No I’m asking you what on earth you know about a cryptocurrency in general and what one would look like that is better than btc. Because if you knew literally anything about the space, you would know that someone has almost certainly launched their own coin touting those same properties. Faster, lower fees, etc. So explain to me what a better btc would be.
We'll probably both use the crypto that the US govt comes up with, honestly. The crypto bros will scoff the idea but a govt backed crypto would get the general public behind it more than btc. It's not what they envisioned but it's probably where we end up.
Do I really need to post the US dollar purchasing power timeline chart or can I assume you’re familiar with it? again the love of central banking and printing of dollars to debase what you currently own is fascinating.
Maybe one that's not largely owned by a few whales that can manipulate the market any time they want? Idk just a thought. Just stop spouting off shit as facts. You dont know what will happen. I dont know what will happen. Only one of us is self aware enough to realize that.
Criticizes as "spouting off shit as facts" yet says that btc is "largely owned by a few whales that can manipulate the market any time they want." Provide literally any factual support for the whales comment. I'll wait. Random aside: are there whales in the stock market? Do their moves "manipulate" the market, however you're defining that term? Also you realize that the creator of btc has 1 million + btc that have never been moved or sold right? Kind of the opposite of market manipulation when you think about it. Speaking of market manipulation, btc also doesn't have bailouts, fed intervention, or circuit breakers. It's the most free traded market in the world. Trading 24/7.
BANG ON THAT KEYBOARD SOME MORE! ONE MORE POST AND EVERYONE WILL SURELY FINALLY GET IT AND AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS ONE!
Also this is a laughable response to your claim about whales manipulating markets. Again I’ll wait on literally any factual support.
Why do you continue to ignore my position? I've never said btc can't be huge. I just laugh at you bc you KNOW it will be. Its factom all over again.
I haven’t ignored anything. I asked you to use your words to explain what a better btc looks like. You haven’t responded.
What you fail to realize is something doesn't have to be better to be the winner. See Biden vs Bernie.
This is an awful analogy. In your own words, why don't you try to explain to me why gold has served as a form of money throughout history. I think if you did some reading on traits of money or monetary history it would help you better understand what you're trying to argue.
What I'm arguing is that the public doesn't always adopt what's best for them. Do you really want to argue against that?
That's a totally broad and subjective thesis that ummmm sure I guess is true. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is what makes something a good form of money. A thought exercise for you: why has gold been a form of money in the past? Why not copper? Or silver? Or platinum?
It has everything to do with the topic at hand. It's funny that you can't grasp that. BTC can be the most perfect form of money ever created and still never be adopted by the public. You assume good form of money = guaranteed mass adoption but shit doesn't work like that. Saying that BTC is the only option is hilarious. Like batshit crazy hilarious.
No I absolutely do not assume BTC will have mass adoption. There are massive hurdles to that ever happening: user experience, a coordinated government intervention, etc. I'm fully aware that this is not snap your fingers and it has worldwide adoption. But you've argued that there could be some better form of it. I've asked you to articulate what that would look like. We haven't gotten anywhere, so let's just call it that you don't know and can't explain your position.
I've never said something else is or could be better. I've simply said being the best doesn't make it the one that gets universal adoption. I've said that several times. You just keep trying to spin my words into something else. I think this needs to be said again:
Raoul Pal has previously co-managed the GLG Global Macro Fund in London for GLG Partners, one of the largest hedge fund groups in the world. Raoul came to GLG from Goldman Sachs where he co-managed the hedge fund sales business in Equities and Equity Derivatives in Europe. Other stop-off points on the way were Natwest Markets and HSBC, although he began his career by training traders in technical analysis. Raoul Pal retired from managing client money in 2004 at the age of 36 and now lives on the Valencian coast of Spain, from where he writes for The Global Macro Investor. In 2008, Raoul also helped design the TV programme Million Dollar Traders for the BBC, and trained the participants in investment and risk management strategy. His articles have appeared several times in the press and he has also taken part in TV interviews.
It’s an asset class. Just like gold is. Gold is not a stock. And where have I ever gone back and forth? something being up 25% doesn’t make it a stock.
Lol. Make up your mind. Have I said btc is a stock or does comparing it to the market mean I think it’s a stock (which is truly stupid)? it’s compared to the market just like anything else would be. How is gold doing in the current recession? How’s the s&p? How are bonds? These are all relevant markets and comparisons.
You pick and choose what you want to compare it to. You say it's not a stock, but compare it to the stock market when the stock market tanks. Gold has handled the last month much better than BTC. You don't like that though so you don't mention it.
You really are a special level of stupid. Look up the definition of a stock once and then ask yourself why anyone would ever classify btc as a stock. My comparison above was to the general market today. Compare it to gold today. Or anything else you want that is being freely traded. I don’t give a shit. Are you the comparison police? Also stop being a pussy and short it.
I just like to laugh at your constant moving of the goalposts. It's money, going to take over usd! It's an asset, like gold! Look at it compared to stocks in the last 24 hours! Make up your mind what you think it is and what you want to compare it to. Or don't. It's pretty funny to watch.
And it's hilarious that you ALWAYS resort to calling people dumb and stupid bc they disagree with you. You did it with Factom, you do it now. You're a child.
Gold is a form of money and also an asset class you rube. You really should read an entry level book or at least google some basic financial terms. Please go tell anyone who invests that they can’t compare gold to the stock market or that gold is a stock. Also short it. Until then, you’re someone with an opinion and nothing to back it. You do the same shit in the Tesla thread. People explain to you why you’re dumb and you keep coming back for more. Short Tesla if you hate it. Same goes here. Your opinion is worthless if you won’t back it with your money.
And you completely skimmed over that you think it'll take over usd. It's usd, gold, a stock, and will cure this fucking virus. Truly remarkable.
I saw your post before replying. I’ll continue calling you dumb when you post dumb shit. Your inability to argue in good faith is why people on here dislike you. I’ve never once said it’s usd, gold, or a stock, but don’t let that stop your straw man. I do view it as a hedge against the devaluation of the usd because it’s a provably scarce asset. Even moreso than gold is scarce. You really should short it though. If someone like me who is so stupid to put money into it, then you’ll get rich shorting.
You really should learn how to be a fan of something while not thinking it'll cure cancer. But it is absolutely hilarious that you're back doing your same Factom shtick after that one went so poorly. You clearly didn't learn a thing.
But bitcoin is the only option for a global digital currency. user15000 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonb...s/?subId3=xid:fr1585053975784jgd#cc3ce734bea3
Dollars are already digital. And in no way limited in supply. The fed could print as many digital dollars as they just did US dollars. Don’t be obtuse. Also short it.
Ps I’d love for the us govt to make everyone create digital wallets to receive “digital dollars.” It would accelerate the adoption of btc when anyone with a brain realizes they can trade something that is unlimited and printed at the whims of old White guys in a private room for something that is limited in supply. Sadly it looks like the final version of the bill won’t include it. The fact that it was even up for serious consideration I’ll take as a net positive.
Right or wrong, the general public is going to trust a US govt coin more than Bitcoin. That's what you fail to realize.
New article from Parker Lewis on the fed's latest actions: https://unchained-capital.com/blog/bitcoin-is-a-rally-cry/
When the war is won, it will likely find its way directly into a constitutional amendment (even though it’s already covered by the first amendment). The right of the people to keep and bear bitcoin.
https://www.coindesk.com/corporate-america-knows-the-bailout-is-baked-in In the year 1730, the Irish-French economist Richard Cantillon described the uneven effect of newly issued money as it enters society. He made two common-sense observations: that money must enter the economy at a specific point of ingress; and that the devaluation that often follows issuance does not happen immediately, but over time, as the economy incorporates the new monetary issue. This means that the first spender has an advantage. Society hasn’t had the chance to recognize their dollars are worth slightly less yet. A “Cantillon insider,” consequently, is an individual who is able to monetize proximity to the printing press. (As far as I can tell, the term was coined by Nick Szabo.) In western countries, inflation-derived handouts typically do not happen transparently, because the population would be scandalized to witness them. Instead, they happen obliquely, and they are justified with recourse to euphemisms in op-eds insisting the government must do something. So let’s explore specifically how the latest fiscal and monetary outlay – equivalent to 25 percent of one year’s worth of America’s entire productive capacity – is being unevenly distributed. In short: The U.S. government is selectively distributing funds to entities most adept at positioning themselves for handouts The U.S. government is directly rewarding corporate failure and discouraging the standard process of capitalism A stimulus consisting solely of payouts to individuals or households would be far more direct, and much fairer, than the obscure and arbitrary handouts the state has devised instead. Instead, the stimulus is directed towards keeping corporations intact rather than having them suffer messy liquidations or restructurings. Corporate America has embraced fragility So do shareholders in these insolvent publicly traded companies deserve bailouts? Is it possible they, through no fault of their own, suffered an unfair fate and deserve to be rescued? To evaluate this, we must consider their capital allocation decisions over the last decade. Overwhelmingly, this involved repurchasing their own stock. While there is nothing inherently wrong with buybacks, they have, of late, been employed by corporate executives with a gusto that would make Crassus look miserly. When a company perceives there are no productive projects left to invest in, is it common to distribute some of their earnings to shareholders, either through buybacks or dividends (the former are more popular because they are tax-advantaged). The other instance when buybacks are defensible is when management believes the stock price is undervalued. But valuations are not low – they are historically rich, on a relative basis. And when a company not only dedicates its free cash flow almost entirely to buybacks but combines it with an insatiable appetite for debt, as virtually the entire corporate sector has done for the last decade, something is clearly amiss. See also: Nic Carter - Crypto Progressives Become Conservative With Their Own Chains What our largest corporations have done is trade a short-term appreciation in the share price (which rewards executives, who are primarily compensated with stock options), for long-term fragility. Lacking a strong balance sheet buffer, the slightest amount of volatility is sufficient to render a company insolvent. So why would boardrooms and the C-suite make this trade? Surely they knew that a low-volatility regime could not last forever. Even though the virus was unforeseeable, a crisis (of some kind or another) was not. The best answer I have is they internalized lessons from 2008-09. They guessed that, come an economic slowdown, they would be able to successfully lobby the government for a bailout. And this was a good bet, because our society is allergic to failure, choosing instead to stifle all trouble with the opiate of easy money. We set a lingering precedent in 2008-2009, and now we have opted to double down on the arrangement. Now what alternative would I propose, you may ask? Debt to GDP ratio, Source: St Louis Fed Very simple: Pass legislation allowing standard liquidation or restructuring processes to be expedited, so creditors can take over, companies can be bought at fire sale prices, capital can churn and the corporate sector can refresh itself as we start to extricate ourselves from the viral gauntlet. Remember: When companies go bankrupt, their assets do not disappear. The shareholders take a loss and restructuring or a sale occurs. As for the government stimulus, allocate it exclusively to households so they can support themselves during a forced lockdown. Make everyday folks, and not corporate shareholders, the Cantillon insiders. If corporations fail, equity holders should bear the necessary cost of their poor governance decisions, creditors should take over, and boardrooms should learn the meaning of risk once again. It will be a lesson they never forget. What many misunderstand is that this is not primarily a debate about the devaluation of the dollar. It’s entirely possible we escape inflation – although I expect that now extreme fiscal and monetary operations have been normalized, policymakers won’t want to give up their new toys so easily (see President Trump’s plea this week for a new $2 trillion infrastructure plan). No, even if the dollar somehow retains its purchasing power as the U.S. government mortgages itself to the hilt, the distortions will persist. What is happening now is a straightforward reallocation of society’s resources. The specifics have been well covered elsewhere. We all know that airlines spent 96 percent of their free cash flow on buybacks, and will now be bailed out. We know executives at bailout candidate Boeing siphoned $5.4 billion from the company, that dilution veiled through the clever employment of buybacks. All of this while refusing to invest in its fleet, leading to the deaths of 346 innocent souls. Then we have tax breaks to the tune of $170 billion for real estate investors, disproportionately benefiting the wealthy. And, of course, we have complete non-sequiturs, like $100 million earmarked “for the arts,” of which $25 million is directed to the Kennedy Center. These are the entities your government is preferentially rewarding with easy money, under the guise of rescuing the economy. THE MESSAGE IS VERY CLEAR: FAILURE AND RISK TAKING IS REWARDED AND ENCOURAGED. It’s undeniable that money entering society benefits those with the greatest proximity to the spigot. Honest economists evaluating the government’s stimulus plan should bite the bullet and concede these distortions are simply the cost society must bear in exchange for stability, rather than feigning that they don’t exist. They should explain to everyday Americans their direct handout is minuscule compared to the total size of the stimulus and that Congress prefers corporatism as the dominant organizational mode of society, even if the outcomes are profoundly unfair. Let me remind you why this is catastrophic for society and for the genuine capitalist impulse. Bailouts are not one and done. The market remembers. The dangled implicit promise of a bailout creates an institutional environment which selects for the most risk-seeking, pro-lobbying companies. And this isn’t the beginning: what is happening now is the culmination of a system which was entrenched for good in 2009. Moral hazard Think of the corporate environment like an ecology. Under normal circumstances, companies which unsustainably accumulate debt and return capital to shareholders instead of investing it in the business or retaining it as a buffer enter a fragile state, and suffer adverse consequences when faced with a crisis or shock. Their equity holders may be totally wiped out. However, in the pre-crisis period, they outperform their more conservative peers. The existence of this downside risk is what keeps reckless behavior in check. If you eliminate the negative consequences of risk taking, you reward these risk-seeking entities. Now the calculus is different. The companies taking on leverage and refusing to buy insurance (in the form of capital retained on the balance sheet) outperform in the short and long term, as the government writes them a gigantic free put option in the form of a bailout. The message is very clear: failure and risk taking is rewarded and encouraged. See also: Nic Carter - Policymakers Shouldn’t Fear Digital Money: So Far It’s Maintaining the Dollar’s Status The consequence is more restrained businesses that act responsibly and hedge against tail risks end up getting outcompeted, as they end up overpaying for insurance the government is giving out for free. The dominant corporate activity shifts away from innovation, R&D, and CapEx, towards ensuring shareholder equity is protected in a crisis by a watchful, paternalistic state. So this evolutionary environment yields a homogenous set of corporates that are socialized into taking on debt, aggressively returning capital and devoting energy towards wasteful lobbying efforts. We are left with a quasi-nationalized system. Standing in the way of the standard insolvency, restructuring or liquidation processes that undergird effective capitalism is a violation of nature: It arrests the destruction of capital and the revaluation of businesses. Individual mortality is what guarantees the thriving of the collective; conversely, prohibiting failure guarantees the stagnation of the whole. If failure becomes unacceptable, the members of that corporate setting reconfigure themselves to exploit the life-giver, to zombify and stagnate. We simply must permit businesses to fail. Richard Cantillon, via Wikimedia After the government rewarded the directors of insolvent financial institutions during the crisis of 2008-2009, the best we could muster as a response was a ragtag bunch of protestors in New York City's Zuccotti Park on the left, and the Tea Party and Ron Paul on the right. Today, these movements have been utterly defanged: There is no party that endorses fiscal responsibility or monetary restraint. Printing, easing and spending at the expense of tomorrow – these are some of the only shared hobbies of the Democrats and the Republicans. The truth is, both parties are profoundly beholden to the managerial class and this zombie-capitalist system they have incubated. The progressive movement tried valiantly to rid the Democratic Party of its corporate influence; the movement was brutally quashed not once but twice. And the Republicans have scarcely ever resisted the capital-political complex. Ultimately, policymakers will make their choice. But unlike in 2009, the population is more prepared now. Even though we have been temporarily cowed by the virus, the outrage will be no less fierce. The solution lies not within politics, but outside of it altogether: No vote can arrest this slide. The only genuine choice is dissociation altogether.