Why hate cryptocurrency?

This is like an Agape poster saying “other than it being a scam, why are you opposed to It?”.

3 Likes

The market cap of Dogecoin is over a billion dollars. Dogecoin is an intentional spoof thing.

Mine is what I already stated, but I can try to clarify. Over the next 5-10 years, the top 100 tokens/coins exclusively controlled by cryptographic networks, will have a market cap well over $1 trillion.

I guess you can ask for the basis for this thesis. Basically it’s just that people will find value in being able to use applications where their data and use is not at the whim of large companies. Cryptoassets are exclusively positioned to be able to do this. Some of this may be to transfer wealth, some may be for everyday financial transactions, but others will be in the form of messaging, social networks, cloud computing, prediction markets, asset exchanges, notary services, digital rights transfers, file transfers, and many others no one has thought of yet.

I think this is comparable to the .com bubble. Sure, we’re in an over-excited speculative market. Many of these cryptoassets are going to be like pets.com. But, some will succeed dramatically, like Amazon. There were only 9 months of the past 2 decades where investing in the nasdaq was worse than the s&p (held until today). Are we in the equivalent of the early part of 2000? Or 1999, or 1996? I don’t know. But I think it’s an sector worth being in for the long run.

2 Likes

Yeah there is certainly some parallels to the internet boom phase.

1 Like

I named my kid bitcoin, now people just throw money at him.

4 Likes

I think the most valuable uses of blockchain tech/this whole BTC craze will have nothing to do with currency, recording transactions, etc (this is just my own guess and I’m far from a tech/bitcoin/blockchain expert or even probably knowledgeable party). There are companies who believe there are ways to use the blockchain to facilitate other processes, where it’s not just about creating a good set of records.

Cryptos are not for the faint of heart. High volatility, opaque price movements, rampant market manipulation. It’s how the stock market used to be – before the FED backstopped it and removed the risk of loss. Now investing in the Total Stock Market Index is a snoozer.; it only goes up!

What interested me is the picture you had to provide. Hope they’ve gotten rid of it.

Some ten plus years ago, I purchased some used CompactFlash cards on eBay, and as usual, before putting them into service I performed a full un-erase to see what was on them. What I found, amongst a bunch of various shots of people flinging bodily fluids were young female participants holding up both their DLs and SS cards. Hot young 18 year-old ones too. All in Canon 35mm rah-rah-RAW!!!

Thinking on it - had the stuff fallen into the wrong hands … especially now since the girls may have wised up and moved onto a more palatable life that could be immediately ruined. Blackmail, assassinations, etc., all come to mind.

Consider it an appreciating asset, if you get my drift.

PR0N

A half a billion dollars.

GodelianKnot , I agree that Cryptoassets is a better term than CC, wish it would catch on.

I appreciate your trying to articulate the value proposition. I’d like to see you flesh out why you see the facebook network effect as analgous to these effects, though.

FB has a massive content infrastructure and legacy that makes it “sticky” for users in a way that isn’t apparent here (or not to me, at least).

1 Like

I actually didn’t mean a network effect in that it would keep people in a sticky way. What I mean, is that the Facebook codebase without the Facebook network is worthless. If you copied the code of Facebook and ran facebookcopy.com, you’d have nothing unless you can convince a large number of people to switch to it. Likewise, copying the code of a cryptoasset is not very valuable if you don’t have anyone using it.

I was addressing the concern that someone holding a given cryptoasset could be wiped out by a copy of that particular coin taking over instead. While it is possible, there has to be some incentive to switch over to use the new copy, and there has to be critical mass of users in order for it to be secure and useful. Furthermore, there’s often infrastructure built up around each coin, which doesn’t easily switch over. So, the larger the existing network, the harder it can be to switch to a new, equivalent one. So maybe in that sense, they can be sticky.

Of course, if there are high fees and slow transactions in one network, for example, there could be good enough incentives to switch to a new, equivalent network.

2 Likes

Thanks for clarifying, GodelianKnot . That helps.

Do you think there will be a “killer app” functionality of one or more cryptos that will leave one standing above the field? Or is the dynamic likely to work differently?

I don’t think it will leave one standing above. But I do think the vast majority will be left way behind by the top 10-100. Perhaps something like Ethereum that provides a backbone for many others could be dramatically above the rest though.

Overall, I think the dynamic is similar to the tech boom. But one interesting difference is that these coins need virtually nothing to continue existing. Unlike .com’s that went bankrupt, there’s not really any reason that dogecoin (eg) will cease to operate. As long as the coin is worth anything, it can provide incentives to miners to operate the network. So, it’s harder for me to imagine the scenario that wipes out a bunch of the cruft.

Uh oh spaghettios crashing

There is a difference between a “crash” and a “correction.” Only folks who got in the game late call it a crash. Logical people call it a correction, of which we’ve been waiting for.

1 Like

its going to zero when tether gets destroyed

Now you’re just talking nonsense. You really discredited yourself with that comment.

1 Like

Right when i said that it went up $1000

It’s relative. It will crash to zero relative to the stupid valuations it had and continue to have.

Zero is absolute, not relative.

1 Like