being paid to those who choose to cash out—and are very vocal about this
3. However, there is no external source of revenue for those payoffs
4. Instead, the payoffs come entirely from new investment money
5. Meanwhile, the operators take away a large portion of this money
There are several problems with this. It isn't people's expectations that determine the fraud, it is the promises made that do. Bitcoin makes no promises of returns. It is merely software with no authority. If it were people's expectations that determined what is and isn't fraud, then fraud would exist nearly everywhere we look. People have the most absurd expectations with just about everything in life (jobs, income, education, elections, investments, goods, services, etc). If someone buys a new car and expects it to fly, but the manufacturer never made any promises that the car would or could fly, does that mean there was fraud? Of course not. Now, if the manufacturer promised that it would fly and it indeed does not, then that is fraud. That's the big difference here.
You also fail to understand that bitcoin trades that take place always have a buyer and a seller and neither side's cost basis is guaranteed. A seller who is selling to a buyer could very well have losses from their cost basis with said sale and that buyer is setting a cost basis for themselves that is also not guaranteed. The fact that a seller could be selling for a loss and setting up a new buyer in position for future gains further disproves your claims of a ponzi. There are many instances of people who owned bitcoin back in 2013 and lost money on bitcoin with later buyers coming along in 2016 whose bitcoin appreciated greatly for them. Your statement of "operators take away a large portion of this money" also holds no merit (I explained this in another post already).
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 I challenge of you is to determine how any of what you said above against bitcoin so far doesn't also apply to something like gold. Please do so. Only an extremely small percentage of gold (less than 3% of above ground stock) is actually used for utility (electronics, jewelry, etc). People love to gamble and speculate on things. It is human nature. The derivatives market (ie, gambling) dwarfs every market of the true underlying no matter where you look. Estimates have the derivatives market at over $1 quadrillion. That is almost purely speculatively driven which means that the underlying spot markets are dwarfed in comparison. So yes, speculation in bitcoin is a key driver of its price upward, but its utility that people around the world are embracing is what drives its floor price continually upward as they're the true buyers of last resort out of necessity. The percentage doesn't matter. The fact remains that bitcoin's utility is providing for millions around the world.
As far as legality, I agree, legality doesn't mean morality. But none of what you stated changes anything. Bitcoin can and will be used for good, regardless of its legal status. That is its utility as a monetary good. And yes, I am indeed advocating for something that will help humans pursue individual freedom from tyranny, even if that means escaping unjust laws.
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.
Quoting demographics from a US exchange survey (Gemini) as a means of discrediting all the good things around the world that bitcoin is achieving for people that weren't questioned in said US survey is hardly an adequate rebuttal here. Nothing you said changes the reality of all that I previously presented. Again, people love to gamble and speculation in every single market in the world dwarfs the size of the actual utility of any given spot.
All you're doing is rather than argue with me and the points I've made, you make generalizations about "crypto bros" this and "crypto bros" that. I'm not a crypto bro and my arguments are my own. If you care to genuinely debate me, then debate my arguments on their merit as I have done yours. I could care less what "crypto bros" are saying in regards to Bukele. He is a dictator like the rest of them that has sought power by any means necessary. But again, that is all irrelevant to all that I've said so far and is not in any way a meaningful rebuttal. Again, none of that changes the reality of bitcoin's utility and the good that it is providing and will continue to provide for people.
