# How do you see Luna's market value from $10 billion to 0 within 3 days?



## chrisevan (May 20, 2022)

In April, Luna’s price rose to a peak of $116 from less than $1 in early 2021, minting a generation of crypto millionaires. A community of retail traders formed around the coin, hailing Mr. Kwon as a cult hero. Mike Novogratz, chief executive of Galaxy Digital, which invested in Terraform Labs, announced his support by getting a Luna-themed tattoo.
But last week, Luna and another currency that Mr. Kwon developed, TerraUSD, suffered a spectacular collapse. Their meltdowns had a domino effect on the rest of the cryptocurrency market, tanking the price of Bitcoin and accelerating the loss of $300 billion in value across the crypto economy. This week, the price of Luna remained close to zero, while TerraUSD continued to slide.

How do you see Luna's market value from $10 billion to 0 within 3 days?


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (May 20, 2022)

chrisevan said:


> How do you see Luna's market value from $10 billion to 0 within 3 days?



With lots of joy and happiness


----------



## Beertintedgoggles (May 20, 2022)

I'm still waiting on tulips to rebound.


----------



## qubit (May 20, 2022)

Crypto is a scam. Crashes like these which keep happening are the proof.


----------



## R-T-B (May 20, 2022)

qubit said:


> Crypto is a scam. Crashes like these which keep happening are the proof.


By that definition so is the stock market, because most companies eventually fail.  Both crypto and the stock market are overall up over long time  periods though.

How do I see it?  Coins fail, particularly poorly managed ones. Not much to see.  The only embarassing thing is how much major coins got tied up in a minor coins mess.

This is another place where more regulation would help, not hurt, crypto.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 20, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> By that definition so is the stock market, because most companies eventually fail. Both crypto and the stock market are overall up over long time periods though.



Most companies offer dividends and distribute their real profits back to their shareholders. The ones that don't offer dividends are at least making a profit and are investing into CapEx (new factories and what-not, which likely will make more profits next year).

Coins will never make a profit. Coins will never produce a dividend. You're purely speculating upon the value without any reference point. BTC in particular has hard limitations on its transaction rates and requires an external chain ("Lightning Network") to speed things up.



chrisevan said:


> How do you see Luna's market value from $10 billion to 0 within 3 days?



Slowly, then quickly. The trouble started weeks ago, and a lot of doomsayers were keeping an eye upon deposits of UST and noticing some strange behavior.

Once the world "agreed" upon the collapsed state, it only took 3 days for the market to consolidate and discover the new price. Some people were more interested in numbers, rather than the social understanding / global psychology behind the community. But remember, all of these "numbers" are just psychology / social events. When the community lost faith in UST and Luna, it was over, no one was buying and therefore the price dropped.

Those 3 days were the traders who refused to believe the change of opinion, and required a number to think for themselves. But Anchor's 20% APY rates on UST were well known and many people were instinctively worried about the stability of UST because of it.


----------



## Thimblewad (May 20, 2022)

Stable coins can't work if there are whales, just like the case with Luna and probably many others. Cofezilla covered this topic nicely.

It was all a combination of this being a ponzi, the "master" being a total douchebag and the fact that the coin is completely useless.

This is going to happen with more and more coins as we move on and the bubble for each pops. In the end only the big ones will probably remain.

Can't buy anything with it? Pretty much valueless.



qubit said:


> Crypto is a scam. Crashes like these which keep happening are the proof.


Just rich people playing games mostly


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 20, 2022)

This whole stablecoin thing just seems like a grossly inefficient and poorly-regulated bank-account.

If you were just going to *require* that USD be held in reserve, all you're doing is reinventing fractional reserve banking. Except with an incredibly inefficient "mining" operation requiring "gas fees" and "transaction fees" to perform even the most simple of tasks.

Yes. You can invent new "stablecoins" and trick large swaths of the population into thinking its equivalent to USD. But as far as I can tell, the "correctly done" stablecoins with "USD Reserves" are still shady as all heck (offering APY rates way above what is possible in today's financial market, suggesting somebody is making a significant risk here behind the scenes). You can't make 6% or 7% APY gains reliably in this market, not even for 3 months or 6 months.


----------



## R-T-B (May 20, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Most companies offer dividends and distribute their real profits back to their shareholders. The ones that don't offer dividends are at least making a profit and are investing into CapEx (new factories and what-not, which likely will make more profits next year).


I never said they were directly comparable, only that the criteria he was using to declare "crypto is a scam" was quite flawed.  There are far better metrics to use, as you correctly point out.



dragontamer5788 said:


> Except with an incredibly inefficient "mining" operation


Most if not all stablecoins operate without PoW mining.  Transaction fees I am unsure about, but are likely a valid point.



dragontamer5788 said:


> offering APY rates way above what is possible in today's financial market, suggesting somebody is making a significant risk here behind the scenes


I think we went over this before.


----------



## cvaldes (May 20, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> By that definition so is the stock market, because most companies eventually fail.


The stock market is not a casino. Those shares are equity in a company that does something. Makes PCs, dishwashers, baby food, toilet paper, music streaming services, et cetera.

Most small businesses fail. Large publicly traded companies fail far less frequently. As a long term investment, something like an S&P index fund is better than investing in a bunch of small local companies because large companies don't fail as much.

Remember that SEC regulations (many of them written in the 1930s to prevent what happened with the stock market crash of 1929) are there to provide disclosure to investors (current and potential).

Apple's large market capitalization isn't because it's a popular company. They make lots and lots of money. They also have lots of competition which they mention in their quarterly SEC filings.

Cryptocurrencies aren't even really currencies. A more accurate name would be cryptotokens.


----------



## R-T-B (May 20, 2022)

cvaldes said:


> The stock market is not a casino.


See above.  Never claimed it was.



cvaldes said:


> Cryptocurrencies aren't even really currencies. A more accurate name would be cryptotokens.


This is the sad reality due to high transaction fees.

There have been attempts to fix that.  Sadly, they largely depend on centralized systems thus far, sort of defeating the entire point.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 20, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> There have been attempts to fix that. Sadly, they largely depend on centealized systems thus far, sort of defeating the entire point.



Isn't lightning decentralized?

Like, I find it fishy, but its certainly not a "centralized system".


----------



## R-T-B (May 20, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Isn't lightning decentralized?
> 
> Like, I find it fishy, but its certainly not a "centralized system".


I legit forgot about lightning.  Shows how much I use bitcoin.

I was refering more to the "free" transaction fees between books of select exchanges.


----------



## chrisevan (May 21, 2022)

Tigger said:


> With lots of joy and happiness


that means you are short short luna and make a lot of profit?



Beertintedgoggles said:


> I'm still waiting on tulips to rebound.


em,I bought 100 million with 100 BUSD ,But it looks like they're about to fork



qubit said:


> Crypto is a scam. Crashes like these which keep happening are the proof.


This is too narrow, and the continuous issuance of US dollars is not a scam?



R-T-B said:


> By that definition so is the stock market, because most companies eventually fail.  Both crypto and the stock market are overall up over long time  periods though.
> 
> How do I see it?  Coins fail, particularly poorly managed ones. Not much to see.  The only embarassing thing is how much major coins got tied up in a minor coins mess.
> 
> This is another place where more regulation would help, not hurt, crypto.


yes,smart insights,Algorithmic stablecoins are definitely a good direction.The failure is just the failure of LUNA not the cryptodoge



R-T-B said:


> I never said they were directly comparable, only that the criteria he was using to declare "crypto is a scam" was quite flawed.  There are far better metrics to use, as you correctly point out.
> 
> 
> Most if not all stablecoins operate without PoW mining.  Transaction fees I am unsure about, but are likely a valid point.
> ...


yes,luna offers rates above market , making looks closer to ponzi scheme,This is the root cause of this crash



R-T-B said:


> I legit forgot about lightning.  Shows how much I use bitcoin.
> 
> I was refering more to the "free" transaction fees between books of select exchanges.


The technical principle of lightning is the side chain, which is also decentralized


----------



## ir_cow (May 21, 2022)

Most alt coins will fade away at some point.

Most are considered scam coins.

Crytpo is just gambling. Easy to win, easy to lose.


----------



## Kissamies (May 21, 2022)

No problem. I don't fool around with play money so haven't lost anything.

All play money should be illegal IMO.


----------



## micropage7 (May 21, 2022)

crypto now is more dangerous than forex trading but many just go all in coz they say some make $$$$ profit in one night


----------



## Outback Bronze (May 21, 2022)

I feel sorry for Do Kwon and all the investors. Its a sad tragedy. He had a shot at making money (which we all do) and now he's facing legal prosecution in South Korea.

It seems the reason why this happened is because his Algorithms were out of whack. There's probably a lot more to it than that.

Looks like you really need to know what your doing (in crypto) before you start playing with Billions of peoples dollars.


----------



## Bones (May 21, 2022)

qubit said:


> Crypto is a scam. Crashes like these which keep happening are the proof.


Must agree - In fact crypto (To me) is one of the biggest scams/fools games/money laundring tools/ect.... That's ever been created to date.
I see nothing good at all about it.



Thimblewad said:


> Stable coins can't work if there are whales, just like the case with Luna and probably many others. Cofezilla covered this topic nicely.
> 
> It was all a combination of this being a ponzi, the "master" being a total douchebag and the fact that the coin is completely useless.
> 
> ...


You can bet ONLY those well established in it will win. 
This is setup so you cannot "Win" going it alone, instead you're just another sheep to be sheared... And you will be.

And if you decide to get into a mining group, that's been proven to be full of backstabbing too for profit - A literal pyramid scheme in many cases which collapses leaving you holding the bag with those further up the pyramid making off with anything perceived of value.


----------



## Assimilator (May 21, 2022)

Web3 is Going Just Great
					

A timeline recording only some of the many disasters happening in crypto, decentralized finance, NFTs, and other blockchain-based projects.




					web3isgoinggreat.com
				




Crypto is a scam and will continue to be a scam until it is properly regulated. Of course, the people who love crypto are by and large the criminals and grifters who are getting rich by scamming others, so more regulation is the opposite of what they want. And of course, once crypto is properly regulated it will demonstrate itself to be no more or less useful as a value store than fiat currency, so it will have no reason to exist. Essentially, regulation will end crypto and I cannot wait.

As for those who lost money, and will continue to lose money, on these so-called "stablecoins", I will continue to enjoy your stupidity and anguish. My salute goes out to the grifters, for figuring out how to make money off people who are too stupid to deserve it. Much like warning labels on cans, there are some problems that should be left to solve themselves.



Outback Bronze said:


> I feel sorry for Do Kwon and all the investors. Its a sad tragedy. He had a shot at making money (which we all do) and now he's facing legal prosecution in South Korea.
> 
> It seems the reason why this happened is because his Algorithms were out of whack. There's probably a lot more to it than that.
> 
> Looks like you really need to know what your doing (in crypto) before you start playing with Billions of peoples dollars.


Why would you feel sorry for someone who is in it for no other reason than getting rich, and quite obviously has very little understanding of how basic market forces work?


----------



## Totally (May 21, 2022)

qubit said:


> Crypto is a scam. Crashes like these which keep happening are the proof.



I've been saying this for months but have been just have been dismissed by those who are pro-crypto. Jordan Belfort (you know that random guy they made a movie about for no particular reason) is one of the leading people behind the scenes ffs. Can't get a bigger red flag that about something being sus, I hope all those people who have money tied into cryro lose their money.


----------



## ThrashZone (May 21, 2022)

Hi,
Yep suckers were defunded   
Looks like a nice scam just more complex than phoning elderly from somewhere for credit/ debit card info for support of a made up issue.

It will take a lot of seizure of accounts and property with long jail time before fakecoins are stopped 
Even with people like dogecoin creators admitted it was a joke.


----------



## KLiKzg (May 21, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> This whole stablecoin thing just seems like a grossly inefficient and poorly-regulated bank-account.
> 
> If you were just going to *require* that USD be held in reserve, all you're doing is reinventing fractional reserve banking. Except with an incredibly inefficient "mining" operation requiring "gas fees" and "transaction fees" to perform even the most simple of tasks.
> 
> Yes. You can invent new "stablecoins" and trick large swaths of the population into thinking its equivalent to USD. But as far as I can tell, the "correctly done" stablecoins with "USD Reserves" are still shady as all heck (offering APY rates way above what is possible in today's financial market, suggesting somebody is making a significant risk here behind the scenes). You can't make 6% or 7% APY gains reliably in this market, not even for 3 months or 6 months.


Are you all talking about USDT or USDC?


----------



## R-T-B (May 22, 2022)

Lenne said:


> All play money should be illegal IMO.


*sad monopoly noises*

You would end up having to define what is/isn't "play money" which if you go to "only what the government says is money" pretty much makes coupons illegal.

Crypto is a little more complex than a blatant ponzi scam, and calling it that serves no one because it's easily disprovable via money trails and just shows you are no authority on the subject.  It has however, devolved largely into a wild west of market gambling and is in sorry, sad need of regulation, like yesterday.  Heck, most of it is not even usable as currency anymore.


----------



## The Von Matrices (May 22, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> If you were just going to *require* that USD be held in reserve, all you're doing is reinventing fractional reserve banking. Except with an incredibly inefficient "mining" operation requiring "gas fees" and "transaction fees" to perform even the most simple of tasks.
> 
> Yes. You can invent new "stablecoins" and trick large swaths of the population into thinking its equivalent to USD. But as far as I can tell, the "correctly done" stablecoins with "USD Reserves" are still shady as all heck (offering APY rates way above what is possible in today's financial market, suggesting somebody is making a significant risk here behind the scenes). You can't make 6% or 7% APY gains reliably in this market, not even for 3 months or 6 months.



You're right in that Terra was fractional reserve banking.  These bank runs are what happens when you have a fractional reserve.  But don't generalize that to mean all stablecoins are problematic.  A number of them, namely USDC (but not USDT) are fully backed by verifiable reserves.  To people like me who scrutinize coins before buying anything, Terra  was always risky having a fractional reserve and I could not see how some magical algorithm could overcome that like they claimed.

To your other point, the 6-7% interest rate on coins occurs because other people are placing much larger bets in the market and are willing to pay that price to borrow your money.  In fact, these investments are better than other common assets like stocks because they are collateralized.  If you use a reputable lender, the worst that can happen in a market downturn is that you get your money back and no longer earn any interest.  Sure, the borrower loses all his/her collateral because he/she made a poor bet, but that's not your problem.


----------



## timta2 (May 22, 2022)

If the founder is living in an apartment, you know things weren't going well. 









						Luna Founder Calls Police After Investor Who Lost Money Visits Home
					

Luna, once the fourth largest cryptocurrency in the world, plunged to $0 on Thursday.




					gizmodo.com


----------



## qubit (May 23, 2022)

timta2 said:


> If the founder is living in an apartment, you know things weren't going well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But it could be a million dollar apartment? Nah, I'm with ya.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 23, 2022)

I never invested in Luna, so not too concerned, the dip , I've seen it before, and what came after.


----------



## Fourstaff (May 23, 2022)

The way I see it, all money will ultimately fail since the essence of money is an agreed-upon proxy of value. How long the money last is ultimately dependent on trust, and trust is usually backed up by lots of resources. In the case of stablecoins like Luna, this trust is managed in two steps: trust in the money pegged (in this case USD), and trust that the mechanism will be able to maintain the peg. From here on, anyone aiming to make a lot of money (like George Soros) can simply stress the pegging mechanism to the point of failure. I am surprised Luna's dev team didn's see this coming: its texbook 1997 Asian Financial Crash material.


----------



## Dr. Dro (May 23, 2022)

The foremost problem is acknowledging crypto as money. The one that follows it is that it's a ponzi, and I could keep going.

I rejoice upon seeing crypto bros squirm.


----------



## simlife (May 23, 2022)

chrisevan said:


> In April, Luna’s price rose to a peak of $116 from less than $1 in early 2021, minting a generation of crypto millionaires. A community of retail traders formed around the coin, hailing Mr. Kwon as a cult hero. Mike Novogratz, chief executive of Galaxy Digital, which invested in Terraform Labs, announced his support by getting a Luna-themed tattoo.
> But last week, Luna and another currency that Mr. Kwon developed, TerraUSD, suffered a spectacular collapse. Their meltdowns had a domino effect on the rest of the cryptocurrency market, tanking the price of Bitcoin and accelerating the loss of $300 billion in value across the crypto economy. This week, the price of Luna remained close to zero, while TerraUSD continued to slide.
> 
> How do you see Luna's market value from $10 billion to 0 within 3 days?


10 billion seems like alot but its really tiny in persective of a planet the US was trying to send 54 billion in aid to Ukraine..

its also a MASSIVE note these extra cryptos were created 98% because ppl were making money off other cryptos even though its young ppl and just ppl who are investing and not really spending it.... and a currency its ment to be spent... its basicly a scam ... if your wealth can jump 20+ -% in days... no one said well 7. 50 minum wage is ok in 2016 then it jumps to 14 the next day to 12 the next.... would riot.... the money value is too fluid to matter... and when 75+% is wealthy/investors/ ppl hoping to get rich are the ones who own the currency.


----------



## watzupken (May 23, 2022)

chrisevan said:


> In April, Luna’s price rose to a peak of $116 from less than $1 in early 2021, minting a generation of crypto millionaires. A community of retail traders formed around the coin, hailing Mr. Kwon as a cult hero. Mike Novogratz, chief executive of Galaxy Digital, which invested in Terraform Labs, announced his support by getting a Luna-themed tattoo.
> But last week, Luna and another currency that Mr. Kwon developed, TerraUSD, suffered a spectacular collapse. Their meltdowns had a domino effect on the rest of the cryptocurrency market, tanking the price of Bitcoin and accelerating the loss of $300 billion in value across the crypto economy. This week, the price of Luna remained close to zero, while TerraUSD continued to slide.
> 
> How do you see Luna's market value from $10 billion to 0 within 3 days?


To me, this is a tragic that people always fail to recognise the risk. Anything that promises good returns generally also comes with high risk, which is clearly shown in this example. You want to create “money” out of thin air by means of a new cryptocurrency, this is generally what you get. It is like trying to climb a hill with no steps because there is basically just some paper fundamentals to the currency. In other words, you are hoping that hot air will rise you from the ground to the top of the hill with no steps. The creator of the currency have probably cashed out on their “investment” and this being a zero sum game means those that went in big or late are paying them with the promise of hot air that will make them rich.


----------



## R-T-B (May 23, 2022)

Dr. Dro said:


> The one that follows it is that it's a ponzi


No, it's really not that simple.



simlife said:


> its also a MASSIVE note these extra cryptos were created 98% because ppl were making money off other cryptos even though its young ppl and just ppl who are investing and not really spending it.... and a currency its ment to be spent... its basicly a scam ...


Crypto hasn't really functioned as a currency in almost a decade.  However that does not automatically make it a scam.  It makes it more a marketplace or stock market of ideas.  The problem is a lot of the ideas are lackluster or solve nothing.


----------



## Fourstaff (May 23, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> Crypto hasn't really functioned as a currency in almost a decade.  However that does not automatically make it a scam.  It makes it more a marketplace or stock market of ideas.  The problem is a lot of the ideas are lackluster or solve nothing.



Unfortunately there is a big crowd of people who believe crypto as the next currency, indeed the main draw of stablecoins are currency replacements. Once this idea wears off then there will be a massive exodus which will deflate the price. I view crypto/blockchain as a solution looking for a problem to solve.


----------



## R-T-B (May 23, 2022)

Fourstaff said:


> I view crypto/blockchain as a solution looking for a problem to solve.


I view that as an unfortunately naive view, given the essential place crypto was birthed was in forums for cash alternatives of people fed up with paypal and traditional banking.

I'd argue if there weren't an issue there crypto would never have come about because those forums would not even have existed.  Unfortunately, crypto has become completely unusable for the very problem it was aiming to solve.  I'm not sure it can overcome the hurdle of transaction volume, sadly.  I view it as a dead attempt to answer a legitimate issue that has utterly failed, and morphed into something far more destructive.

Blockchain may have some uses yet.  I really am not so hopeful for crypto"currency."


----------



## mb194dc (May 23, 2022)

The way I see it, all current crypto "currencies" are nothing more than elaborate technologically obfuscated pyramid schemes.

They don't produce any return, you can't really use them for anything. If you get in first, others come in behind you and push the value up, you can sell for more. That's their own purpose.

Due to needing fresh money in at the base to rise in value continually, they'll all be liable to total collapse, once the value goes the wrong way. Why hold something that is useless and doesn't produce an income?

Blockchain technology itself might have a real world use, eventually.


----------



## R-T-B (May 23, 2022)

mb194dc said:


> The way I see it, all current crypto "currencies" are nothing more than elaborate technologically obfuscated pyramid schemes.


I'd agree if that was the intent from the getgo, but it wasn't.  A lot of earliest pioneers coins (Satoshi comes to mind) have ironically, never been spent.  Hence, the pyramid is held up by them and their hoards of unspent coins, ie they don't benefit from it.  That's not a traditional pyramid scheme.



mb194dc said:


> They don't produce any return, you can't really use them for anything.


This wasn't always true, but sadly, it pretty much is now.


----------



## SpittinFax (May 23, 2022)

I'm mostly just disappointed. Disappointed that crypto has ever been considered as a legitimate currency. Disappointed that anyone would pour their savings into such an unstable get-rich-quick scheme. Disappointed that it's ruined the technology market and wasted unfathomable amounts of energy. Disappointed that money laundering, scams and the black market are the primary uses for crypto. Disappointed that crypto has failed to become what it promised to be in the very beginning: A global conversion-less digital currency that supersedes traditional currency in brick and mortar payments. It was touted as the currency of the future and, well, proves that the future is even more shit than the past.


----------



## R-T-B (May 23, 2022)

SpittinFax said:


> Disappointed that crypto has ever been considered as a legitimate currency.


It's not thinking of it as a currency that has gotten us here...  those days were mostly harmless and good.

It's the modern view of it as a "magic money farm" that has created nearly all the negatives.  Including the massive rise in value that has led to all the issues.



SpittinFax said:


> Disappointed that money laundering, scams and the black market are the primary uses for crypto.


They really aren't.  It's basically become a giant investors casino, not a criminal freeforall.  Crime on it exists, but is not a major percentage vs all the "get rich quick" investors.

I'll agree with the general sentiment though:  it is very sad.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 23, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> I view that as an unfortunately naive view, given the essential place crypto was birthed was in forums for cash alternatives of people fed up with paypal and traditional banking.
> 
> I'd argue if there weren't an issue there crypto would never have come about because those forums would not even have existed.  Unfortunately, crypto has become completely unusable for the very problem it was aiming to solve.  I'm not sure it can overcome the hurdle of transaction volume, sadly.  I view it as a dead attempt to answer a legitimate issue that has utterly failed, and morphed into something far more destructive.
> 
> Blockchain may have some uses yet.  I really am not so hopeful for crypto"currency."



Wow! About time 

I think the reasons people are fed up with paypal and traditional banking are the perfect indicators that crypto was never going to work. Those people wanted their cake and eat it too. Total freedom and total security plus lowest cost and total privacy. Good luck. It comes down to the simple saying 'if it looks to good to be true, it probably is'.

The idea of it 'being possible' fits in a longer term internet narrative where the rules 'will be rewritten' by the great power of the shared collective. Mhm. Just like how Big Data is solving all our questions... except its really not. Every time we see that what is 'dominant' in collective thinking, should in fact be avoided or we become idiots with tunnel vision digging deep holes, social media is a fantastic experiment like that. These are paradoxes, as much as crypto is a paradox in itself in every possible way - the scaling of transactions versus no footprint is one; the decentralized nature versus security/regulation is another.


----------



## R-T-B (May 23, 2022)

Vayra86 said:


> Wow! About time


I've had a view similar to the above for a good few months.

It was admittedly overdue.  I still like to view things through a factual lens though, and with all the misinformation around crypto, many confuse my tone as being "pro-crypto."

If anything of that remains, it's a fascination with blockchain.  The "currency" hype in me died a while ago.



Vayra86 said:


> Those people wanted their cake and eat it too. Total freedom and total security plus lowest cost and total privacy


Yeah, it does sound rather Utopian when you lay it out like that, right?

Still, I'd dread a mankind that dared not dream.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 23, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> Still, I'd dread a mankind that dared not dream.


So do I, the problem is too many people dream of getting rich (or powerful) before dreaming of the things that really matter.


----------



## Dr. Dro (May 23, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> No, it's really not that simple.



Good read on the subject by a computer scientist from a local university:



			Bitcoin is a Ponzi
		


Seems concise and covers up every aspect as to why it is a ponzi, there's also Antsstyle's excellent article which covers every aspect of why cryptocurrencies aren't what their creators claim they are:









						Why NFTs are bad: the long version
					

This is the in-depth follow up to this brief article:




					antsstyle.medium.com
				




These two articles cover my stance on crypto and all related "technologies" in far more detail than I ever could spare the time for.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 23, 2022)

Dr. Dro said:


> Good read on the subject by a computer scientist from a local university:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Opinions eh(this is the sanitised ver 2.0), everyone has one.

Does that mean everyone's opinion is right, you call NFT's crypto and go on to imply the shit show that is NFT's summarised crypto in general, I disagree and would add I won't be debating my opinion with you since it's clear to me your stance and understanding of it from that one post.

I don't do Luna, I don't do all crypto, I agree Some are little better than a scam but don't agree all are to concisely present my opinion.


----------



## Assimilator (May 23, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> I view that as an unfortunately naive view, given the essential place crypto was birthed was in forums for cash alternatives of people fed up with paypal and traditional banking.


I've yet to read a cohesive explanation about *what *exactly made PayPal and/or traditional banking so problematic that an alternative, far less efficient monetary system was needed.



R-T-B said:


> Yeah, it does sound rather Utopian when you lay it out like that, right?


Be careful of conflating utopia with anarchy.



TheoneandonlyMrK said:


> imply the shit show that is NFT's summarised crypto in general


Explain to me how https://web3isgoinggreat.com/?tech=currency _isn't_ a shitshow.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 23, 2022)

Assimilator said:


> I've yet to read a cohesive explanation about *what *exactly made PayPal and/or traditional banking so problematic that an alternative, far less efficient monetary system was needed.
> 
> 
> Be careful of conflating utopia with anarchy.
> ...


Explain to me why I should.

I said"

I don't do Luna, I don't do all crypto, I agree Some are little better than a scam but don't agree all are to concisely present my opinion."

So wtaf web3.0 has to do with the OP , my statement or even crypto is both beyond me and erroneous.

So after a read of that site your argument stands on the fact that useless coins are made by nefarious idiots to rob the foolish, and crimes happen in the domain of alt coin's.

Genius,
 now to drag a Tpu relevant point just how many Fools do we see on here buying a fake GPU.
How many people are involved in financial crimes.
How many people are duped into Investments that go poof.

Hmnn it's crypto on mass in general, no it's tw@t$ and T@£d$. .

And they'll always exist.


----------



## Dr. Dro (May 23, 2022)

TheoneandonlyMrK said:


> Opinions eh(this is the sanitised ver 2.0), everyone has one.
> 
> Does that mean everyone's opinion is right, you call NFT's crypto and go on to imply the shit show that is NFT's summarised crypto in general, I disagree and would add I won't be debating my opinion with you since it's clear to me your stance and understanding of it from that one post.
> 
> I don't do Luna, I don't do all crypto, I agree Some are little better than a scam but don't agree all are to concisely present my opinion.



Not really, I just know when something will become a protracted, and possibly heated argument, so I tend to stay away from that 

However, the articles I brought up are rather concise and would take an extensive amount of time to read, parse, understand and an even longer time to counter, so whenever you do have the time, read that even if you feel like you don't agree with what's written in it. To this day I've never seen anyone actually successfully argue against Antsstyle's article in good faith, and I only came across Jorge Stolfi's post relatively recently.

I'm always open to ideas, but I can see a scheme when I come across one.


----------



## MentalAcetylide (May 23, 2022)

Fourstaff said:


> Unfortunately there is a big crowd of people who believe crypto as the next currency, indeed the main draw of stablecoins are currency replacements. Once this idea wears off then there will be a massive exodus which will deflate the price. I view crypto/blockchain as a solution looking for a problem to solve.


Hard to say, but one way or another, a cashless currency is eventually going to replace all physical currency. Any cryptocurrency that can be tracked could potentially solve a lot of problems with criminal activity involving transactions, but that's about it. The issue I have with it is that the system is entirely dependent on computers(we're almost there now), which in itself is vulnerable to threats from abroad, so if the one and only form of making financial transactions is somehow crippled, we're screwed. 

As for whether or not crypto is a ponzi scheme, some are and some aren't. The fact remains that its a very high risk investment to get into regardless of whether or not a particular crypto coin is a ponzi scheme. If you're going to play, only invest with what you don't care about losing. I avoid it like the plague because I don't care for managing high risk investments that can be burned due to one or more popular figures tweeting with their asses.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (May 23, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Most companies offer dividends and distribute their real profits back to their shareholders. The ones that don't offer dividends are at least making a profit and are investing into CapEx (new factories and what-not, which likely will make more profits next year).


No as many as you think, there are quite a few sure, but it also depends on which exchange. Some exchanges are 'luckier' than others ( of companies that do offer dividends). When it comes to distributing profits, there are a few companies that offer profit sharing, in lieu of dividends.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 23, 2022)

Dr. Dro said:


> Not really, I just know when something will become a protracted, and possibly heated argument, so I tend to stay away from that
> 
> However, the articles I brought up are rather concise and would take an extensive amount of time to read, parse, understand and an even longer time to counter, so whenever you do have the time, read that even if you feel like you don't agree with what's written in it. To this day I've never seen anyone actually successfully argue against Antsstyle's article in good faith, and I only came across Jorge Stolfi's post relatively recently.
> 
> I'm always open to ideas, but I can see a scheme when I come across one.


As I said I will leave you to it, it's not my place to convince or convert you plus I couldn't care less what you think, or why.

None the less I think your wrong mostly because you are racist against crypto, they're all the same right.

I don't headbutt walls either.


----------



## Assimilator (May 23, 2022)

MentalAcetylide said:


> The issue I have with it is that the system is entirely dependent on computers(we're almost there now), which in itself is vulnerable to threats from abroad, so if the one and only form of making financial transactions is somehow crippled, we're screwed.


This is the funniest shit I've read all day... the global financial system has been entirely dependent on computers for decades, people working in said system are very aware of vulnerabilities, and very active in making sure they don't cause problems.


----------



## Yraggul666 (May 23, 2022)

Enjoying every squirm, even contemplating opening a whiskey bottle to celebrate but i'm kind of busy tomorrow....


----------



## Dr. Dro (May 23, 2022)

TheoneandonlyMrK said:


> None the less I think your wrong mostly because you are racist against crypto, they're all the same right.



That's... a surprisingly heavy term, but actually, it is quite contrary.

I used to be an avid crypto supporter, then my little dream got shattered by crypto farms with over 500,000 GPUs installed and another God knows how many dozens of thousands spare and ready to delve into the mines, with dedicated power plants burning whatever fuel they could to sustain the operation... It was human greed that killed the dream and shattered my gaming hobby and made life impossibly difficult for artists I value far more than money. In fact, the whole ordeal shook me out of my rebel, don't step on snek phase. You'd find a great analogy in the Lord of the Rings. Bitcoin was never meant to be worth $50,000, and none of this was ever meant to be a heavily regulated hedge or a prospect for speculation, it was literally a rebellion against taxes and centralized banking that has taken an insane proportion, much like the mines of Moria. They dug too deep... and it was the end.










Edit: changed wording a bit as to not take it to the political side


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 23, 2022)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> No as many as you think, there are quite a few sure, but it also depends on which exchange. Some exchanges are 'luckier' than others ( of companies that do offer dividends). When it comes to distributing profits, there are a few companies that offer profit sharing, in lieu of dividends.



If a company isn't making profits, its on the path to bankruptcy and dies out in some order.

If a company *is* making profits, those profits are going to one of two places:

1. Dividends (see my earlier post).

2. Capital Expenditures (see my earlier post, and the section of my post you cut out).

Capital Expenditures, or CapEx for short, is basically "Buying a new factory". Most people prefer companies to buy new factories rather than actually redistributing the profits. After all, if some company is profitable with 10-factories, they'll be 10% more profitable if they upgrade to 11 factories. Then next year, they can buy a 12th or 13th factory, etc. etc. and keep growing. Over the years, the larger-and-larger company is obviously worth more money (if they were worth 100-million with 10-factories, they rightfully would be worth 110-million with 11-factories, or 130-million with 13-factories).

------

The stock-market is actually pretty decent at tracking a company's value (aka: the Market Cap) based off of the amount of capital expenditures that a company reinvests into itself. There's nothing "wrong" or illegitimate about this. Its the natural state of affairs. A company that owns 11-factories is simply worth 10% more than the (otherwise same) company that only had 10 factories.

Now the "factory" is different for different companies. Netflix's CapEx is building new content and expanding its portfolio of shows. Amazon is buying servers and increasing the number of warehouses. Apple is... actually literally building factories. Microsoft is writing new software. AMD is designing a newer and better chip. But all in all, these capital-expenditures are aimed at making those companies more-and-more profitable.

------

One thing that tracks: if a company is worth $100-million bucks, and then spends $10-million in CapEx, it is now a $110 million company assuming basic competence upon their management. If they're an excellent company with good business strategy, a $10-million investment very well could be a +20million or +30-million value. ("Synergy", as managers like to call it). There's plenty of examples of this. A single programmer in Netflix could rewrite software that handles content at a cost of $400,000 (wages over a year + benefits). But that program they wrote will save $5-million in energy bills because it made 10,000-servers work 20% more efficiently. Modern business is about finding these opportunities and spending money (ex: $400,000 in programmer wages) to save more money ($5 million+ energy bill savings, and other such synergies)


----------



## MentalAcetylide (May 23, 2022)

Assimilator said:


> This is the funniest shit I've read all day... the global financial system has been entirely dependent on computers for decades, people working in said system are very aware of vulnerabilities, and very active in making sure they don't cause problems.


Did you not read? Hence the reason I said "we're almost there now". Sure we are heavily dependent on computers in the financial market, but its not all integrated globally into a single centralized system where everyone is using the same currency. There's nothing preventing you from pulling physical cash out of your wallet and buying something. A bank's system might crash or be unavailable, but it won't keep you from being able to make a purchase. Only those relying on credit/debit cards won't be able to buy anything due to the bank's system being unavailable. 

Being aware of vulnerabilities does not equate to being aware of all vulnerabilities, therefore the potential of this critical infrastructure being successfully attacked or sabotaged is still there.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 23, 2022)

Dr. Dro said:


> That's... a surprisingly heavy term, but actually, it is quite contrary.
> 
> I used to be an avid crypto supporter, then my little dream got shattered by crypto farms with over 500,000 GPUs installed and another God knows how many dozens of thousands spare and ready to delve into the mines, with dedicated power plants burning whatever fuel they could to sustain the operation... It was human greed that killed the dream and shattered my gaming hobby and made life impossibly difficult for artists I value far more than money. In fact, the whole ordeal shook me out of my rebel, don't step on snek phase. You'd find a great analogy in the Lord of the Rings. Bitcoin was never meant to be worth $50,000, and none of this was ever meant to be a heavily regulated hedge or a prospect for speculation, it was literally a rebellion against taxes and centralized banking that has taken an insane proportion, much like the mines of Moria. They dug too deep... and it was the end.
> 
> ...


I'll leave this thread to you Doom slayer's, until bitcoin regains it's losses then I might bring it back out to laugh back, at a group of naysayers that haven't the slightest clue how much resources and energy are used by FIAT banking.

A method of paying for crack and crimes that's as untraceable today as the day it was printed.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 23, 2022)

Dr. Dro said:


> Good read on the subject by a computer scientist from a local university:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



To respond to that article - because I've seriously looked at crypto as both investment/good money source and as an ideal of progress - I think what disguises the Ponzi part of Bitcoin is that there was, well, probably even is, a collective idea that crypto would create a new power plane over governments and controlled banking. Power to the people, sort of, and the core of that idea is that the collective, the community, _cashes out and pays for transactions to be made. _In other words, you're paying a bit of tax to use a new system of moving money around, which could upset the power balance the world over, and possibly even in a good way.

To give that more credence, look at how Russia got locked out of Swift lately. A Bitcoin transaction that would be 'as trusted' as a transaction over Swift would have given a totally different outlook over the current war in Ukraine. That sort of power. Not the best example of how it would create a positive outcome, but an example nonetheless... The fact is, the Dollar is still the world's coin and the US exercises immense power through it, and can even hold onto it for possibly longer than it should be given credit for. This idea does enter the minds of quite a few people the last ten-twenty years, and somewhat fewer people before that.

So, there was, - is - a defense against the argument of saying 'this is a Ponzi scheme'. And crypto still rides on that defense; stablecoins are an example of belief in that defense. And I think a very large number of people have dug in on that defense and aren't leaving the trench, because they _might get rich._ Others dive into new trenches every day and slowly bleed money with frequent trades, chasing their imaginative gold mine. Still others, and I believe a number on TPU are there plus I know a couple IRL, jumped in very early and see that their dollar has turned into a hundred of them, so they'll stay too to see a thousand.

It really depends on your perspective how much of a ponzi scheme this really is. For those stepping in now, it most certainly is one. For those who figured things out before mainstream did, they're riding the wave so why would they care. And yet others who just mine in some profitable way, are _generating _money for an initial investment. But if people still believe in the ideal of what it should be or become, well... yeah, you haven't paid attention. The game is already more rigged than fiat 

As to your second post about your own experience... yeah. This is the way the world turns, we have collected a rich history of examples by now and crypto is yet another. There is reason our current financial 'fiat' systems are as complex as they are. The world is f'ing complex and humans are assholes that always think about themselves before others. Or at least, those humans exist, and because some of those exist, everyone is bound by strict rules. What we have today in the real world, really is the best implementation of safe financial trades. Can it be improved, iterated upon? I'm certain. But these 'great resets' are nonsensical and basically the mind of a child at work - no life experience involved. The only thing that's standing is the core tech, the blockchain, and it ironically isn't at its best in large volume transactions, but rather at _tracking _transactions, and _facilitating trustworthy data._



MentalAcetylide said:


> Did you not read? Hence the reason I said "we're almost there now". Sure we are heavily dependent on computers in the financial market, but its not all integrated globally into a single centralized system where everyone is using the same currency. There's nothing preventing you from pulling physical cash out of your wallet and buying something. A bank's system might crash or be unavailable, but it won't keep you from being able to make a purchase. Only those relying on credit/debit cards won't be able to buy anything due to the bank's system being unavailable.
> 
> Being aware of vulnerabilities does not equate to being aware of all vulnerabilities, therefore the potential of this critical infrastructure being successfully attacked or sabotaged is still there.



Oh yes... I dread the day paper money is truly considered 'no longer needed'. I hope I'm dead by then, because the cyberpunk dystopia has then truly taken root and won't ever go away.
Paper money is essential to our autonomy. The irony of those 'freedom fighters' pushing crypto couldn't be greater.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (May 24, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> If a company isn't making profits, its on the path to bankruptcy and dies out in some order.
> 
> If a company *is* making profits, those profits are going to one of two places:
> 
> ...


I'm not disagreeing with you, just your reference, "most companies offer dividends".  

So let see if I can fix my previous statement.


DeathtoGnomes said:


> Not as many companies offer dividends as you implied by saying 'most companies', there are quite a few, sure.  Some exchanges have more than others (companies that do offer dividends), i.e., NASDAQ might have 25% (of whats on it) that do, I have a hard time confirming the actual number. If 25% is synonymous with 'most', than OK, feel free to ignore what I'm saying. When it comes to distributing profits, there are a few companies that offer profit sharing, in lieu, which is not the same as paying dividends.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (May 24, 2022)

I see it as progress because LUNA and UST were complete shit coins and those types of crypto need to go away entirely. 20% return, from what? On nothing, so lets print more UST to offset. LUNA was paying out 8 Million a day in interest and UST had to increase by that amount to keep balance, eventually it had to crash. I am honestly surprised it didn't crash faster. People that bought into this did zero research or and had zero understanding of supply/demand. Honestly it's horrible for those people that believed in it, but they for sure learned a valuable lesson.

Limited supply coins are where it is at. If unlimited or arbitrarily limited then there is no value and stay the F away from those types of coins. Like SHIB, every time a coin is used 2 more are free'd up...basically. SO right now there are 550 Trillion coins in circulation, that coin is also a shit coin...because unlimited supply, means zero demand.


----------



## R-T-B (May 24, 2022)

Assimilator said:


> I've yet to read a cohesive explanation about *what *exactly made PayPal and/or traditional banking so problematic that an alternative, far less efficient monetary system was needed.


The arbitrary shutdown of accounts for any reason they felt like was the chief one I saw cited.  Mastercards/VISA corps sometimes extralegal control over what one can/cannot buy is another major one.

Also yes, bank fees.  That one is somewhat comical looking at crypto today though...



Assimilator said:


> Be careful of conflating utopia with anarchy.


To be fair, anarchy is at its roots a utopian theory.  A retarded one, like most extreme spectrum ones, but yeah.  Sure.  It is true that if everyone behaved and was neighborly we probably could do without any government.  The reality is as we all know, a lot more dark than that.


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (May 24, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> To be fair, anarchy is at its roots a utopian theory.  A retarded one, like most extreme spectrum ones, but yeah.  Sure.  It is true that if everyone behaved and was neighborly we probably could do without any government.  The reality is as we all know, a lot more dark than that.


S. G. Weinbaum (very underrated author) went over this in one of his earlier short stories. True Utopia is anarchy, but anarchy is almost never Utopia.

Edit: I had to look it up, and it is in "A Valley of Dreams (1934)" if anyone was interested in reading the whole dialogue.


----------



## Dr. Dro (May 24, 2022)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> I see it as progress because LUNA and UST were complete shit coins and those types of crypto need to go away entirely. 20% return, from what? On nothing, so lets print more UST to offset. LUNA was paying out 8 Million a day in interest and UST had to increase by that amount to keep balance, eventually it had to crash. I am honestly surprised it didn't crash faster. People that bought into this did zero research or and had zero understanding of supply/demand. Honestly it's horrible for those people that believed in it, but they for sure learned a valuable lesson.
> 
> Limited supply coins are where it is at. If unlimited or arbitrarily limited then there is no value and stay the F away from those types of coins. Like SHIB, every time a coin is used 2 more are free'd up...basically. SO right now there are 550 Trillion coins in circulation, that coin is also a shit coin...because unlimited supply, means zero demand.



The problem is, what limits supply of currency? Bitcoin and Ethereum are both arbitrarily limited supply "currency"; i.e. only a limited capacity of it can be generated and this is due to the program code and design. This can be changed by the currency's administrators at will, whether the payout will be one or a million coins on the next mined block, and if any amount of people feel like pay has gotten too low, they can do a hard fork. Therein lies one of my biggest issues with crypto, if any wants to win me over, they'll have to use the hashing power for something that has any meaning - and not just a proof of work.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (May 24, 2022)

Dr. Dro said:


> The problem is, what limits supply of currency? Bitcoin and Ethereum are both arbitrarily limited supply "currency"; i.e. only a limited capacity of it can be generated and this is due to the program code and design. This can be changed by the currency's administrators at will, whether the payout will be one or a million coins on the next mined block, and if any amount of people feel like pay has gotten too low, they can do a hard fork. Therein lies one of my biggest issues with crypto, if any wants to win me over, they'll have to use the hashing power for something that has any meaning - and not just a proof of work.



Not what I meant. By arbitrarily I meant, there is no limit to supply, just how much is released into the wild...just like Diamonds. BTC has a finite supply there will only ever be 21,000,000 BTC. Only so many can be mined.


----------



## Vya Domus (May 24, 2022)

Fourstaff said:


> How long the money last is ultimately dependent on trust, and trust is usually backed up by lots of resources.


This wasn't always the case, currencies used to be backed by real assets or the coins themselves were the assets, so it wasn't just trust.

Our current monetary policy is a mistake, having a currency with completely unconstrained supply and zero inherit value is a nightmare, ironically things like Luna can fail so spectacularly because they mimic traditional currencies too close. It's impossible to have long term trust in a currency that can be devalued in a blink of the eye because the entities in control can expand its supply at any moment.

Things like bitcoin have a chance to make currencies feel more "real" again because at the very least they are constrained by design, no one can annihilate its value by increasing the supply, its one less thing you have to worry about. That being said bitcoin will never become an actual currency for technical reasons but there is a kernel of usefulness in there.

What's certain is that we can't keep going on forever with fiat currencies, it's just not going to work, having a currency that drops like a stone year after year is too frustrating and unfair, the dollar is supposed to be the world reserve currency but it suffered 8% inflation this year alone, that's utter garbage, what's the point ? Even when the economy is doing well most currencies continue to lose their value, that's insane, something is clearly wrong.


----------



## MentalAcetylide (May 24, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> The arbitrary shutdown of accounts for any reason they felt like was the chief one I saw cited.  Mastercards/VISA corps sometimes extralegal control over what one can/cannot buy is another major one.
> 
> Also yes, bank fees.  That one is somewhat comical looking at crypto today though...
> 
> ...


Yeah, and most won't acknowledge it. We are the problem, not the type of government, money, etc., or any other "system". You can provide people with everything they need to survive and thrive, but human behavior will still continue to drive itself in a direction that leads to a point of no return where it will destroy itself. So the natural inclination would be to have everything under a single draconian system, which would still fail.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 24, 2022)

Vya Domus said:


> This wasn't always the case, currencies used to be backed by real assets or the coins themselves were the assets, so it wasn't just trust.



US Dollars being backed by gold caused the 1930s depression. Real assets don't really do anything for the economy. Management of money is more complicated than that.



> Things like bitcoin have a chance to make currencies feel more "real" again because at the very least they are constrained by design, no one can annihilate its value by increasing the supply, its one less thing you have to worry about. That being said bitcoin will never become an actual currency for technical reasons but there is a kernel of usefulness in there.



And when you have a Great Depression event, and you're unable to change your monetary supply (ex: like 2008), your economy crashes. It turns out that printing money benefits the economy in some cases. Same with 2020 as the COVID lockdowns closed a bunch of shops and such, extra money in a lot of people's pockets helped keep the economy going, albeit at the cost of inflation.

But the risks of deflationary spirals are great in times of recession. To stop such spirals, you print money. Then, to stop the inflation when you go too far, you destroy money and suck it out of the economy (as is happening right now).

Luckily, BTC / ETH aren't set in stone. You can effectively print more-and-more crypto currencies by simply making new stablecoins and/or blockchains on the Ethereium smart contract system. As the economy shrinks and needs to destroy money, you'll see more and more coins like Luna vanish into thin air IMO.


----------



## mb194dc (May 24, 2022)

Vya Domus said:


> This wasn't always the case, currencies used to be backed by real assets or the coins themselves were the assets, so it wasn't just trust.
> 
> Our current monetary policy is a mistake, having a currency with completely unconstrained supply and zero inherit value is a nightmare, ironically things like Luna can fail so spectacularly because they mimic traditional currencies too close. It's impossible to have long term trust in a currency that can be devalued in a blink of the eye because the entities in control can expand its supply at any moment.
> 
> ...



Having a flexible money supply is a good thing. We tried currencies tied to gold, the gold standard and it was an economic disaster (see the great depression), that's why we don't anymore. Anyone can recreate a currency linked to gold now if they want to, just need to buy the bullion to back it. No need for cyrpto for that.

The issue with economies now, is the trade and government deficits run up. The way the world trade system is designed, $ swapped with China largely for their "slave" labour and huge imbalances building up on each side. There are some pretty big structural economic problems in the world in my view, cyrpto doesn't solve any of them as far as I can see.

Need to reduce the imbalances, which won't be easy, the West is hooked on cheap manufacturing in China.


----------



## Aquinus (May 24, 2022)

MentalAcetylide said:


> Yeah, and most won't acknowledge it. We are the problem, not the type of government, money, etc., or any other "system". You can provide people with everything they need to survive and thrive, but human behavior will still continue to drive itself in a direction that leads to a point of no return where it will destroy itself. So the natural inclination would be to have everything under a single draconian system, which would still fail.


That's a really fancy way of saying that people are inherently greedy.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (May 24, 2022)

Vya Domus said:


> This wasn't always the case, currencies used to be backed by real assets or the coins themselves were the assets, so it wasn't just trust.
> 
> Our current monetary policy is a mistake, having a currency with completely unconstrained supply and zero inherit value is a nightmare, ironically things like Luna can fail so spectacularly because they mimic traditional currencies too close. It's impossible to have long term trust in a currency that can be devalued in a blink of the eye because the entities in control can expand its supply at any moment.
> 
> ...


Either you are coming around on BTC or we finally agree on something. Wow! 



mb194dc said:


> Having a flexible money supply is a good thing. We tried currencies tied to gold, the gold standard and it was an economic disaster (see the great depression), that's why we don't anymore. Anyone can recreate a currency linked to gold now if they want to, just need to buy the bullion to back it. No need for cyrpto for that.
> 
> The issue with economies now, is the trade and government deficits run up. The way the world trade system is designed, $ swapped with China largely for their "slave" labour and huge imbalances building up on each side. There are some pretty big structural economic problems in the world in my view, cyrpto doesn't solve any of them as far as I can see.
> 
> Need to reduce the imbalances, which won't be easy, the West is hooked on cheap manufacturing in China.


That is A reason, but the not THE reason and actually it's pretty far down the list and may have not been an issue if it weren't for the other factors. https://www.history.com/news/great-depression-causes

Look at the Ruble, they have switched to a backed currency and it's the strongest it has been against the dollar in probably 50+ years.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 24, 2022)

Vya Domus said:


> This wasn't always the case, currencies used to be backed by real assets or the coins themselves were the assets, so it wasn't just trust.
> 
> Our current monetary policy is a mistake, having a currency with completely unconstrained supply and zero inherit value is a nightmare, ironically things like Luna can fail so spectacularly because they mimic traditional currencies too close. It's impossible to have long term trust in a currency that can be devalued in a blink of the eye because the entities in control can expand its supply at any moment.
> 
> ...



You do realize that inflation is a result of how the economy works right? And of how printing money works.

What goes around, comes around basically. Economy and currency is based on trust. I think fiat is a perfectly fine system, it will somehow correct itself as it is too big to fail. Either that, or we start shooting - and the entangled state of the world economy is a direct influence on our likeliness to start shooting - there is an inherent, mutual interest to keep things at least 'somewhat' fair; this has been the whole idea with Europe's stance towards Russia for example - trade was supposed to be the gateway to security. Sure, its not perfect, sure, it puts pressure on people. So we need to correct those issues as best we can. But to think the system is somehow 'wrong' is IMHO being far too simple about the world's history of trade and commerce. It is what it is, because this is the consensus we landed on.



ZenZimZaliben said:


> Look at the Ruble, they have switched to a backed currency and it's the strongest it has been against the dollar in probably 50+ years.


The Ruble is strong in isolation, what you see there is a fake number. Fact is, Russia values it highly because its all they've got left.


----------



## Dr. Dro (May 24, 2022)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> Not what I meant. By arbitrarily I meant, there is no limit to supply, just how much is released into the wild...just like Diamonds. BTC has a finite supply there will only ever be 21,000,000 BTC. Only so many can be mined.



That's exactly what I said, as well. Why is it that only 21M BTC can exist? Because that's what the programmer made it like. It's an arbitrary choice which is modifiable in any given hard fork. BTC also has the distinction that over 90% of its supply has already been mined, and that the exponential increases in mining difficulty have begun to outpace any reasonable profits for the foreseeable future.



Vayra86 said:


> The Ruble is strong in isolation, what you see there is a fake number. Fact is, Russia values it highly because its all they've got left.



The ruble is a good case study on how _consensus_ is the primary drive behind a currency's worth, and how that's not something exclusive to crypto, if you consider it money, but a mechanic that affects even heavily regulated fiat. Europe and the United States may have sanctioned Russia, but therein lies the importance of alternate trade blocs like BRICS, which is set to accept Argentina in its medium amidst Washington's weakened diplomatic position in Latin America and Beijing's heavy investments in the region.

In the early days there was panic and disarray over the Russian economy's future due to Western boycotts, but as time went onwards, the ruble not only rebounded, but stabilized and even shows an upward trend, as the government lays out a recovery and replacement plan. This occurs because of the _consensus_ between users and holders of the Ruble, as well as investors that stand to make money in regions where it circulates that there is a viable, if not profitable, economic plan going forward. Other than the direct economic damage, sanctions also seek to lower the average Russian's quality of life, as a way to destabilize the nation and cause its own people to turn against the government, which in turn also weakens the _consensus_ that Russia's economic activity is viable going forward, further damaging the Ruble's performance. This is why many have begun to argue that sanctions have been too heavy and too hastily imposed, without giving much thought as to their actual efficacy in containing their... ahem, "glorious leader"'s rampage in Ukraine. Where that leads... well, it remains to be seen, and would delve into the forbidden topic of politics.

But, of course, this is my view


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (May 24, 2022)

A Hard fork is not the original. Don't forget BTC can be broken down into Satoshi.


----------



## Dr. Dro (May 25, 2022)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> A Hard fork is not the original. Don't forget BTC can be broken down into Satoshi.



No, that's beside the point, a satoshi is merely a subunit. It's to bitcoin what a cent is to a dollar. 100M satoshis are equivalent to 1 BTC. They're one in the same.

This merely means the blockchain's capacity is 2.100.000.000.000.000 satoshis, which are equivalent to 21 million BTC.

A hard fork would allow the original cap of 21 million BTC to be lifted, as well as changing the amount of BTC paid for each block mined. This is an arbitrary capacity for the blockchain.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (May 25, 2022)

But it wouldn't be BTC anymore and wouldn't have backing of the market...so very different. Look at ETH and ETH classic. Or even BTC vs LTC. None of the forks come even close to the Original.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 25, 2022)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> But it wouldn't be BTC anymore and wouldn't have backing of the market...so very different. Look at ETH and ETH classic. Or even BTC vs LTC. None of the forks come even close to the Original.



Except each time the coin forks, you effectively invent another million+ coins out of nothingness.

The number of cryptocoins continued to grow through last year and the year before. Now we're entering a "recession" of coins it seems, where cryptocoins start to collapse in value and consolidate.


----------



## Dr. Dro (May 25, 2022)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> But it wouldn't be BTC anymore and wouldn't have backing of the market...so very different. Look at ETH and ETH classic. Or even BTC vs LTC. None of the forks come even close to the Original.



This happens because a hard fork is a rule change. Now where do you fit in financial stability in that mess? You don't. That's the entire initial argument. Due to... this:



dragontamer5788 said:


> Except each time the coin forks, you effectively invent another million+ coins out of nothingness.
> 
> The number of cryptocoins continued to grow through last year and the year before. Now we're entering a "recession" of coins it seems, where cryptocoins start to collapse in value and consolidate.



You are right, but this is something that occurs _by design_, since anyone can create a cryptocurrency out of thin air, there is no central authority to regulate the currency. Exchanges, which have grown attached to the stock market, have been more than just brokering trades - many have been actively manipulating currencies. These big exchange companies have largely taken place of central authorities, much to cryptobros' ideological dismay. In fact, Binance suspended Luna trading far before it entirely collapsed, after they've realized absolutely massive (in order of 99,9%) losses:









						LUNA & UST Trading Suspended | Binance Support
					

Fellow Binancians, Binance will suspend spot trading for the LUNA/BUSD and UST/BUSD trading pairs at  08:30 AM (UTC) on 2022-05-13 . Withdrawals for LUNA and UST will open when the network becomes ...




					www.binance.com
				




Forked or not, a currency is only valuable if there is a _consensus of trust_ around its worth and viability, which Terra and Luna lost.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 25, 2022)

Dr. Dro said:


> You are right, but this is something that occurs _by design_, since anyone can create a cryptocurrency out of thin air, there is no central authority to regulate the currency.



But it certainly kills the "There are only X amount of cryptocoins out there" argument. After all, we can hypothesize a future with twice as many BTC: such as the BTC vs BTC-cash fork that simply doubled the number of coins in existence. As communities fork off coins, they effectively create new coins and communities (and rules) out of thin air. ETH vs ETH-classic is another.

In practice, this means that the creation of cryptocoins created values and marketcaps out of nothingness. And thus, those valuations can return to their original state (nothingness), much like LUNA did.


----------



## kapone32 (May 25, 2022)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> I see it as progress because LUNA and UST were complete shit coins and those types of crypto need to go away entirely. 20% return, from what? On nothing, so lets print more UST to offset. LUNA was paying out 8 Million a day in interest and UST had to increase by that amount to keep balance, eventually it had to crash. I am honestly surprised it didn't crash faster. People that bought into this did zero research or and had zero understanding of supply/demand. Honestly it's horrible for those people that believed in it, but they for sure learned a valuable lesson.
> 
> Limited supply coins are where it is at. If unlimited or arbitrarily limited then there is no value and stay the F away from those types of coins. Like SHIB, every time a coin is used 2 more are free'd up...basically. SO right now there are 550 Trillion coins in circulation, that coin is also a shit coin...because unlimited supply, means zero demand.


Some people made lot's of money and lots of people have lost their shirt. Mining is not the same as speculation (investment). Regardless I am at the point where I have made back my investment. It can languish in the 37-39000 range for now but as  long as Nicehash is viable I will be making profits. There is indeed a lot of fat on the market that needs to be trimmed though and the whole NFT is a crock as well as as these funds that are based entirely on a unregulated market. Which major economy will blink first and regulate it so that Bitcoin can go to $100000?


----------



## Dr. Dro (May 25, 2022)

kapone32 said:


> Some people made lot's of money and lots of people have lost their shirt. Mining is not the same as speculation (investment). Regardless I am at the point where I have made back my investment. It can languish in the 37-39000 range for now but as  long as Nicehash is viable I will be making profits. There is indeed a lot of fat on the market that needs to be trimmed though and the whole NFT is a crock as well as as these funds that are based entirely on a unregulated market. Which major economy will blink first and regulate it so that Bitcoin can go to $100000?



The concept that anyone can say "investment" in anything crypto with a straight face baffles me, as well as... how can't anyone honestly see it for what it is, a ponzi of biblical proportions, justified by your post's very first sentence. It's taking greater fool theory to the absolute limit. NFTs and cryptocurrencies are one in the same, as well... this "distinction" between them just isn't vested in good faith arguments, either. The rhetoric is pretty much the same... mocked to perfection in South Park:


----------



## kapone32 (May 25, 2022)

Dr. Dro said:


> The concept that anyone can say "investment" in anything crypto with a straight face baffles me, as well as... how can't anyone honestly see it for what it is, a ponzi of biblical proportions, justified by your post's very first sentence. It's taking greater fool theory to the absolute limit. NFTs and cryptocurrencies are one in the same, as well... this "distinction" between them just isn't vested in good faith arguments, either. The rhetoric is pretty much the same... mocked to perfection in South Park:


I used to have a Vega 64 crossfire system that I could have used to mine while I was at work 6 years ago where would that be today? There have been Billions spent on the infrastructure to support Crypto currencies. Bitcoin is digitally real (Whatever that means) and established. I can put my Crypto into the bank and use it in real life (No Ponzi there). I have passive income of $25 at the cost of 6 100W lightbulbs a day and it helps me with my daughter's future. It is not my fault that my hobby became so expensive so yes I had to start mining to justify the cost of entry. On another note Rivian was ballyhooed and opened at $150., where is it today $26? The entire investment market is in a state of flux anyway but like I said there is a clear distinction between MIning and Investing in Mining speculation. 

What is a NFT? Is it different than a portrait, stamp, postcard? Unfortunately the Greed co-efficient was applied heavily to that making it seem like they were the next thing to be in and some people lost their shirts greedily trying to make bank when the reality of what an NFT is set in. I mentioned Rivian on purpose as that was part of this script of digital adoption being the Golden Egg.


----------



## Dr. Dro (May 25, 2022)

kapone32 said:


> I used to have a Vega 64 crossfire system that I could have used to mine while I was at work 6 years ago where would that be today? There have been Billions spent on the infrastructure to support Crypto currencies. Bitcoin is digitally real (Whatever that means) and established. I can put my Crypto into the bank and use it in real life (No Ponzi there). I have passive income of $25 at the cost of 6 100W lightbulbs a day and it helps me with my daughter's future. It is not my fault that my hobby became so expensive so yes I had to start mining to justify the cost of entry. On another note Rivian was ballyhooed and opened at $150., where is it today $26? The entire investment market is in a state of flux anyway but like I said there is a clear distinction between MIning and Investing in Mining speculation.
> 
> What is a NFT? Is it different than a portrait, stamp, postcard? Unfortunately the Greed co-efficient was applied heavily to that making it seem like they were the next thing to be in and some people lost their shirts greedily trying to make bank when the reality of what an NFT is set in. I mentioned Rivian on purpose as that was part of this script of digital adoption being the Golden Egg.



I'm glad you've done it for a noble purpose, that was the initial idea, but large-scale operations... they just went against us all. Anyway, what makes an NFT different from a cryptocurrency token? Both are digitally generated at will and represent a completely abstract unit, in the blockchain. An NFT does not contain the data it is supposed to validate ownership of, it is simply a token that has that perceived function.

The fact you can deposit crypto and use it in real life is only because someone is willing to exchange these tokens for real money, it doesn't make it "digitally real", Bitcoin is simply the oldest crypto in which most others are hitched and hedged against. If BTC ever happens to collapse, the entire market will - and the higher its value, the higher the likelihood it is to crash, since it lacks any intrinsic value to begin with.


----------



## kapone32 (May 25, 2022)

Dr. Dro said:


> I'm glad you've done it for a noble purpose, that was the initial idea, but large-scale operations... they just went against us all. Anyway, what makes an NFT different from a cryptocurrency token? Both are digitally generated at will and represent a completely abstract unit, in the blockchain. An NFT does not contain the data it is supposed to validate ownership of, it is simply a token that has that perceived function.
> 
> The fact you can deposit crypto and use it in real life is only because someone is willing to exchange these tokens for real money, it doesn't make it "digitally real", Bitcoin is simply the oldest crypto in which most others are hitched and hedged against. If BTC ever happens to collapse, the entire market will - and the higher its value, the higher the likelihood it is to crash, since it lacks any intrinsic value to begin with.


The Greed co-efficient is real, the most disturbing that I read was some guys in Alberta that restarted the electricity on a Mine to run their operation. Or a Congressman accused of using Gorvernment PCs to mine Bitcoin. One of the things about Bitcoin is that it did have a very large foundation based on some desultory sources, like people living outside of the US that want to engage in the US economy through the benefit of illicit or otherwise unsavory activity. There have been Bitcoin ATMs in my neck of the Woods for at least 7 years (close to the Airport) now but trust me the banks where I live do not do anything Gray with me (I am not affluent enough to try to hide my money) so there is a real acceptance in all levels of society for Bitcoin which makes it real. It could crash but I doubt the super rich would want to lose their egg. There is a lot of propaganda in the space and many spell binders and spin doctors spouting false narratives.


----------



## Vya Domus (May 25, 2022)

Vayra86 said:


> You do realize that inflation is a result of how the economy works right?



Inflation is the result of an ever expanding supply and not much else, the state of the economy is almost completely inconsequential, as I pointed out even when everything is up, GDP, stock market, employment, etc, most currencies still lose their value year after year. The fact that we have negative interest rates is absolutely bewildering and unnatural, I don't know how you could possibly call that "perfectly fine".



Vayra86 said:


> it will somehow correct itself



It can't and it wont, currencies will continue to lose their value to the point where people will have enough, the income of the majority of the population doesn't scale sufficiently with inflation. Look throughout history, every time ruling bodies decide to debased their currencies, civil war ensued soon after, it never ends well.



Vayra86 said:


> Sure, its not perfect, sure, it puts pressure on people.



The problem is that it puts pressure disproportionately on people, the poorer you are the worse it is and it never really gets any better. If you have investments you can shelter yourself from inflation since things like the stock market scale very well with inflation but most people can't, because they don't have much money to invest in the first place.



dragontamer5788 said:


> US Dollars being backed by gold caused the 1930s depression.



That's just not true, you can argue that the deflationary aspect of the currency made things worse once the crash happened and bank runs began but you cannot claim that it was the cause.



mb194dc said:


> the gold standard and it was an economic disaster (see the great depression)



Again, not true.


----------



## dorsetknob (May 25, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> US Dollars being backed by gold caused the 1930s depression.



And there was me thinking and Believing  that it was the De-Linking of various world currencys from the Gold Standard that caused rampent Inflation and that inflation was the root cause of the Depression.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 25, 2022)

dorsetknob said:


> And there was me thinking and Believing  that it was the De-Linking of various world currencys from the Gold Standard that caused rampent Inflation and that inflation was the root cause of the Depression.



Considering that the Great Depression was a *deflationary* spiral, you got the entire story backwards. Let alone the history. USA delinked gold in Executive Order 6102, signed 1933, 4-years after the Great Crash of 1929 that traditionally serves as the starting point of the Great Depression.

EDIT: Prices *dropped* by 7% each year from 1930 through 1933, while the USA was on the gold standard. Lower prices means firing workers, since you can't sell your goods at the higher prices anymore, causing more unemployment, causing more people to fire workers, causing more job loss, causing lower prices as more people are unemployed.

But yes, goldbugs never were very well studied students of history. So their arguments and discussion points are always full of holes...


----------



## P4-630 (May 25, 2022)

chrisevan said:


> How do you see Luna's market value from $10 billion to 0 within 3 days?



It's like magic


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 25, 2022)

Vya Domus said:


> That's just not true, you can argue that the deflationary aspect of the currency made things worse once the crash happened and bank runs began but you cannot claim that it was the cause.



I think we can safely look at the timeframe of 1883 through 1933 (50 years), and see that the gold-standard was way more volatile and unstable than the period of 1933 to 1983.

The inability to change monetary supply when the economy booms/busts led to the panics/recessions of 1882, 1887, 1890, 1893, 1896, 1899, 1902, 1907, 1910, 1913, 1918 (okay, Spanish Flu + WW1 might have caused this one), 1920, 1923, 1926, and the "great" depression, 1929.

When we as a society saw that gold wasn't really all that it was cracked up to be in 1933, cut ourselves out of the gold standard and largely achieved a better life from that moment onwards


----------



## Vayra86 (May 26, 2022)

Vya Domus said:


> Inflation is the result of an ever expanding supply and not much else, the state of the economy is almost completely inconsequential, as I pointed out even when everything is up, GDP, stock market, employment, etc, most currencies still lose their value year after year. The fact that we have negative interest rates is absolutely bewildering and unnatural, I don't know how you could possibly call that "perfectly fine".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree on all of those points. Im not saying it is perfect or even great  Im saying this is the consensus we landed on and you mention civil war, thats also what Im saying.
At the same time, throughout history the (power) balance between ruler and population had shifted heavily towards the populace; without shooting or having to consider shooting. Thats the progress carried by economic systems of checks and balances, and trade across the globe. People do have opportunity because of it.

So while seeing the same issues, I think we should also count our blessings and be realistic about the motive behind such Resets: it is to upset a balance; and the result of that is only that more fools and money get parted, it never ends well, replacing something with a potentially greater evil.


----------

