Yeh it wasn't real (sadly)Original Post Deleted
Yeh it wasn't real (sadly)Original Post Deleted
To me these read like words from a person stuck in their own bubble, but that’s fine — it’s what makes a market.
Many aspects of the current crypto ecosystem will go to zero as they should and no one in this thread has disagreed with that.
What really baffles me especially in light of all that’s happened in the last decade and change is where proponents of what I will loosely call traditional finance get so much confidence in the abilities of the “lords of finance” (still a great read) over an emergent system that has already shown a good deal of resilience.
Which bubble am I in?
And if you disagree with what I wrote, please respond with an argument and not a vague comment.
Especially explain to me why you think any end user would choose crypto in its current state for anything more than speculation over a centralised, regulated digital alternative that absorbs and provides all the benefits of crypto with none of the inherent risk?
A bubble where a "centralised, regulated digital alternative" could plausibly provide "all the benefits of crypto with none of the inherent risk".
For many the whole point of all this is decentralisation -- apolitical digital bearer instruments if you will -- precisely because centralised alternatives do not work for them for one reason or another. The reasons have been recapitulated many times, not sure how productive that conversation will be. The difference of opinion is on how plausible. For me the shortlist is censorship and seizure resistance, and predictable policy (open source code that in the case of Bitcoin anyway requires overwhelming consensus to change, at least on fundamental items like supply)
Still not answered my question. I'm not interested in some idealistic adopters (but would question whether they represent the "many"). I'm asking about mass adoption. Majority of people don't care about whether their payment instrument is decentralised or not, whether there is some vague potential of seizure - they care that it is secure, convenient and fully covered in case of problems. For every advantage crypto can list, if it can't get over these fundamentals then it will remain a speculative asset class and a very niche - and often unethical -payment instrument
What do you guys know that the BoE are missing?
'Bank of England Deputy Governor Jon Cunliffe sees a possibility for crypto meltdown survivors to become the future technology companies, rivaling Amazon.com Incand eBay Inc,'
'He emphasized "huge applications and potential within the financial sector" for crypto technology despite the current scenario and expected crypto technology and finance to continue amid odds.'
https://news.yahoo.com/boe-explains-...172726528.html
Another Central Banker view. The last paragraph is basically what everyone has been saying about future regulation
https://www.getverse.com/?utm_source...paign=getverse
Ok guys.
Anyway, some interesting and hopefully thought provoking comments from Vlad Putin in this thread. Not a nice man but not a stupid man either.
I don't necessarily subscribe to the author's implied (biased) conclusion, but I will say it is quite amazing how closely macro trends are following the scenarios described by many years ago by hardcore Austrian econ Bitcoiners. BTC on the balance sheet of public companies, pension funds, governments would have been seen as completely absurd by the majority even in 2016 but is now a reality. How certain are you that the trend of increased BTC adoption, increased recognition by nation states and increased tendency to see BTC as a commodity slow? I myself am not confident one way or another but it seems excessively hasty to dismiss the notion out of hand.
Volatility aside, looking long term the 'BTC as a reserve asset' narrative seems to be strengthening rather than weakening. When all currencies are weakening versus the dollar and the dollar is weakening versus commodities... It does pose questions.
https://twitter.com/stackhodler/stat...R7r7rLojHPaAYQ
The bulk of organised criminal hacker activity (with government backing or at least a deliberate blind eye) comes out of Russia, and much of this involves transfers in BTC. The country is in a major economic tiff with much of the Western world.
Anything that Putin says regarding cryptocurrency is going to be utterly self-serving at the very least. And a more cynical view would be that anything he says regarding this would be include some element to deliberately undermine Western systems.
I cannot believe that you posted this up as some kind of evidence for cryptocurrencies. Is this some kind of wind-up?
Edit: This is like an arsonist saying that kerosene should be a bigger part of consumer purchasing, and that it should be sold in convenience stores. And then someone else nodding his head saying "yeah, the guy has interesting and thought provoking points."
Last edited by jgl; 23-06-2022 at 11:11 PM.