Cryptocurrencies

[OngBonga]

test post

[oskar]

Hit $4k today

I'll_have_what_he's_having.gif

[OngBonga]

Yeah currently $2600

It's funny, when I started playing crypto, I was dicking about selling and buying and getting stressed out over a few cents. Now I'm just holding, I can wake up in the morning and see I've lost $1k and laugh.

Holding is a great deal less stressful than trading.

[Poopadoop]

That's a tidy profit. Maybe you know something for once.

It's trading around what, 0.016 now? How high does it have to get for you to have enough to buy a house? I make it around $1.00...

[OngBonga]

Yes a dollar. It gets interesting if I get into five figures. I mean, if I'm worth a bitcoin, do I trade off for a bitcoin instead? I'm currently just under 5% of a bitcoin, having peaked at 7%. But for now, I'm just holding and waiting to see what happens.

[OngBonga]

I just bought ten bucks worth of $safemoon, which is a dodgy as fuck shitcoin with an untrustworthy team.

For ten bucks I got 11.6 million coins. I'll take that risk for a tenner tyvm.

[Luco]

xlm finally having a long overdue breakout, heading for $0.70

[Luco]

I invested a small amount in crypto a few months ago, I've already made enough to pay for this years holiday

The question is, can we even go abroad? Vaccination rates in continental Europe are abysmal right now

[OngBonga]

In five years you'll look back at such a holiday and think "fuck me that was expensive".

My crypto is on the slide right now, I'm worth $2500. Not sweating.

[Keith]

woke up this morning to the overnight ada pump and was sitting on £8K of profit so far before the price dumped again. its making it back again (7.5k profit at the momenty) and hopefully pumps again off the back of the Coinbase IPO in and hour or two.

kinda wierd as i swapped a lot of my ETH into ADA and so now my ETH is ~60% bought 40% mined with the mined being about £1150 profit. Bought 3 cards for mining which cost a total of ~1400 but could sell them now for ~£2400 used on ebay. if the 1400 had gone into crypto instead it would probably be worth around the same. Eth mining rewards will get cut hard in about 3months but hopefully should be able to switch into other mineable coins.At he current rate the cards will have paid for themselves in about 3 weeks

[OngBonga]

Dent is still in slow decline, having peaked at over 2c it's only just over 1c right now. Still way more than the 0.135c I bought in at. I'm at $2k. Not panic selling for shit. I'm either worth fuck all or $50k+

[Poopadoop]

Without knowing anything about what is driving the price of these things, just looking at the graph this does not behave like a random walk. If I were investing, I'd buy a broad range of these when they're super cheap, and then use some kind of algorithm to tell me when to sell - like i.d. the peak value within some window of time, and when the price fell to 20% below that peak, sell it all (I'm sure there's a better way to do it than that even). Rinse and repeat and lolprofit.

https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/dent/

[Poopadoop]

Actually, a lot of them do look pretty random-walky. You'd have to look for ones that tend to go up, then go down again, over and over like dent.

https://coinmarketcap.com/tokens/

[Poopadoop]

I wonder if you could write a program, plug all the data from those graphs into it, and crack this shit.

[Keith]

its called technical analysis

Also thers lots of trading bots out there .....most are a means of losing you money by overtrading and getting them affiliate income on trading commission and your risking your money to do it and you will likely lose your money in the process.

[Poopadoop]

You're tone is so condescending at the same time as being nearly illiterate that it's actually quite amusing.

My point was that if you buy things when they're cheap they can only go up. And if you can identify when they've peaked and sell shortly after you could make good dough. I've seen a few like dent that had a big surge in 2018 and then dropped off again. It looks like those ones are doing the same thing again now.

[Keith]

Possibly its because you don't realise how little you know and with your previous comments in this thread I can't be bothered to waste time explaining it to you ,since you are highly unlikely to buy any crypto.

By the time you finally realise what you have missed out on you will be jumping in and buying at the top of the market along with everyone else who is buying because crypto has hit the mainstream news and surging in price and then sit and watch while the price crashs and then will use that to justify that crypto is all a con.

Google "technical analysis" and stock prices and its a whole subject that you can immerse yourself in.

[Poopadoop]

you are highly unlikely to buy any crypto.

You're right about that.

I can't be bothered to waste time explaining it to you

I wasn't asking you to explain it, so I guess we're both happy you haven't bothered.

you will be jumping in and buying at the top of the market

Guess again.

and then sit and watch while the price crashs

"crashes"

And yeah I will be watching.

then will use that to justify that crypto is all a con

I never said it was a con, I said it was high-risk. I wouldn't doubt that a lot of them are cons though, or are being manipulated by certain interested parties.

[OngBonga]

I think there will come a day when poop will buy crypto, but it'll be to immediately use. Like, if he has a DENT powered phone in five years, he could be paying market price for his coins which he'll immediately spend on his phone package. Hopefully he'll be buying his coins off me for a dollar when I paid $0.00135.

[OngBonga]

Crypto is ridiculously high risk for short term investment, but not so much for long term. I would say it's very low risk if you're looking at years. The total market cap of crypto is still way behind gold. Crypto will one day surpass gold, and I'll still be alive to see it.

[MadMojoMonkey]

So long as people are investing in crypto with the actual long-term plan to convert that crypto back into real world monies, I can't really take the value seriously. As long as the value of crypto is measured in the value of irl monies, it's still a pump and dump waiting to hit its bubble.

Maybe I'm missing something.


If the value in the thing is not inherent in itself... nor in its ability to acquire other valued things (or whatever), then it's just a lottery, right? Whoever is the last out loses the most, but so long as people are still getting in, it's good to hang on. I mean, until and unless there's a widespread crypto economics - like Bill Gates levels of economics - then I don't see it as a real thing.


Maybe it crosses that threshold some day and I'm the poor boy with no phat crypto lootz. But until it does, it's still just a gamble, right? There's no real value in it, there's just hype, right?

[CoccoBill]

How exactly, on a fundamental/theoretical level, is investing in crypto different than investing in stocks?

[Poopadoop]

https://www.paypal.com/us/smarthelp/article/FAQ4399

Lack of tangible ownership, lack of regulation, and volatility seem to be the key differences.

[CoccoBill]

How do the tangible assets change the scenario in any way? A company may own some, but it's not like you get those as a shareholder if the company goes bust. The value of the tangible assets is determined in the same way as the stock's, and the crypto's.

Lack of regulation touches a valid point. There is some regulation for crypto already, the risk is really in that regulation may be used to kill or severely restrict the crypto market. I'll give you that.

Gamestop et al would like to have a word about volatility.

My point is, it's not really all that different.

[Poopadoop]

I suppose one difference is that a company has to file regular earnings reports, so you at least get an idea if they're headed for busto, and it's unlikely to just happen overnight, so touches on the volatility thing. You can also earn dividends from a company stock which is not an option for crypto.

Crypto seems more like trading in a commodity than in a stock. Like, if you buy gold, you're not getting a dividend, and the market could arguably someday decide gold has no value, so you could theoretically go busto. But we all know that will never happen. OTOH, we also know gold will never be worth $1m/ounce either, whereas a crypto could go way up in value like that. So again there's more volatility in crypto than in a commodity, for good or bad.

[Keith]

https://www.paypal.com/us/smarthelp/article/FAQ4399

Lack of tangible ownership, lack of regulation, and volatility seem to be the key differences.

lol , why not actually read up on a subject rather than spouting forth a load of ignorant asumptions as fact


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...-idUSKBN2BL0X9 i'm sure that you are aware of visa . The people that make that plastic thing you buy stuff with without actually handing coins or bank notes over and the transaction is processed digitally ........hmmmm does that ring a bell ? it sounds very like digital currency doesn't it and they now allow you to pay them in cryptocurrency.

Maybe you could go into a bank and ask for your pounds to be sent to you. The bank note isnt a £ or £10 . its just a promise to pay the bearer on demand the value printed on the note? where does the bank hold your money ? digitally . its a digital record on an electronic ledger of who owns how much of the coin in question.

how can you argue against a different digital record held on an electronic ledger when its essentially the same technology that has operated the financial system for centuries and is just the latest updated version where the ownership and operation of the network is decentralized away from government manipulation.

or maybe google the xrp/SEC case in america where regulators tried to regulate a cryptocurrency and ban it for breaching their regulations but the SEC havent even decided if it is an asset class that comes under their jurisdiction.

As for volatility, the price of everything responds to news on long term trends (google newspaper share prices over the last 50 years , have you bought one lately?) medium term trends and short term trends.

I suppose one difference is that a company has to file regular earnings reports, so you at least get an idea if they're headed for busto, and it's unlikely to just happen overnight, so touches on the volatility thing. You can also earn dividends from a company stock which is not an option for crypto.

try googling crypto staking and yield farming to see how you can get income from your cryptoholdings

Crypto seems more like trading in a commodity than in a stock. Like, if you buy gold, you're not getting a dividend, and the market could arguably someday decide gold has no value, so you could theoretically go busto. But we all know that will never happen. OTOH, we also know gold will never be worth $1m/ounce either, whereas a crypto could go way up in value like that. So again there's more volatility in crypto than in a commodity, for good or bad.

why is gold such a good investment for you but crypto isn't . what are you going to do with the gold . the value in gold and diamonds is their scarcity value which is exactly the same with bitcoin. There is a finite known supply of bitcoin which companies and institutions are now seeing as a hedge against the depreciation of the fiat currencies by governments around the world printing money at record rates and devaluing the buying power of each of their coins in the process.

[Poopadoop]

I can't be bothered to waste time explaining it to you

Good thing you just wrote a big wall of text about it then lol.

[Keith]

Good thing you just wrote a big wall of text about it then lol.

It was to let others who are new to cryptocurrency know that you haven't got a clue what you are talking about .

[Poopadoop]

It was to let others who are new to cryptocurrency know that you haven't got a clue what you are talking about .

I think they already knew that lol. But thanks Keef buddy!

[MadMojoMonkey]

Thanks for the info. I see the comparisons with irl monies and the bare bones fact that crypto is simply not all that different from irl monies is better understood by me.

I still don't see it as a "real" currency, though. All value is perceived value. If you value something others don't, then your thing is not valuable in a monetary sense. This is kinda how crypto seems to me. A small group of people claim there's value in it, but the larger human race isn't convinced. That convincing is the key to the long-term success of crypto, IMO.


I'm not sure it's a good metric to be skeptical of the long-term success of crypto in the 2 things I pointed out earlier. 1) People who are into crypto still cite the value of their crypto in irl monies - indicating the primacy of irl monies at this time - and 2) People who are into crypto have the long-term plan of divesting from crypto into irl monies, which are far more liquid assets.

I'm vaguely hoping someone will either say, "Yeah, I feel the same" or, "That's not a good way to think about currencies." or something.
Like I've had these thoughts and they seem sound in a kind of "common sense" kind of way, but that's not science.


***
FYI Keith, the scarcity of diamonds is a scam perpetuated by the De Beers group for decades. Diamonds are not scarce - they're just marketed really well. Check out the resale value on diamonds.

Diamonds were rare until 1870, when a vast deposit of diamonds was found near the Orange River in South Africa. The De Beers group feared the effect on diamond prices. Over the next decade or so, they bought up nearly every diamond mine in the world and made contracts with most diamond producing nations to have exclusive rights to mine those diamonds. By 1900, De Beers controlled ~90% of the world's diamond market.

Their dominance is less, now, but the other players in the diamond game are basically co-conspirators in the false value of diamonds.

Add on the fact that diamonds are relatively cheap to produce, and are chemically indistinguishable from natural diamonds, and the whole diamond game is basically fraud.

[OngBonga]

OTOH, we also know gold will never be worth $1m/ounce either

This seems to be putting a a lot of faith in the dollar. Gold will reach $1m an ounce one day due to inflation. Ok that day is a long way away with current inflation rates, but if we enter a period of hyperinflation, which is very much a possibility, then we have the conditions for gold to surge in value against the dollar.

As for tangible" goods. Is gold tangible? How many people who invest in gold actually possess the gold they own? The vast majority of gold is sitting in vaults. Crypto might be digital but assuming you hold it in your own wallet (a cs opposed at an exchange) then it's more tangible than gold sitting in a vault in Fort Knox. The crypto itself might be ones and zeros, but you can physically own the device it is stored on, without having to entrust a third party. Holding crypto in an exchange is rather like owning gold in someone else's vault.

The similarities between crypto and gold are more than you might give credit for. Ok gold can also be used for electrical purposes and jewelry, but as an investment vehicle it's not that different.

[OngBonga]

This is kinda how crypto seems to me. A small group of people claim there's value in it, but the larger human race isn't convinced. That convincing is the key to the long-term success of crypto, IMO.

This is accurate, but what I think you're missing is that more and more people, in particular young people, are starting to see crypto as a thing of value. The value comes from real world usage. You can already buy a Tesla car with bitcoin, so if you agree that a Tesla car is valuable, then you must agree that bitcoin is too. Otherwise it's like saying bread is valuable but a dollar isn't.

[OngBonga]

People who are into crypto still cite the value of their crypto in irl monies

Indeed. Fiat is definitely still king. I want to buy a house. I can't buy a house with crypto, I have to convert it into fiat first. But the real thing of value for me isn't the crypto or the money, it's the house.

I strongly believe that soon we will be able to buy a house with crypto. At that point, I don't even need to think about the dollar value of my crypto.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Indeed. Fiat is definitely still king. I want to buy a house. I can't buy a house with crypto, I have to convert it into fiat first. But the real thing of value for me isn't the crypto or the money, it's the house.

I strongly believe that soon we will be able to buy a house with crypto. At that point, I don't even need to think about the dollar value of my crypto.

That makes sense. Thanks.

[Poopadoop]

That makes sense. Thanks.

It doesn't really. Fiat has a relative stable value, crypto is all over the place. Do you really want to agree to sell your house for 10k crypto when by the time the sale goes through the value of the crypto is 10% what it was when you agreed the sale a month ago? Don't think so.

Maybe the day will come when crypto will replace fiat as a currency, but it seems unlikely. First, there's hundreds of cryptos out there, so which one are we going to use? Second, who decides that? Third, who's going to tell governments they can no longer generate revenue by printing money, the crypto illuminati squad? Finally, crypto will have to be a lot more stable in value than it is now, otherwise there would be complete economic chaos.

[boost]

Poop, how do you imagine the nascent stages of a future currency would look? Particularly, in a world of centrally controlled currencies, how do you imagine the period would look in which decentralized currencies are introduced but still overlap with traditional currencies?

If you think it's a matter of fact that a decentralized currency cannot overtake fiat, I mean, cool, but then just say so. What I've seen you post on this topic is simply descriptions(sometimes more accurate and sometimes less) of the current status quo, which are propped up as proof the status quo will endure.

[Keith]

It doesn't really. Fiat has a relative stable value, crypto is all over the place.

so you argue that fiat currencies are stable

Third, who's going to tell governments they can no longer generate revenue by printing money, the crypto illuminati squad?

And then argue that governments have to be allowed to continue printing more fiat and devalue the buying power of the fiat currency and thereby say that fiat currencies are unstable.

[Poopadoop]

I think the nascent stages of a future currency, if it were to overtake a current one, would require the present currency system to be fundamentally broken. I don't see any evidence we're anywhere near that stage. I can trade my money easily for goods and services. I know the value of my money, and I can be reasonably sure it will retain that value over time.

If anything seems broken, it's a system where there's hundreds of currencies, most of whose values fluctuate all over the place. Why would anybody think we should prefer that to what we have?

Sure, there are certain situations where a stable crytpo like bitcoin nicely supplements the current system. But as far as it replacing it, nah don't see it happening anytime soon.

[Poopadoop]

so you argue that fiat currencies are stable

Relative to the vast majority of cryptos, yes.

And then argue that governments have to be allowed to continue printing more fiat and devalue the buying power of the fiat currency and thereby say that fiat currencies are unstable.

Well first, I didn't say the governments HAVE to be allowed to do anything. The gist of the question is, who is going to tell them not to? I noticed you didn't try to answer the actual question I posed.

Second, most governments are not printing fiat in an out of control fashion are they? And if they do they face hyperinflation so they are just screwing themselves and their own citizens. There's a reason why no-one is trying to repeat the little trick the Weimar Republic played with printing money to pay off its war debts.

[CoccoBill]

Macroeconomics is nuts (not the poker term). Printing money should increase inflation, yet we don't see that in the recent years in the US. And if there is inflation, it means it takes care of the national debt, which should encourage printing even more money. Inflation also helps private loaners to handle their debts. Printing money should lower the currency exchange rate, which should make exports more competitive compared to other countries. Interest rates are negative, so every country should take as much debt as they possibly can and invest it into infrastructure projects or even the stock market.

Makes sense huh?

[OngBonga]

Printing money should increase inflation, yet we don't see that in the recent years in the US.

Huh?

https://www.inflationtool.com/us-dollar

$100 is 2018 is today worth $105.73

And if there is inflation, it means it takes care of the national debt

This assumes inflation is above interest rates. That isn't the case, not by a long shot. Hyperinflation might have this effect, but the downside of that will be far more damaging than manageable national debt.

I don't think inflation is a good thing. When governments print money, they are reducing the value of everyone's savings. It's basically a stealth tax. Of course, quantitative easing isn't the only driver of inflation. Increasing wages, in particular an increase in the minimum wage, causes an increase in business costs, which they then pass on to the consumer in the form of increased prices. In this latter case, assuming increased revenue from higher prices exactly matches the increase in salary costs, then nobody has lost or gained anything, it's not a tax. But in the case of quantitative easing, that's essentially theft. They're taking money from savers.

[CoccoBill]

Huh?

https://www.inflationtool.com/us-dollar

$100 is 2018 is today worth $105.73

I didn't say there's no inflation, I said printing money should increase it, yet it doesn't.

See the curve on that page you linked? Does it show the effect of the FED printing money since ca 2008? (click on the "MAX" above the chart)

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-...-balance-sheet

This assumes inflation is above interest rates. That isn't the case, not by a long shot. Hyperinflation might have this effect, but the downside of that will be far more damaging than manageable national debt.

Until recently treasury rates across the globe have been negative, now they have risen some. US 10-year rates are at 1.7%, inflation in the US in 2020 was 2.6%. And even if it didn't nullify the debts completely, which I didn't mean in the first place, it helps tremendously. If a country can get cheap loans for effective 0 interest, have inflation help in the payback, why isn't everyone investing as much as they can?

I don't think inflation is a good thing. When governments print money, they are reducing the value of everyone's savings. It's basically a stealth tax. Of course, quantitative easing isn't the only driver of inflation. Increasing wages, in particular an increase in the minimum wage, causes an increase in business costs, which they then pass on to the consumer in the form of increased prices. In this latter case, assuming increased revenue from higher prices exactly matches the increase in salary costs, then nobody has lost or gained anything, it's not a tax. But in the case of quantitative easing, that's essentially theft. They're taking money from savers.

Yeah, inflation sucks. But the only thing worse than that is deflation.

[boost]

I think the nascent stages of a future currency, if it were to overtake a current one, would require the present currency system to be fundamentally broken. I don't see any evidence we're anywhere near that stage. I can trade my money easily for goods and services. I know the value of my money, and I can be reasonably sure it will retain that value over time.

If anything seems broken, it's a system where there's hundreds of currencies, most of whose values fluctuate all over the place. Why would anybody think we should prefer that to what we have?

Sure, there are certain situations where a stable crytpo like bitcoin nicely supplements the current system. But as far as it replacing it, nah don't see it happening anytime soon.

Let's try this again. Let's imagine a world in which the current, long standing, monetary system is fundamentally broken and running on a combination of steam and momentum, and an alternate system is introduced and in it's (possibly late) nascent stage. How would this world differ from our world with the long standing fiat and newly introduced crypto?

For example, would everyone lose trust in the current system at once, or would it start with a small, but adamant and growing minority? Is there ever a transition of this sort in which the early adopters don't seem silly? Are you familiar with the position of the anti fiat, gold standard advocates from early 1930's? How different is your stance?

[boost]

Since we're talking about inflation:

BTC's finite supply makes it inherently more stable than fiat, but it also gives it a ticking clock towards obsolescence. I suppose there can be a fork or another coin, but BTC has both a finite supply and has a finite divisibility. This means that at some point, due to inflation, a Satoshi will be too big of a unit to facilitate trade. Now I know people think inflation is bad, but I'd argue that it is baked into capitalism.

A simple illustration of the necessity of inflation: I make product A and sell it for Y, you improve on A, let's call your product A1, which provides more value to the consumer and therefore enables you to charge Y*>1. The consumer's demand for A1 puts upward pressure on wages, and there we have it: inflation.

Of course the price of A could decrease with A1 simply subsuming its price point, but human psychology seems to support the model of A1 entering as a luxury for early adopters at Y*>1, followed by a decrease in Y*>1 where it settles at some point above Y.

So, yeah, this is where fiat's openness to central manipulation seems to be a plus.

[Poopadoop]

Let's try this again. Let's imagine a world in which the current, long standing, monetary system is fundamentally broken and running on a combination of steam and momentum, and an alternate system is introduced and in it's (possibly late) nascent stage. How would this world differ from our world with the long standing fiat and newly introduced crypto?

For example, would everyone lose trust in the current system at once, or would it start with a small, but adamant and growing minority? Is there ever a transition of this sort in which the early adopters don't seem silly? Are you familiar with the position of the anti fiat, gold standard advocates from early 1930's? How different is your stance?

You'll have to explain to me how it's fundamentally broken. The rest of your post only makes sense if that assumption is true. Where is the evidence it is not working? Eg.., are people unable to trade? Are savings being wiped out? How is the current system broken?

[boost]

You missed the thought experiment. You are sitting in the twilight of the gold standard insisting that it's fine, it always has been fine, fiat can't possibly work, it's inherently unstable, would cause immediate economic collapse, etc. Or not-- maybe you're right. My point is, how do you know which it is? How are you different from the status quoians of the past who were right until they were terribly terribly wrong?

I'm not even arguing what your response suggests I am. I'm just pointing out that, from my vantage, your conviction is held far too strongly.

[Poopadoop]

Ok I've imagined it.

Now please answer my question which no-one else seems to be able to answer either: How is the current system broken?

[CoccoBill]

Ok I've imagined it.

Now please answer my question which no-one else seems to be able to answer either: How is the current system broken?

Is the fiat system optimal with its currency transactions, fees, exchange rates etc? Is it optimal they're governed by central banks? Is it optimal that governments can print money to boost their economies, in effect only accumulating debt?

To me it seems that if your answer to any of these is no, there might be room for improvement, you glorious luddite.

[Poopadoop]

Is the fiat system optimal with its currency transactions, fees, exchange rates etc? Is it optimal they're governed by central banks? Is it optimal that governments can print money to boost their economies, in effect only accumulating debt?

I'm guessing the answer to these questions is "no." So, tell me how a better system would work and why it would be better, AND how it's going to be allowed to replaced the current system - and I want to be clear it's about being ALLOWED to, not that it will naturally take over without anyone with a vested interest in the current system, who seem to hold a lot of power in this game, saying boo.

[Poopadoop]

To me it seems that if your answer to any of these is no, there might be room for improvement, you glorious luddite.

I don't think it's being a luddite to ask questions and be skeptical, especially when all my questions seem to be answered with other questions.

All you guys have given me so far is 'current system broken - can't say how, you tell me' and 'ecurrencies fix it - can't say how', and 'ergo, ecurrencies will overtake current system...but please don't ask me how.'

[Poopadoop]

Here's a short article that suggests a global ecurrency would have both benefits and costs, and could never replace fiat entirely.

https://blog.clover.com/the-pros-and...rsal-currency/

[CoccoBill]

I was merely trying to point out that the ones saying "don't fix what ain't fundamentally broken" are often on the wrong side of history. Progress would be stymied quite a bit if that was the criteria to fill before improving anything.

It should probably be obvious that I don't know how to fix the global economy and currency framework, but that definitely doesn't mean they can't be. Cryptos in general are an attempt at that, we shall see what happens.

[Poopadoop]

I was merely trying to point out that the ones saying "don't fix what ain't fundamentally broken" are often on the wrong side of history.

Do you know how many times someone has tried to fix something they thought was broken and failed? Communism springs to mind.

So, I am pointing out that being able to describe how something is fundamentally broken and how the putative replacement fixes that problem without introducing a whole new set of problems is a necessary precursor to taking steps to replace/fix it. Just saying it's broken and asking others to take that on faith doesn't cut it.

[CoccoBill]

Do you know how many times someone has tried to fix something they thought was broken and failed? Communism springs to mind.

"Don't try to fix something unless it's completely broken and if at first you don't succeed, never try again." --Poop, 2021

So, I am pointing out that being able to describe how something is fundamentally broken and how the putative replacement fixes that problem without introducing a whole new set of problems is a necessary precursor to taking steps to replace/fix it. Just saying it's broken and asking others to take that on faith doesn't cut it.

I recall you admitting the current system isn't optimal. That in and of itself is reason enough to try to improve. Afaik we haven't been tasked with designing a new system, we're just discussing if something new could be helpful.

[Poopadoop]

"Don't try to fix something unless it's completely broken and if at first you don't succeed, never try again." --Poop, 2021

Nice reductio ad bananum there. I almost miss that.

Change it to "don't completely replace a complex system just because you can dream of a better way, because you don't know what you're getting," and that would be a fairer representation of my point.

I recall you admitting the current system isn't optimal. That in and of itself is reason enough to try to improve. Afaik we haven't been tasked with designing a new system, we're just discussing if something new could be helpful.

Sure, try to improve. But there's lot of ways to improve something without necessarily demolishing and replacing it.

Moreover, I also said crypto could certainly serve as a useful supplement to fiat, the way it does now. I just don't see any convincing arguments for why it should replace it entirely. You can try to mock that pov all you like, but that doesn't make your argument any better - on the contrary, it suggests you don't have any real arguments to make.

[boost]

Poop, you're misrepresenting everyone's positions including your own. You're the naysayer saying crypto is a bad bet. Everyone else seems to be unsure but thinks to a greater or lesser extent it's a worthwhile bet.

Further, you keep shift the goal posts. There are plenty of valid critiques of fiat itt and you just come back with "well it's the status quo, so it can't be that bad!"

As for the vested interests nixing crypto, well, they really don't have that many levers they can pull, and it's evidenced by the fact that many big players are simply getting on board. Will it ultimately fully replace fiat? Who knows? Will BTC 10x from here? Who knows? Will crypto implode and become a curiosity of history? It's possible, but pretty unlikely at this point.

[Poopadoop]

Poop, you're misrepresenting everyone's positions including your own. You're the naysayer saying crypto is a bad bet. Everyone else seems to be unsure but thinks to a greater or lesser extent it's a worthwhile bet.

Oh the humanity...

Mojo is also a skeptic iirc.

I said investing in crypo is high risk. And it is.

Further, you keep shift the goal posts. There are plenty of valid critiques of fiat itt and you just come back with "well it's the status quo, so it can't be that bad!"

You're just making shit up here.

As for the vested interests nixing crypto, well, they really don't have that many levers they can pull, and it's evidenced by the fact that many big players are simply getting on board. Will it ultimately fully replace fiat? Who knows? Will BTC 10x from here? Who knows? Will crypto implode and become a curiosity of history? It's possible, but pretty unlikely at this point.

Again, not what I said.

At least if you're going to argue with me try to read what I actually say, not just half a sentence and complete the rest of it however u see fit.

[OngBonga]

I didn't say... oh wait you're not arguing with me. Well that makes a change.

[OngBonga]

My crypto keeps shrinking in value. It's now only worth 5x more than I paid for it.

[boost]

shoulda put it all on doge!

[boost]

Oh the humanity...

Mojo is also a skeptic iirc.

I said investing in crypo is high risk. And it is.




You're just making shit up here.




Again, not what I said.

At least if you're going to argue with me try to read what I actually say, not just half a sentence and complete the rest of it however u see fit.

Ok, ok, fair enough. So your position is best summed up as crypto is a risky investment? Seems fair. I think most if not everyone agrees. People have different risk tolerances. We're probably all being more difficult here then we need to be.

[OngBonga]

shoulda put it all on doge!

I'd be about as well off if I did. That's now about 5x what it was when I first bought doge. The best investment would have been Binance coin, $BNB, which is a healthy 10x what it was when I was choosing a coin.

[Poopadoop]

I'd be about as well off if I did. That's now about 5x what it was when I first bought doge. The best investment would have been Binance coin, $BNB, which is a healthy 10x what it was when I was choosing a coin.

What do you guys thinks drives all this variance? I have my own theories, but I'm interested to hear yours.

[boost]

I think a ton of it is speculative retail investors. BTC, I'd guess is most coin buyer's first coin. So Elon tweets, or some positive story is published that reaches a new audience, or whatever, and you get a new influx. But then people realize they may have missed out on the biggest multiples, and that there are other coins, some of which may be the 2011 BTC of today, and then hop on those and out of or partially out of BTC.

I don't have some well analyzed data to support it, but when I happen to pay attention around a bull run spurred on by a company buying a bunch, Elon tweeting, etc, it seems pretty consistent that ETH tracks BTC with a bit of a delay. BTC has the biggest brand, but once you get in the door, if you look around a bit ETH has an insane amount of promise.

So, yeah, in short, I think it's mainly retail driven, and publicity causes bull runs, people try to time them, which eventually cause bear slides, but some number of crypto converts stick around through the bear slide, causing a rocky, but overall upward trend.

With growing corporate buy in, an increased participation from retail, and eventually institutional buy in, the variance will subside.

[boost]

oh, and what's your theory?

[OngBonga]

What do you guys thinks drives all this variance? I have my own theories, but I'm interested to hear yours.

I don't know. I think Biden's capital gains tax increase is bad news for crypto, at least in the short term, because people will pull money out now before it becomes law. But once it comes into force, I'd expect to see serious consolidation, as there is value in keeping it in crypto until the Republicans come back into power. It becomes an unappealing short term investment because tax is killing profit, but an appealing long term one.

I mean, the price is purely set by supply and demand. So looking at what drives supply and demand is key. If a whale decides to dump a shit ton, supply becomes high and that means anyone else who wants to sell has to offer a lower price or wait for the whale to sell his stock. And if a whale is trying to dump his coins, that only encourages you to sell, because it's peak resistance. So whales dumping their holdings can cause fear and panic to propagate. Likewise, a huge order for a whale means anyone else who wants to buy has to pay more. The same process happens except instead of panic selling people are panic buying.

I think these factors are likely dominant in the short term for low market cap coins, but the bigger the market cap the bigger a whale you need to be to have this kind of influence.

What drives bitcoin, I really don't know. It's still way undervalued in terms of where it will be in ten years, that is a cast iron guarantee. More money will come into crypto as more people find confidence in it. I thought for a long time I had missed the boat, but I don't think I have, I just think I'm late. But there's still a lot of potential for growth as it becomes mainstream. And it surely will, one way or another. You can't really stop people from trading it. All you can do is tax people when they convert it to fiat, but that only serves to make crypto more appealing as a common currency.

[Poopadoop]

I think a ton of it is speculative retail investors. BTC, I'd guess is most coin buyer's first coin. So Elon tweets, or some positive story is published that reaches a new audience, or whatever, and you get a new influx. But then people realize they may have missed out on the biggest multiples, and that there are other coins, some of which may be the 2011 BTC of today, and then hop on those and out of or partially out of BTC.

I don't have some well analyzed data to support it, but when I happen to pay attention around a bull run spurred on by a company buying a bunch, Elon tweeting, etc, it seems pretty consistent that ETH tracks BTC with a bit of a delay. BTC has the biggest brand, but once you get in the door, if you look around a bit ETH has an insane amount of promise.

So, yeah, in short, I think it's mainly retail driven, and publicity causes bull runs, people try to time them, which eventually cause bear slides, but some number of crypto converts stick around through the bear slide, causing a rocky, but overall upward trend.

With growing corporate buy in, an increased participation from retail, and eventually institutional buy in, the variance will subside.

Agree with all of this in general. I think a fair bit of the rises are being at the least, encouraged, and at worst, manipulated by Elon and/or social media bots. Once the hype for a particular coin hits a critical mass, people start buying and this feeds forward into a buying "frenzy" where everyone tries to get on the bandwagon. At some point it runs out of momentum and speculators and people using trading algorithms start selling to try to secure a profit, which feedforwards again into a downswing. There do seem to be a significant number of coins that follow this pattern.

As for having an overall upward trend, BTC does seem to have that, each peak in the next cycle is higher than the previous. Whether this pattern is going to continue on in BTC and/or replicate in other coins is an open question.

One thing to keep in mind is if something starts with a value at or very near to 0 it has what statisticians would call a "floor", meaning if it's going to move in any significant fashion, it can only do so in an upwards direction, and this can give a false impression of "success".

IOW, since all of these coins start (afaik) with a very low value, well, even in a random-walk scenario, some are going to end up as "successes" and others are not going to go anywhere. And, interestingly, that scenario is fairly consistent with the performance of the family of coins as a whole.

This is why if I were going to play this game, I would start by buying a broad range of coins at very low values and then try to come up with some algorithm to decide when to sell. By buying when things are close to the floor you protect yourself from losses. The risk in this case is basically eliminated.

With growing corporate buy in, an increased participation from retail, and eventually institutional buy in, the variance will subside.

Easier to try to explain the past than to predict the future, but believe it or not I see this as a possibility. Another one is that the status quo remains, cycles of boom and bust, increasing numbers of currencies started up, some of which go boom and bust, others of which never get legs, some people get rich and others go broke.

[Poopadoop]

IOW, since all of these coins start (afaik) with a very low value, well, even in a random-walk scenario, some are going to end up as "successes" and others are not going to go anywhere. And, interestingly, that scenario is fairly consistent with the performance of the family of coins as a whole.

Hmm, now I think of it, that's not really what seems to be happening. It's more like there's a bunch of coins, and every once in a while one of them gets a kick and starts going up. The rest just seem to sit there doing nothing. Seems more consistent with the market encouragement/manipulation theory actually.

[OngBonga]

I think a fair bit of the rises are being at the least, encouraged, and at worst, manipulated by Elon and/or social media bots.

You're certainly not alone in thinking this, but your use of the phrase "at worst, manipulated" implies you think there might be some kind of wrongdoing. There's nothing wrong with buying lots of stocks with intention to sell at a profit, which is (at worst) essentially what Elon is doing. If he's invested in bitcoin, or dogecoin, or whatevercoin, it's quite fine to use your massive platform to promote that coin.

idk about "bots". That seems to be the go-to word for people who use automated systems to manage their portfolio.

But like I said in my previous post, I believe this kind of price manipulation is only happening in low market cap coins. Bitcoin is a massive market cap, and dogecoin is large. Though with that said, if anyone can manipulate these markets, it's the richest guy in the world. I think he did have significant influence in dogecoin, but that's with the help of his army of cultists rather than him alone manipulating the price. His cultists aren't bots.

As for having an overall upward trend, BTC does seem to have that, each peak in the next cycle is higher than the previous. Whether this pattern is going to continue on in BTC and/or replicate in other coins is an open question.

It won't happen forever. There has to come a point where bitcoin finds its true economic value. But there's a lot more room for growth yet.

well, even in a random-walk scenario, some are going to end up as "successes" and others are not going to go anywhere.

Definitely true. There are a lot of coins that won't do anything. I think one coin I am in is one such coin... $safemoon (yes, awful name). I bought 11 million for $10. Now worth $70, I wouldn't at all be surprised if this ends up being worth fuck all. But it's a $10 risk.

$dent might be one of these shitcoins too, though it's up 45% in 24 hours, recovering its recent losses. I have more faith in the future of this coin.

Bitcoin is here to stay, that really is the only coin I can say with confidence isn't going anywhere.

I would start by buying a broad range of coins at very low values and then try to come up with some algorithm to decide when to sell.

If you do this, then good luck. Lots of people succeed with this.

[OngBonga]

Hmm, now I think of it, that's not really what seems to be happening. It's more like there's a bunch of coins, and every once in a while one of them gets a kick and starts going up. The rest just seem to sit there doing nothing. Seems more consistent with the market encouragement/manipulation theory actually.

With the low market cap coins, yes I think this is a factor. I suspect there are organised whales moving from coin to coin pumping them and then dumping and moving on to the next coin.

[Poopadoop]

With the low market cap coins, yes I think this is a factor. I suspect there are organised whales moving from coin to coin pumping them and then dumping and moving on to the next coin.

If they're doing that, they're making a profit right? How does that make them whales?

[Poopadoop]

As for the market manipulation theory, I didn't say it was illegal. You can question the morality of it, like you can also question the morality of playing poker with fish. But I doubt anyone doing either is losing much if any sleep over it.

As for bots, what one could do if they were running a racket is start an army of bots that would promote coin X at time y, then stop them when you think coin X has peaked. You're probably right that Elon doesn't need to do that because he already has a huge platform and a giant flock of sheep, but most people aren't Elon.

[Poopadoop]

If you do this, then good luck. Lots of people succeed with this.

I have no plans to do it, because a) I am financially comfortable already; and b) I wouldn't get any satisfaction out of it, I just think it would be too easy.

I'm doing well at PLO right now, up about $1400 since the start of 2021. That's my current kick. But the fun of it to me is learning the complexities of the game and outplaying people, not earning a few extra $. I like winning.

[OngBonga]

If they're doing that, they're making a profit right? How does that make them whales?

A whale to me is someone with massive amounts of coins. Imagine a huge fuck off whale eating a ton of krill in a single mouthful.

[OngBonga]

As for bots, what one could do if they were running a racket is start an army of bots that would promote coin X at time y, then stop them when you think coin X has peaked.

This probably happens, but I doubt the influence of bots is all that huge. They're usually pretty obvious, I mean if you see many different accounts posting identical tweets, you can assume they're managed by the same person.

Bots don't tend to collect 1000s of genuine followers. Not that many people are influenced by them. It's probably more hassle than it's worth, and possibly even counterproductive. I mean, for every person you might suck into a coin, you might scare two off. Managing an army of bots successfully is a skill in its own right.

I'm doing well at PLO right now, up about $1400 since the start of 2021. That's my current kick. But the fun of it to me is learning the complexities of the game and outplaying people, not earning a few extra $. I like winning.

I like winning and making money from home. Not sure how much poker I'd play if I were already wealthy, probably not much other than social games. I strongly suspect I'd still invest in crypto though. I'd see it as a better investment vehicle than other options.