Is it too soon to talk about Crypto yet?

[MinnesotaEric]

A reply like this really lowers your credibility.

If a guy cannot laugh at themselves first, they have no right to laugh at others. Besides we're going into a lull in Crypto.

The short-attention-span people who thought we'd have instant legislation changes are fed up that crypto legislation is taking too long to get moving and so the entire crypto marketcap just backfilled what was basically the election gap up from the November election cycle and so now we grind sideways until we have a catalyst to move the market. Which is to say, nutton is expected to happen for a bit. Boring.

 

[rumwrks]

This doesn't cover the entirety of the shenanigans going on with microstrategy... but it's a nice overview of the basics

 

[kenmbz]

I worked wall street for many years and have not even thought of crypto.
It was bad enough with derivatives and computer timed trades.

I interviewed for one group whose sole purpose was to get trades in faster, shorter wider connections to beat the rest of the algorithms to market.
They spent a fortune to get a few microseconds.

The only reason this worked is the size of their trades (millions to billions)
I still think they made more money in the cash overnight than by decreasing time to trade.

Crypto started as a way to hide money trails, and that's why it took off so fast.
But the gov is getting involved, so these groups are looking for the next big way of bypassing gov scrutiny, which still might be bitcoin, but in different guises.

This stuff changes so often and so fast, is amazingly risky and has been the cause of billions lost and unrecoverable. But many have been made rich too.

 

[MinnesotaEric]

I worked wall street for many years and have not even thought of crypto.
It was bad enough with derivatives and computer timed trades.

I interviewed for one group whose sole purpose was to get trades in faster, shorter wider connections to beat the rest of the algorithms to market.
They spent a fortune to get a few microseconds.

The only reason this worked is the size of their trades (millions to billions)
I still think they made more money in the cash overnight than by decreasing time to trade.

Crypto started as a way to hide money trails, and that's why it took off so fast.
But the gov is getting involved, so these groups are looking for the next big way of bypassing gov scrutiny, which still might be bitcoin, but in different guises.

This stuff changes so often and so fast, is amazingly risky and has been the cause of billions lost and unrecoverable. But many have been made rich too.

It took me a while to jump on the bandwagon as crypto cannot hurt if it was dropped on your foot. At the same time, I was often explaining currencies to others as "faith-based" means of trade. When faith is high in any given currency, that currency can buy more goods and services relative to other currencies whose value has "less faith." Then in a discussion with a friend, he asked,

"If all fractional reserve currencies as faith-based, how is crypto any different?"

I answered by explaining nation-state currencies are fiat but that question got me thinking more about crypto until I came to understand the deflationary nature of a capped supply of (some) crypto. But the process took me years for my viewpoint to change from, "It's a bad idea," to "I should buy this with both hands!"

Meanwhile, next week, on Friday, Trump is hosting the inaugural cryptocurrency summit at the White House. Regulatory clarity is coming to the USA.

Then on the 11th of March, The Bitcoin Policy Institute will be hosting a policy meeting in DC, portions of which will be live-streamed for keynote speakers.


Source:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1894401239518982286

 

[MinnesotaEric]

This doesn't cover the entirety of the shenanigans going on with microstrategy... but it's a nice overview of the basics

The pushback is that ponzis are hidden and with Strategy (the new name for Microstrategy) everything is being done out in the open. The convertible debt being issued is being bought by sophisticated investors who want the volatility and to date, those assets have outperformed Bitcoin. While paying a coupon into perpetuity, once those assets reach the cashout threshold, they will likely be cashed out rather than converted into common so that a new round of convertibles can be purchased. Meanwhile, the purchasing power of the dollar continues to be diluted through inflation.

Mark's primary argument is "...that it looks like the value of the asset is increasing, but it relies on larger and larger amounts of money coming in."

Likewise, as Saylor pointed out about commercial real estate values in Manhattan, cashflow doesn't exist and takes 27 years to break even. And capital appreciation only happens if a buyer is found willing to pay more. In other words, real estate is also a ponzi if we follow Mark's argument (Mark is the guy who made the video). Fundamentally what Mark is failing to consider is the value of the asset class itself. As one commenter on the video pointed out, "Being an asset is valuable in itself, and Bitcoin is the best asset."

 

[Tpondel]

Sam Bankman Fried was hosted at the White House four times.

That was, of course, before he was convicted for fraud related to crypto.

Just sayin’

 

[MinnesotaEric]

Sam Bankman Fried was hosted at the White House four times.

That was, of course, before he was convicted for fraud related to crypto.

Just sayin’

Can you explain how Sam Bankman Fried who took customer money and used it as though it was his own is the same as or at least similar to the discussion about Bitcoin in particular and crypto in general?

I ask because trying to tie in Sam Bankman Fried's crimes of comingling funds as the basis to cast doubt on the entire crypto industry is like saying because Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion, we should question the use of the dollar. The argument is a category error.

 

[MinnesotaEric]

Moving on there is a good article published back in December of last year about changing the way Bitcoin is recorded to make it easier for people to use in commerce. Each Bitcoin is comprised of 100,000,000 satoshis (sats). In Bitcoin, a transaction of 100,000 satoshis is expressed as 0.00100000 BTC. Admittedly this can be confusing and more so if expressed as 0.001 BTC. The proposal is rather than expressing Bitcoin in fractions, it should be expressed in satoshis. So in the example above, rather than expressing 100,000 satoshis as 0.001 BTC, it would be expressed as 100,000 BTC or 100,000 SAT.

Anyway, I think the proposal is a good idea.

Link Satoshis as the New Bitcoin? Simplifying Crypto for the Mainstream

 

[rumwrks]

The pushback is that ponzis are hidden and with Strategy (the new name for Microstrategy) everything is being done out in the open.

Openly fraudulent doesn't make it better lol. I can't even imagine the thought process that somehow justifies that response. A failure of regulatory agencies to prosecute open fraud.. doesn't mean it's smart to invest in it. The rest of your response there is predicated on "line go up" which works as long as there are enough greater fools (or in the case of MSTR they are pumping the asset they're relying on to pump their stock in a ridiculously circular fashion).

Meanwhile, next week, on Friday, Trump is hosting the inaugural cryptocurrency summit at the White House. Regulatory clarity is coming to the USA.

By "regulatory clarity" you mean "no regulations or enforcement of fraudulent activity" but "please back my favorite scam coin with government money when it craps out".

I guess it's working, Justin Sun's investment has paid off handsomely. Just "invest" a few million and BOOM the investigation is dropped. All out in the Open! Which makes it A-OK! Transparent! Winning!

Moving on there is a good article published back in December of last year about changing the way Bitcoin is recorded to make it easier for people to use in commerce.

This does nothing to address the problems with using it in commerce. The problem is lack of scalability and lack of backing. It's always (more or less) been possible to denote it in Satoshi's but that actually solves nothing. It's just meaningless drivel to give bag holders more hopium and lure in more suckers.

In other news "totally backed trust us" (it's not) Tether printed another Billion of nothing out of thin air to keep BTC propped up. As predictable as the sun coming up in the morning and going down in the evening..

 

[MinnesotaEric]

Openly fraudulent doesn't make it better lol. I can't even imagine the thought process that somehow justifies that response. A failure of regulatory agencies to prosecute open fraud.. doesn't mean it's smart to invest in it. The rest of your response there is predicated on "line go up" which works as long as there are enough greater fools (or in the case of MSTR they are pumping the asset they're relying on to pump their stock in a ridiculously circular fashion).

View attachment 2891151



By "regulatory clarity" you mean "no regulations or enforcement of fraudulent activity" but "please back my favorite scam coin with government money when it craps out".

I guess it's working, Justin Sun's investment has paid off handsomely. Just "invest" a few million and BOOM the investigation is dropped. All out in the Open! Which makes it A-OK! Transparent! Winning!



This does nothing to address the problems with using it in commerce. The problem is lack of scalability and lack of backing. It's always (more or less) been possible to denote it in Satoshi's but that actually solves nothing. It's just meaningless drivel to give bag holders more hopium and lure in more suckers.

In other news "totally backed trust us" (it's not) Tether printed another Billion of nothing out of thin air to keep BTC propped up. As predictable as the sun coming up in the morning and going down in the evening..

You have a knack for expressing opinion as though it is a fact.

Let's consider a FACT.

If you save in dollars, over time everything gets more expensive because of the dollar's ever-reducing value.
If you save in Bitcoin, over time everything gets less expensive because Bitcoin is appreciating in value.

Is Bitcoin's increasing scarcity a reason for its increase in value? Certainly! As more people recognize Bitcoin as an asset class for warehousing wealth, the increased buying interest will naturally increase the underlying asset's price according to the law of supply and demand much in the same way as the law of supply and demand has increased real estate valuations over time.

If it is claimed that Bitcoin's value has only gone up because of the influx of foolish investors, I note that since the dollar is depreciating in value, Bitcoin needs only to hold its value to increase in dollar value over time.

Thus we come back to my opening argument again:

If you save in dollars, over time everything gets more expensive because of the dollar's ever-reducing value.
If you save in Bitcoin, over time everything gets less expensive because Bitcoin is appreciating in value.