# "If crypto is not the answer to our money problems, what is?" Good FT article



## Brendan Burgess

Cryptocurrencies are not the new monetary system we need
					

‘The more the sorrier’: They proliferate uncontrollably and are objects of speculation rather than stores of value




					www.irishtimes.com
				




_The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) — the club of central banks — has been prominent in the effort to address this question. The latest result is part of its annual report, which analyses the emerging ecosystem of cryptocurrencies, stablecoins and exchanges.

This brave new system is — it concludes — inherently flawed. The crypto crash (and preceding bubble) shows that cryptocurrencies are objects of speculation rather than stores of value. That also makes them unusable as units of account. As the BIS notes: “The prevalence of stablecoins, which attempt to peg their value to the US dollar or other conventional currencies, indicates the pervasive need in the crypto sector to piggyback on the credibility provided by the unit of account issued by the central bank. In this sense, stablecoins are the manifestation of crypto’s search for a nominal anchor.”
...
(The current monetary system)  falls short, especially on cross-border payments. The BIS envisages in its place a system in which central banks would continue to provide payment “finality” on their balance sheets. But new branches could grow on the central bank’s trunk. Above all, central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) could permit a revolutionary restructuring of monetary systems._


----------



## DazedInPontoon

> _This brave new system is — it concludes — inherently flawed. The crypto crash (and preceding bubble) shows that cryptocurrencies are objects of speculation rather than stores of value. _



_This legacy system is — I conclude — inherently flawed. Turkey's inflation being at 80% and the __Lebanese banking/currency crisis__ system are just two recent examples showing that centralised authorities cannot guarantee robustness, or value, of a fiat currency system._

Seriously though, I can't access the article, but is cross border payments the biggest shortfall they identified?


----------



## Horatio

I'm not at all surprised that BIS would highlight the shortcoming of an emerging competitive financial ecosystem - it's in their direct centralised interest to demote decentralised finance. They are diametrically opposed systems.

That is not to say they are wrong, there certainly are problems with this new ecosystem that is trying to grow up & serve many purposes, financial among them. There will be pretenders of course & they will fail or be exposed & people will be scalded along the way. That's the case with most new technology until the deadwood is trimmed/ falls away & the real value providers rise to the top & reach a steady state of operations & sustainable growth.

Further, Crypto is in it's regulatory infancy which doesn't help matters. I'm quite sure the traditional financial houses/markets have had their wild west days before regulations were written & refined. Some might say the traditional financial houses still operate like the wild west despite the presence of mature regulation.

I believe this is a copy of the original FT article: https://paperwriter.ca/cryptocurrencies-are-not-the-new-monetary-system-we-need


----------



## tecate

DazedInPontoon said:


> Seriously though, I can't access the article, but is cross border payments the biggest shortfall they identified?


It seems this is the same article here - but without the paywall.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Horatio said:


> That is not to say they are wrong, there certainly are problems with this new ecosystem that is trying to grow up & serve many purposes,


The BIS paper highlighted to me the inherent flaw that the greater the transaction activity on a crypto network, the greater the unit cost of validating each transaction, see chart on the left.







This is a kind of negative scalability. It's the opposite of what you have in other systems where spreading more transactions across a largely fixed cost base reduces unit costs.


I'm not sure that this issue is resolvable.


----------



## tecate

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> I'm not sure that this issue is resolvable.


In the case of Bitcoin, it has already been resolved. Wolf is behind the curve in his comments on scalability. This has historically been a problem for cryptocurrencies but it is being dealt with through layer 2 solutions.

In case there's any question on this, install muun wallet - and you'll see that it's possible to transact money at fractions that are not economic via visa/mastercard. This ability to pay in micro-amounts is leading to new use cases. A system of streaming payments is being used by podcasters - so that listeners can choose to pay a fraction of a cent per minute, etc.


----------



## Horatio

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> The BIS paper highlighted to me the inherent flaw that the greater the transaction activity on a crypto network, the greater the unit cost of validating each transaction, see chart on the left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a kind of negative scalability. It's the opposite of what you have in other systems where spreading more transactions across a largely fixed cost base reduces unit costs.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that this issue is resolvable.



Referring to the chart on the left: that is Ethereum specific data it seems & yes Ethereum has it's fair share of problems with "Gas fees" being incredibly high for even low value transactions - this is quite a specific ethereum problem & should not necessarily be applied as consistent across other crypto technologies.

It may turn out to be the case that Ethereum as a leading edge technology has bumped up against a constraint that they may or may not be able to remediate. In any case someone somewhere will, or perhaps has already resolved this issue & will bubble to the top & displace those players that have not / cannot overcome the "gas fees" issue.

The Cardano network as I understand it are making quite a good fist of sustainable scalability & interoperability using proof of stake validation as opposed to proof of work validation.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

@tecate @Horatio 

I hate physical retail. I made my first online purchase in 2001 and try to transact online as much as I can.

But in my daily life I do not see any payments problem for which crypto is a solution.


----------



## CuriousGeorge11

Horatio said:


> Referring to the chart on the left: that is Ethereum specific data it seems & yes Ethereum has it's fair share of problems with "Gas fees" being incredibly high for even low value transactions - this is quite a specific ethereum problem & should not necessarily be applied as consistent across other crypto technologies.
> 
> It may turn out to be the case that Ethereum as a leading edge technology has bumped up against a constraint that they may or may not be able to remediate. In any case someone somewhere will, or perhaps has already resolved this issue & will bubble to the top & displace those players that have not / cannot overcome the "gas fees" issue.
> 
> The Cardano network as I understand it are making quite a good fist of sustainable scalability & interoperability using proof of stake validation as opposed to proof of work validation.


I make a dozen transactions on Cosmos daily, fees are less than a cent and finality seems to take about a second. Theres a reason Dydx left eth


----------



## Horatio

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> @tecate @Horatio
> 
> I hate physical retail. I made my first online purchase in 2001 and try to transact online as much as I can.
> 
> But in my daily life I do not see any payments problem for which crypto is a solution.


I tend to agree, online retail payments work really well these days for those of us living in modern society with level 3 & level 4 income levels.

There is however a bunch of folks around the world that don't have access to modern well run socieies, are not able to get a bank account or transact online, communicate online because they don't have internet or don't have access to a retail bank's services or in some cases don't even have a form of identification that would allow them to interact with financial or government or educational institutions. 

They're isolated by virtue of their fringe status individually or as part of a fringe society - some Crypto, I'm thinking Cardano specifically & it's founder Charles Hoskinson has aspirations to address this very problem.

He's worth looking up & viewing his you tube videos to see his aspirations for the Cardano network - "To bank the unbanked"


----------



## Horatio

CuriousGeorge11 said:


> I make a dozen transactions on Cosmos daily, fees are less than a cent and finality seems to take about a second. Theres a reason Dydx left eth


Sorry, I can't really comment other than to observe you're satisfied with transaction speeds you're getting, right? 
Are those ETH transactions specifically? I'm not familiar with those platforms


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Horatio said:


> There is however a bunch of folks around the world that don't have access to modern well run socieies, are not able to get a bank account or transact online, communicate online because they don't have internet or don't have access to a retail bank's services or in some cases don't even have a form of identification that would allow them to interact with financial or government or educational institutions.


Okay so you live in Tanzania. Your currency is prone to inflation but all of your dealings are in local currency. You don't have a bank account but you do have a smartphone. 

Why wouldn't an e-money service via app in local currency not work for you? Customer ID via facial recognition and fingerprint is getting better and better. Additional customer authentication via SMS. 

What would a crypto solution give you that an e-money provider wouldn't? Perhaps a saving on transactions fees but massive currency risk. 

For crypto to make any sense as a payments solution you need some combination of a _really _unreliable local currency or to be dealing in _illegal _goods or services. This will not apply to the vast, vast majority of use cases at a global level.


----------



## CuriousGeorge11

Horatio said:


> Sorry, I can't really comment other than to observe you're satisfied with transaction speeds you're getting, right?
> Are those ETH transactions specifically? I'm not familiar with those platforms


No it's not ethereum. 

Transaction speeds are quick and cheap. I reinvest right now as I wouldnt sell anything at these prices personally. 

I was using it for day to day expenses like groceries/drinks/cinema/clothes etc.


----------



## tecate

> The crypto crash (and preceding bubble) shows that cryptocurrencies are objects of speculation rather than stores of value. That also makes them unusable as units of account.



It shows that they have been subject to hype cycles, yes. It doesn't mean that this will always be the case (or at the very least, not to the same extent). Crypto is far from having reached a point of maturity. In a world where the euro has lost 20% of its international buying power in a short space of time, I don't believe that Bitcoin will have the same level of volatility once mature.




> “The prevalence of stablecoins, which attempt to peg their value to the US dollar or other conventional currencies, indicates the pervasive need in the crypto sector to piggyback on the credibility provided by the unit of account issued by the central bank. In this sense, stablecoins are the manifestation of crypto’s search for a nominal anchor.”


Stablecoins have found their own use case in their own right. They certainly complement fully fledged crypto - and help create a world in which there is no need to off-ramp from the tokenised world at all. It's certainly useful to have them in the interim as cryptocurrencies move on to maturity.



> There are now about 10,000 cryptocurrencies. There could just as well be 1 billion.


Complete nonsense - that has long since been outed. That there are so many projects is good in terms of innovation. This space is experimental - and out of that experimentation real solutions and use cases will emerge. Aside from the other reality which is that of those projects, only a handful pursue a purely 'money' use case/function. We've had this claim pop up here multiple times (including the past week) - In the same way as you can't just copy and paste a Facebook or a Google, you can't copy and paste Bitcoin - not without the challenger being 10x better (because it will have to be 10x better in order to overcome its existing network effect).



> In a good monetary system, the greater the number of users, the lower the costs of transactions and so the greater its utility. But as more people use a cryptocurrency, the greater the congestion and the more costly the transactions.


The issue of scalability has already been outed above i.e. it has either been dealt with (for the most part in the case of Bitcoin/Lightning Network) or is in the process of being dealt with on the smart contracting platforms (There are layer 2 scaling solutions for Ethereum, Ethereum itself as a L1 blockchain is in transition with a view to addressing this directly OR there are other blockchains that have solved this issue).



> One cannot have all three of security, decentralisation and scalability. In practice, cryptocurrencies sacrifice the last. The crypto system gets around this handicap with “bridges” across blockchains. But these are vulnerable to hacks.



Bridges have been notorious as regards hacks - that's for sure. However, in those cases, we're seeing experimentation to resolve these problems. It's fair enough to draw attention to it - but they should qualify that by acknowledging that as this experimentation goes on, there are likely to be appropriate solutions found. Bridging is relevant to the smart contract chains for the most part. Bitcoin already has a L2 scaling solution that doesn't implicate bridging.



> Part of the answer is to insist that crypto meets the standards expected of any significant part of the financial system. Among other things, exchanges must “know their customers”.


Applying regulation that was designed for the legacy system is not in any way appropriate for crypto. Here's a former regulator ( Chris Giancarlo  - former CFTC Chairman ) who understands exactly how this should work.



> Today’s system falls short, especially on cross-border payments.


No kidding - and there would be no admission of an issue to be solved here if it hadn't been for the emergence of crypto.



> The fundamental point is that the crypto universe does not provide a desirable alternative monetary system.


There are all manner of technological solutions required within crypto still - in tandem with education and much more work to be done on the user experience. I think it's far too early to say how it performs over the longer stretch. At the very least, I would be very surprised if it is not a value add - as an additional option and choice for people.


----------



## Horatio

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Okay so you live in Tanzania. Your currency is prone to inflation but all of your dealings are in local currency. You don't have a bank account but you do have a smartphone.
> 
> Why wouldn't an e-money service via app in local currency not work for you? Customer ID via facial recognition and fingerprint is getting better and better. Additional customer authentication via SMS.
> 
> What would a crypto solution give you that an e-money provider wouldn't? Perhaps a saving on transactions fees but massive currency risk.
> 
> For crypto to make any sense as a payments solution you need some combination of a _really _unreliable local currency or to be dealing in _illegal _goods or services. This will not apply to the vast, vast majority of use cases at a global level.


From an exclusive payments perspective i won't argue that point with you there are however other applications beyond payments that can bring the "unbanked" into the fold of financial or government or educational institutions.

Get an indisputable digital ID.
Enroll in an education course with that ID.
Gain an indisputible qualification that is linked verifiably to your digital ID.
Register with local health services, have your familys medical history tracked indisputibly. 
Open a bank account / DeFi account with your ID - gain access to non punitive lines of credit.
Improve your's & your family's welfare trough investment in technology or better standard of living- break a cycle of poverty or other suboptimal cross generational cycles of behavior in the pursuit of survival. 

Identification in so many low income level countries is such a mess that their systems are doomed to fail - it is a foundational block to progressing.


----------



## tecate

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Okay so you live in Tanzania. Your currency is prone to inflation but all of your dealings are in local currency. You don't have a bank account but you do have a smartphone.
> 
> Why wouldn't an e-money service via app in local currency not work for you? Customer ID via facial recognition and fingerprint is getting better and better. Additional customer authentication via SMS.


Mpesa has been championed on that basis - and has proven to be reasonably effective. However, as Horatio pointed out, large swaythes of the planet don't have well functioning fiat currencies, governance, banking, etc. Many of these places put barriers in place such as capital controls. If a solution is centralised, then its liable to be upended. Simple as that.
Otherwise, those solutions are local. As we move more and more toward digitisation and working within and without borders, movement of value becomes far more challenging.



NoRegretsCoyote said:


> What would a crypto solution give you that an e-money provider wouldn't? Perhaps a saving on transactions fees but massive currency risk.


Freedom to transact internationally. I gave the example last week of an eCommerce professional working on a self employed basis here in Latin America. He told me he accepts crypto from customers all around the globe. It's workable. The current system is not. As regards currency risk, these guys are not bothered about the currency risk of bitcoin when they look at the p poor performance of their local currencies - and when they consider how bitcoin performs over the longer term (i.e. not cherry picking timeframes).  I've paid $100 for international wire transfers in this region. I've had to hand over hard earned money to a rent seeking intermediary to move USD from the US to a latin country without even the need for fx conversion - and that cost me a weeks worth of pay - over the course of last year.




NoRegretsCoyote said:


> For crypto to make any sense as a payments solution you need some combination of a _really _unreliable local currency or to be dealing in _illegal _goods or services. This will not apply to the vast, vast majority of use cases at a global level.


The illegal notion is not where this is at. The barriers that are put in place by the legacy system is what this is about. And the mistake that Irish people make is that because they've been privileged in living in a relatively stable place with better performing currency (if we can still call the euro losing 20% of its international buying power 'better performing'), that's not the reality for billions around the world.
That doesn't mean to say that there still isn't a use case in first world countries. It's just not the lowest hanging fruit for crypto right now. Imagine if you spend 100 euro with a merchant in Ireland, paying via visa/mastercard. Now imagine that he can pass on the 3-4% in fees if you opt for a direct crypto payment instead?


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Horatio said:


> Get an indisputable digital ID.


The US is complete chaos for ID systems compared to somewhere like Portugal, but still manages to be much richer.



Horatio said:


> Register with local health services, have your familys medical history tracked indisputibly.


I don't see what the issue is here. For most purposes in most places name and DOB gives a unique match when it comes to a lookup. Who lies about their name and DOB to their doctor? What you are proposing here is some kind of unique digital ID, which is nice but I don't think will change the world.



Horatio said:


> Open a bank account / DeFi account with your ID - gain access to non punitive lines of credit.


E-money providers using fiat currencies will be able to carry out credit scoring and then branch into lending, much cheaper than incumbent banks can. What does use of crypto provide here?

I'm a mainstream consumer in a western country with a stable currency. I still see zero use cases for a cryptocurrency as a payment solution for me, and no one can give me one.


----------



## CuriousGeorge11

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> I'm a mainstream consumer in a western country with a stable currency. I still see zero use cases for a cryptocurrency as a payment solution for me, and no one can give me one.



Online gambling in America is illegal so people use crypto to gamble online


----------



## 24601

CuriousGeorge11 said:


> Online gambling in America is illegal so people use crypto to gamble online


So your use case for someone in Ireland is that it assists Americans in breaking the law? Hahaha.


----------



## CuriousGeorge11

24601 said:


> So your use case for someone in Ireland is that it assists Americans in breaking the law? Hahaha.


He asked for a use case for someone living in the western world. 

I provided a use case for an industry that turns over billions and by the way, how is it breaking any laws


----------



## Horatio

@ NRC, you make fair counterpoints above but if something can be improved even incrementally isn't that worth pursuing?
It may or may not stand the test of time & if it is displaced by a better alternative then so be it but isn't it worth trying to improve?
Even if technology x does not win out, other players can learn from the exploits of technology x & improve their offerings.

What is the alternative? Status quo in perpetuity?


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

tecate said:


> However, as Horatio pointed out, large swaythes of the planet don't have well functioning fiat currencies,


This is a bit of a myth. For the last 20 years inflation has averaged between 5% and 10% for the large group of countries the World Bank defines as "low income".



tecate said:


> Freedom to transact internationally. I gave the example last week of an eCommerce professional working on a self employed basis here in Latin America. He told me he accepts crypto from customers all around the globe. It's workable. The current system is not. *As regards currency risk, these guys are not bothered about the currency risk of bitcoin when they look at the p poor performance of their local currencies*



Volatility of Bitcoin vs US dollar or euro is comparable to the worst-managed currencies in the whole world. Saying there is less currency risk than the Venezuelan Bolivar is not saying much.



tecate said:


> The illegal notion is not where this is at.


Of course it is used by transnational criminals. Europol and Interpol highlight this.



tecate said:


> The barriers that are put in place by the legacy system is what this is about.


Most of these barriers are there to prevent money laundering, criminal activity, and tax evasion in the first place.




tecate said:


> Imagine if you spend 100 euro with a merchant in Ireland, paying via visa/mastercard. Now imagine that he can pass on the 3-4% in fees if you opt for a direct crypto payment instead?


Those fees are more like 1%. And for that Visa/Mastercard will provide terminals, ancillary services, etc.




Horatio said:


> What is the alternative? Status quo in perpetuity?


I'm old enough to have been paid weekly by cheque and would troop to the bank every week to lodge this piece of paper. I'd then have to check my balance in the ATM every day until the funds had cleared and I could withdraw the cash. It was an awful use of my time and effort!

Payments services in fiat currencies have improved remarkably for the better in the last two decades and I do not see any obvious use case for cryptocurrencies. Once central bank digital currencies are ubiquitous they will have even less potential use in payments.


----------



## tecate

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> This is a bit of a myth. For the last 20 years inflation has averaged between 5% and 10% for the large group of countries the World Bank defines as "low income".


In no way is this a 'myth'. You think it's a  myth in Turkey, Lebanon or Argentina right now? In those three examples, 130 million people are affected and that's just the start of it. Other than that, in what world is 10% inflation something not to bat an eyelid at? (I guess 2022 has normalised it, right?).



NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Volatility of Bitcoin vs US dollar or euro is comparable to the worst-managed currencies in the whole world. Saying there is less currency risk than the Venezuelan Bolivar is not saying much.


You're missing the point I made. Someone who has been exposed to hyperinflation isn't going to be as appalled by Bitcoin's volatility as you are. Also, in what you just stated, there's another issue. Bitcoin's volatility is not comparable with the hyper-inflation of the worst fiat currencies. In the case of the worst fiat currencies, that's not volatility - that's money go bye bye - permanently. Zoom out (rather than cherry pick timeframes working back from a hype cycle top) and look at the higher lows Bitcoin has put in year on year over 13 years. On that basis, no funds have been lost, quite the opposite.



NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Of course it is used by transnational criminals. Europol and Interpol highlight this.


Any peer reviewed papers I've come across in the past few years have all indicated that crypto implicates less illicit use than fiat currency.



NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Most of these barriers are there to prevent money laundering, criminal activity, and tax evasion in the first place.


And the world bank has come out and said long since that it does a p poor job in doing so. I disagree entirely with this nonsense. Check out Chris Giancarlo's thoughts on this (that I linked to in the post above) - and the approach that can be taken without causing all manner of friction.



NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Those fees are more like 1%. And for that Visa/Mastercard will provide terminals, ancillary services, etc.


They range between 1-4% in the western world. In developing countries, I've typically been asked to cough up 5% additional if I'm paying via visa to cover these fees.



NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Payments services in fiat currencies have improved remarkably for the better in the last two decades and I do not see any obvious use case for cryptocurrencies. Once central bank digital currencies are ubiquitous they will have even less potential use in payments.


If you think that CBDCs will make the likes of Bitcoin irrelevant, you've completely misunderstood what Bitcoin is. Quite the opposite - CBDCs will be the greatest advertisement ever for the likes of Bitcoin.


----------



## CuriousGeorge11

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> This is a bit of a myth. For the last 20 years inflation has averaged between 5% and 10% for the large group of countries the World Bank defines as "low income".
> 
> 
> 
> Volatility of Bitcoin vs US dollar or euro is comparable to the worst-managed currencies in the whole world. Saying there is less currency risk than the Venezuelan Bolivar is not saying much.
> 
> 
> Of course it is used by transnational criminals. Europol and Interpol highlight this.
> 
> 
> Most of these barriers are there to prevent money laundering, criminal activity, and tax evasion in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> Those fees are more like 1%. And for that Visa/Mastercard will provide terminals, ancillary services, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm old enough to have been paid weekly by cheque and would troop to the bank every week to lodge this piece of paper. I'd then have to check my balance in the ATM every day until the funds had cleared and I could withdraw the cash. It was an awful use of my time and effort!
> 
> Payments services in fiat currencies have improved remarkably for the better in the last two decades and I do not see any obvious use case for cryptocurrencies. Once central bank digital currencies are ubiquitous they will have even less potential use in payments.



I understand you fail to see any use cases for crypto so you must have a fairly good understanding of how to use it as you speak with such expertise. 

I'm just curious if you could explain how someone could spend crypto in their local shop


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Stablecoins!  What a contradiction at the core of the cultist credo. Crypto is designed to escape the instability of fiat and yet for "stability" they require one of their own to be pegged to that instability.  Go figure.

I think all this central bank riffing on about crypto even in critical vein just gives it credibility.  Why don't they just follow the Chinese and call it what it is: *utterly worthless*.


----------



## 24601

CuriousGeorge11 said:


> I provided a use case for an industry that turns over billions and by the way, how is it breaking any laws





CuriousGeorge11 said:


> Online gambling in America is illegal so people use crypto to gamble online



Eh, I think you answered your own question there chief.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I think all this central bank riffing on about crypto even in critical vein just gives it credibility.  Why don't they just follow the Chinese and call it what it is: *utterly worthless*.


Well said comrade. It's that communist perspective that's been lacking the whole time.


----------



## CuriousGeorge11

24601 said:


> Eh, I think you answered your own question there chief.



I dont think I did. Who said gambling with crypto was illegal


----------



## 24601

CuriousGeorge11 said:


> I dont think I did. Who said gambling with crypto was illegal



I don't know if you're being intentionally obtuse but you said gambling is illegal in the US and that a use case for crypto is to circumvent this.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> Well said comrade. It's that communist perspective that's been lacking the whole time.


This wasn't razor sharp wit first time round.  After the umpteenth repeat it occurs to me that you might actually be meaning something.  As a high priest of the cult can you explain to me why communists would be particularly opposed to bitcoin?


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> This wasn't razor sharp wit first time round.  After the umpteenth repeat it occurs to me that you might actually be meaning something.  As a high priest of the cult can you explain to me why communists would be particularly opposed to bitcoin?


I'll have to mope about and suffer the indignation of my wit not reaching comrade marmalade's standards - but I'll get over it. Do I need to explain to you how the authoritarian state/surveillance state/anything but freedom state Chinese communists would be particularly opposed to a decentralised currency that the people control rather than the regime controlling? So desperate is comrade marmalade in grasping at any old thing to support his world view.

So, I'm not even going to 'critique' you promoting China's view that Bitcoin is *utterly worthless* (I'll even bold that out for you) because for obvious reasons, it's an advertisement of Bitcoin's credentials and likelihood of further development and not the opposite. I draw the line just beyond critique of the central bank of central banks (BIS) 'turkey's don't vote for Christmas' view vis-a-vis Bitcoin.

But please do continue stating that China says Bitcoin is *utterly worthless* .....because it's *utterly priceless*.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

@tecate "my worldview"?  Yes that is cult stuff - if one is against bitcoin it must be because one has a faulty worldview.  For what it's worth I would not be in favour of communism.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> @tecate "my worldview"?  Yes that is cult stuff - if one is against bitcoin it must be because one has a faulty worldview.  For what it's worth I would not be in favour of communism.


"If one is against bitcoin" I'd imagine that it is possible to make your argument without relying upon a report produced by the Chinese that is the upshot of a policy decision taken by the CCP to try and suppress Bitcoin within the territory because it puts control in the hands of its users rather than that authoritarian, freedom suppressing, surveillance state.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> "If one is against bitcoin" I'd imagine that it is possible to make your argument without relying upon a report produced by the Chinese that is the upshot of a policy decision taken by the CCP to try and suppress Bitcoin within the territory because it puts control in the hands of its users rather than that authoritative, freedom suppressing, surveillance state.


And Roubini is the nutty professor and Krugman got it wrong on fax machines.  Chinese are commies.  Shoot the messenger


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> And Roubini is the nutty professor and Krugman got it wrong on fax machines.  Chinese are commies.  Shoot the messenger


Your hero (Roubini) featured here in 2018 by way of a couple of youtube clips of him 'discussing' crypto - where he spoke and acted like a deranged lunatic. The story of Professor fax machine is relevant as it's a 'nobel' (and you tell us you will just trust unquestioningly whatever a 'nobel' spouts) - and in the case where he states that the internet will have no more impact than the fax machine, it's incredibly pertinent to the consideration of crypto. It demonstrates that he has no notion of technology. Bitcoin is a technology first - and financial innovation second.

But maybe I wasn't being harsh enough on the guy. Here is professor fax machine commenting on his alleged area of expertise - telling us that money printing doesn't lead to inflation.



> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1374381286530244614


----------



## time to plan

CuriousGeorge11 said:


> Online gambling in America is illegal so people use crypto to gamble online


Same with terrorism.


----------



## letitroll

Crypto is not the savior for anybody, anywhere.......all these morons thinking their gonna get their lambos that way and their nonsense journey to financial independence via crypto......which when you dig into it boils down to them watching a number on a screen move around and trying to get others "into it" so their coin goes up......get rich quick doing nothing except hitting a few phone buttons is an attractive alternative reality, its a fantasy.............but the solution to peoples money problems I'm afraid are the old fashioned kind.......under spend your income, delay gratification, get up in the morning and grind it out, do hard things, do them better than the other fellow, add value, go asleep do it all over again. 

Can't remember who said it but the best way to get what you want (say money), is to deserve what you want......for the crypto peeps in for the 'easy' money well over time they will get what they deserve and its not what they expect but they will truly deserve it.


----------



## tecate

letitroll said:


> Crypto is not the savior for anybody, anywhere.


So what you're essentially saying is that the premise of the article is entirely wrong. A duplicate article could be written that 'flipping real estate is not the savior for anybody', 'trading stocks is not the savior for anybody'. It's wrong because it assumes that everyone is taking this approach and believing that to be the case. That's not the case.

There's a mistake being made - not just on AAM, elsewhere also - that characterises everyone involved in crypto in the same category i.e. lazy, thoughtless, greedy degens who's approach and input is 'number go up' and no more. Do those people exist? They certainly do. Do they account for everyone involved in crypto/blockchain? Absolutely not. There are the smartest of people working incredibly hard in the space. It would be a mischaracterisation to dump them in and tar them with the same brush as the people you're talking about.


letitroll said:


> .all these morons thinking their gonna get their lambos that way and their nonsense journey to financial independence via crypto......which when you dig into it boils down to them watching a number on a screen move around and trying to get others "into it" so their coin goes up......get rich quick doing nothing except hitting a few phone buttons is an attractive alternative reality, its a fantasy


I'll direct you to the point I made above. I've never mentioned the word 'lambo' here relative to crypto - and having just ran a search, it seems nobody else has either. I'm on record as saying here on a number of occasions that crypto is anything but easy money. There are plenty of hard working people directly involved in the digital assets space who are of a similar mind.
Going back 18 months, someone else here tried to tie my view on crypto to the 'have fun staying poor' mantra of the degenerates you're referring to. I had never used that phrase here (or anywhere else) - and nor had anyone else here - he was the first to use it in trying to tar and feather me with it. The point is that the existence of a category of people that represent what you're talking about doesn't represent everyone else associated with the digital assets space.



letitroll said:


> for the crypto peeps in for the 'easy' money well over time they will get what they deserve and its not what they expect but they will truly deserve it.



Dumb money gets dealt with in all markets - that is in no way exclusive to digital assets. Secondly, that it exists doesn't mean that there isn't something tangible, useful and innovative at the heart of the development of digital assets. That it exists doesn't mean that it's all 'dumb' (and as you've otherwise described in your post).

Going back a number of months, you said that crypto was done for as the days of excess cash were gone. Although I don't agree that crypto is done for, I do agree that excess cash sloshing around has major implications for crypto (and practically every other asset class). Why wouldn't it - it's tied in to the whole reason Bitcoin was brought into existence. However, have a look at the following and tell me that monetary policy post gold standard and in particular from 2003 onwards - doesn't have implications for all sectors - not just crypto.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1547545930995568640


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

@tecate unfortunately I took up your invite to "Read the full conversation on Twitter".
The very next tweet goes as follows:


			
				Bitcoin chancer said:
			
		

> Conversely, bitcoin has only been this cheap relative to its long-term trend 2.5% of history…


Translation - fill your boots.
Some of you may be scratching your head at the 2.5%.  Surely $20k is is still in the top quartile of bitcoin prices since inception.  Silly people.  To get it to be "cheap" it is compared with its recent past.  Put more simply the recent crash is amongst the worst (depends on time frames of course).
Hey, even a snake oil saleswoman couldn't make this stuff up.
According to these chancers when bitcoin is flying it is the only game in town and when it is tanking it's a steal.


----------



## DazedInPontoon

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Put more simply the recent crash is amongst the worst (depends on time farmes of course).


Yes, if you think bitcoin will survive it's relatively cheap now. That's not to say it can't go lower, it's definitely moving with the macro landscape, and we've an interesting winter ahead in that regard.

Of course, on the other hand if you don't have any conviction about bitcoin at all you'll think it's bad idea to buy at any price, and probably oscilate between two states of not wanting to buy: "it's a bubble, anyone getting in now missed the boat" in bull markets. and "see I was right it's going down, it was a bubble, it's dead" in bear markets.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

@DazedInPontoon I think I see your point.  I too am having it both ways.  Fair kop.  But I am not a chancer.


----------



## DazedInPontoon

You are not, and neither are some of us here, I'm pretty sure you won't find comments from me and probably not tecate egging people on when the price was going parabolic, because we knew what comes after that. And certainly not any enthusiasm about the alt coin or NFT mania.

To echo your 'fair kop' admission I will admit I thought we wouldn't get this low and made quips about it being on sale early in the year around $40k I believe. I account that to not foreseeing the Ukraine war (not my fault) and underestimating the Fed actually raising rates this aggressively (my fault).

(On an unrelated note it feels bizarre to see the bitcoin price in euros now higher than in dollars. Obviously it's just a function of the euro/dollar rate flipping past parity but I'm so used to measuring bitcoin in dollars and then reducing that for euros.)


----------



## CuriousGeorge11

Samsung are opening a crypto exchange and are developing an inbuilt crypto wallet in their new phones. If Samsung are doing something like this then you can be sure Apple wont be far behind

It's also worth noting that since the crash when all the "I told you so" posts came rolling in that anyone who bought around that time has doubled their money


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

CuriousGeorge11 said:


> It's also worth noting that since the crash when all the "I told you so" posts came rolling in that anyone who bought around that time has doubled their money


Not sure about that.  I think the low was around $19k.  Maybe a 10% increase.


----------



## CuriousGeorge11

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Not sure about that.  I think the low was around $19k.  Maybe a 10% increase.



Bitcoin yes but Eth, Atom etc it's more than doubled


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

CuriousGeorge11 said:


> Bitcoin yes but Eth, Atom etc it's more than doubled


Well I don’t follow all 10,000.  I guess any sort of narrative could be picked from that lot.
The only narrative that counts is bitcoin.


----------



## CuriousGeorge11

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Well I don’t follow all 10,000.  I guess any sort of narrative could be picked from that lot.
> The only narrative that counts is bitcoin.



That's like saying I only follow the worlds top stock

Eth has the 2nd highest market cap and Atom is Cosmos IBC..arguably the best technology in crypto but I could have chosen any of the top cryptos to make the point


----------



## DazedInPontoon

There's bitcoin... and there's everything else. Though I will admit the Ethereum world is kind of interesting at the moment with the massive upcoming change from proof of work mining to proof of stake which will happen in September and the tornado cash drama. Being 'interesting' of course comes with a much larger chance of self-detonation.


----------



## CuriousGeorge11

DazedInPontoon said:


> There's bitcoin... and there's everything else. Though I will admit the Ethereum world is kind of interesting at the moment with the massive upcoming change from proof of work mining to proof of stake which will happen in September and the tornado cash drama. Being 'interesting' of course comes with a much larger chance of self-detonation.



I'll be selling all eth before the merge personally, to me eth is too expensive for defi transactions and I find its main competitors to have better technology that I can use daily


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> @tecate unfortunately I took up your invite to "Read the full conversation on Twitter".
> The very next tweet goes as follows:
> 
> Translation - fill your boots.
> Some of you may be scratching your head at the 2.4%.  Surely $20 is is still in the top quartile of bitcoin prices since inception.  Silly people.  To get it to be "cheap" it is compared with its recent past.  Put more simply the recent crash is amongst the worst (depends on time farmes of course).
> Hey, even a snake oil saleswoman couldn't make this stuff up.
> According to these chancers when bitcoin is flying it is the only game in town and when it is tanking it's a steal.


That's not reasonable. So the guy compared where equities are and where Bitcoin is right now. He's quite right to do so. He's one of many to do so - and it's entirely accurate. He's presented the data and the data doesn't lie. It's a bit rich for you to complain that he's used recent data (relative to both) as part of the case he's making - seeing as time and time again, you've cherry-picked timeframes on the downside of not one but two cycles to point and say - 'look at the misguided morons who lost all their money'.

I think there's every reason to believe that Bitcoin goes down a lot further from here over the course of the next 6 months. Even if it does, that doesn't make Yusko wrong to make the point he's making right now. As @DazedInPontoon pointed out, it's all about the macro right now. And the macro is bonkers.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> But I am not a chancer.


Here we are with the labelling again. Yusko is more than entitled to have an opinion and to share it. Even more so when he goes to the trouble of presenting it with data. What ever happened to just saying "I disagree"? The labelling is completely wrong and baseless. The guy seems credible to me. Maybe you have some other demonstration that discredits him but this is not it!


Duke of Marmalade said:


> Not sure about that.  I think the low was around $19k.  Maybe a 10% increase.


It bottomed at around $17,740 on June 18.


----------



## letitroll

tecate said:


> The guy seems credible to me.



Yusko is a financial charlatan, I'm sorry....you've been had......he gets on CNBC every now and again....but there's a reason CNBC is called the cartoon network .......if you watch it and put much faith in it well your a child....he & his firm Morgan Creek have jumped on every financial fad I can think off in the last number of years ….Yusko is considered a joke in the industry.....from an investment management perspective he's the equivalent of a del boy...his fads he jumps on are those that specialize in separating retail investors & naive HNY individuals/family offices from their money, namely most recently -  crypto & special purpose acquisition companies, his firm created a SPAC ETF for gods sake..anybody who knows the industry knows what a scumbag move that is....before that he was selling China private equity fund vehicles...........if's it hot and being talked about at cocktail parties Yusko and Morgan Creek will jump on it....................he specializes in making charts on Twitter & coming off smart and in the know on TV........I've never seen his investment returns printed anywhere.

Please do not amplify Mark Yusko content - your just sending lambs to the slaughter.


----------



## letitroll

You and I @tecate have a long standing bet into 2030...........but I find it amazing to watch bitcoins price move around with an inverse correlation to monetary policy......just like any other speculative asset it seems wholly dependent on liquidity........i thought BTC was meant to be an antidote to chaos in your portfolio.......but bitcoin is chaos in your portfolio right now, it has a higher beta than anything I know of.

I also thought that it was meant to be protection against inflation & reckless central banks......but all I can see is that bitcoins price is directly related to how loose monetary policy is or isnt...the more monetary liquidity, the higher bitcoin goes.....in fact btc's price right now looks wholly dependent on low interest rates and money printing......without it its toast.....which is quite ironic given all the crap talked about it being this whole other thing uncorrelated, an antidote to chaos & a new digital gold.

Here's $GLD vs. $BTC......I like the 'old' gold better:


----------



## DazedInPontoon

letitroll do you consider the current bitcoin price to be high or low, or neither?


----------



## letitroll

DazedInPontoon said:


> letitroll do you consider the current bitcoin price t


----------



## letitroll

DazedInPontoon said:


> letitroll do you consider the current bitcoin price to be high or low, or neither?



I don't think about it like that at all.........I think of it like a self-updating excel spreadsheet in the cloud where people take turns, for money, to claim digital ownership of a small piece of the spreadsheet for a little while in the hope that they can later sell their share for a higher price to someone else….......a reasonable price for a bitcoin doesn't even come into the framework i use to think about bitcoin and you can see why I hope.

The crescendo of cheap money & liquidity that saw bitcoin touch $69,000 is the same thing that saw since 2008 all asset values march skyward in response to falling interest rates which pushed people out the risk curve into VC and further out into Crypto…..that wave reached its high water mark at $69k bitcoin but other similarly speculative things peaked then too…..go look at the stock valuation chart for Lemonade or Rivian or Tesla or any other blue sky security or SPAC….people suspended believe for a while, and thought every frog could turn into a prince……..go have a look.....they all peaked around the same time fueled by a mania in the riskiest of assets, which all became the same thing, in effect, get rich quick speculative vehicles…..but alas that was then and this is now and liquidity is drying up, central banks have stopped printing, interest rates and therefore discount rates on future cash flows are going up making future way off dream cash flows way less valuable.

For bitcoin I look at it like a game of new fangled digital pass the parcel mixed with a multi-level marketing scheme. Its amusing to watch.........to consider its 'price' is actually to muse upon the total addressable market of people with spare money, high hopes & a level of naivety that would allow them to hand over real money for a string of alphanumeric characters in someone else's database. It's in my 'too hard' pile..... I dont know how many more naive people are out there or how much spare gambling money they have right now or in the future so I dont waste a second thinking about it & frankly even if I had an insight into its direction and future price I consider it a type of financial game beneath my contempt, so even if I had "an edge' or an insight into it I just wouldn't be interested in playing.

There is a huge amount of smart people in crypto, you & @tecate are two.....but guessing its price is a waste of brain power for these folks who could, I'd imagine, do much better trying to assess the value of companies based on their future cash flows, competitive position & future prospects relative to the share price being traded in the public markets or simply getting out from behind your laptops and going out there into the real world and providing a service somebody needs or taking some old way of doing things and thinking of a better way. Im not saying this is you or Tecate but hoping Elon/El Salvador or whoever tweets about BTC today and sends it to da moon or some other organization has got on board such that the value of your alphanumeric string of character will go up is not a productive endeavor and I'd argue its a waste of a life to have so many young minds wasting their time following and cheering on the value of a trading sardine.


----------



## tecate

letitroll said:


> Yusko is a financial charlatan, I'm sorry....you've been had......he gets on CNBC every now and again....but there's a reason CNBC is called the cartoon network .......if you watch it and put much faith in it well your a child....


Well let's start off with a point of agreement seeing as there's plenty we haven't agreed on. 
Thank you for your comments on CNBC. Of course CNBC cover Bitcoin these days - but clearly its main deal is coverage of TradFi markets generally. I agree that it's largely entertainment. I've posted warnings on CNBC 6 or 7 times here in the past but your comment is the first I've seen from anyone else warning of the dangers of CNBC.

Now on to Yusko. Even if what you say is true, I don't believe I've been had. The tiny bit I've learnt is that regardless of what individual you listen to, you can never fall into the trap of taking any one individuals view as gospel. Everyone has their own bias - which they may be driving consciously with their own agenda or sub-consciously with no ulterior motive.
I recall Jim Rodgers being interviewed going back a year or two and asked how he figures out the true picture and his starting point is to scrutinise multiple opposing views and drill down into the detail from there (and ultimately forming his own opinion - not running with someone elses) - recognising that none of them are likely to be 100% right.



letitroll said:


> he & his firm Morgan Creek have jumped on every financial fad I can think off in the last number of years ….Yusko is considered a joke in the industry.....from an investment management perspective he's the equivalent of a del boy...his fads he jumps on are those that specialize in separating retail investors & naive HNY individuals/family offices from their money, namely most recently - crypto & special purpose acquisition companies, his firm created a SPAC ETF for gods sake..anybody who knows the industry knows what a scumbag move that is....before that he was selling China private equity fund vehicles...........if's it hot and being talked about at cocktail parties Yusko and Morgan Creek will jump on it....................he specializes in making charts on Twitter & coming off smart and in the know on TV........I've never seen his investment returns printed anywhere.



I don't work in markets so I'm not in a position to agree or disagree with your take. I know next to nothing about SPACs - other than there's been more noise about them post-covid and that they haven't worked out so well for investors. Is anyone that does anything with a SPAC a charlatan? (I'm asking innocently - as I have no notion).

You mention investment returns - I suppose that would be a decent indicator of the abilities or otherwise of Morgan Creek and Yusko. Are they not required to publish those if they're regulated by the SEC? (again, an innocent question - I'd be interested to know how they perform seeing as it's come up here).

I have no interest in Morgan Creek products - Yusko hasn't sold me anything. You might think that he's sold me 'Bitcoin' if he's a proponent of it - but that leads to another question. If - like you say - Morgan Creek/Yusko latch on to anything and everything that's new, is everything that's new to be automatically understood to be useless? I've no doubt in the world that he's not going on to CNBC and being otherwise active on podcasts, etc. for any other reason other than to corner business in that sector. Surely that doesn't mean to say that there can't be anything wholesome in the sector itself? Yusko doesn't control Bitcoin.

There are a couple of gold-focused podcasts I check in with where all the guests are connected with the gold business in one way or another. How is that any different? I listen to what they have to say - but I don't think it's any coincidence that it's incredibly depressing - gold bugs don't sell good news! But then I think you have to have a healthy cynicism about every view expressed out there - listen to the counter view and try and make sense of all of that for yourself.




letitroll said:


> Please do not amplify Mark Yusko content - your just sending lambs to the slaughter.


When I posted his tweet, I was thinking about its content. The message wasn't "This is the word of M.Y". The great thing about discussion forums like this is that anything posted openly can be torn asunder. If you go back to that tweet - is it wayward? Have equities almost never been at such a high price in the history of markets? Have at it and tear it apart - I'd genuinely like to know if what he's put forward is inaccurate.

As regards the lambs, I get the sentiment if you believe Yusko to be a charlatan. However, I'd take the view that no 'lamb' should be taking the word of any one human being as gospel to start with. That's everyone's responsibility to themselves.



letitroll said:


> You and I @tecate have a long standing bet into 2030.


Indeed we do. Good news - you're winning ( 2,683 days to go).




letitroll said:


> but I find it amazing to watch bitcoins price move around with an inverse correlation to monetary policy......just like any other speculative asset it seems wholly dependent on liquidity........i thought BTC was meant to be an antidote to chaos in your portfolio.......but bitcoin is chaos in your portfolio right now, it has a higher beta than anything I know of.


Not out of the box, it's not. From the outset of discussions here going back 5 years, there has been an acknowledgement from both sides of the argument that Bitcoin is cyclical in its current form. Claims related to its role as digital gold (or similar) have been made on the basis that it has the capability to fulfil such a role when it matures.
Nobody denies that it is behaving like anything other than a risk-on asset right now. However, plenty are claiming that it has the fundamental characteristics of a risk-off asset and as it matures, that will manifest itself. I know you don't believe that - and we don't need to go into all that again - but I just wanted to clarify that nobody expects Bitcoin to be released into the world and immediately act as a risk off asset from day 1.



letitroll said:


> I also thought that it was meant to be protection against inflation & reckless central banks......but all I can see is that bitcoins price is directly related to how loose monetary policy is or isnt...the more monetary liquidity, the higher bitcoin goes.....in fact btc's price right now looks wholly dependent on low interest rates and money printing......without it its toast.....which is quite ironic given all the crap talked about it being this whole other thing uncorrelated, an antidote to chaos & a new digital gold.



Bitcoin responded to CB balance sheet expansion from 2020 onwards. The inflation we're seeing now is as a result of that. Beyond that, if we are to acknowledge that Bitcoin goes through cycles and is just on the downward leg of a recent hype cycle - how would anyone expect it to go up right now or to lack volatility?
Bear in mind that Gold - in its past - has seen plenty of volatility.




letitroll said:


> Here's $GLD vs. $BTC......I like the 'old' gold better:


See above. You've been following events. You're aware that Bitcoin is on the downside leg of a recent hype cycle that stretches back the past year (and longer). That's symptomatic of its immaturity. Gold by contrast is a mature asset. You can claim that Bitcoin is pointless/useless, etc etc - but you can't deny that whatever it is and whatever you believe, Bitcoin is immature as an asset. When these cycles stop, then we'll know it to have matured.
I've a reasonable wedge in the old gold since ..I think it's 18 months or so. Insofar as I can see, it hasn't moved up. I've just checked 6/12/24 month charts (vs USD) - it's down on all three.



letitroll said:


> Instead of sitting with your BTC hoping Elon/El Salvador or whoever tweets about it today and sends it to da moon. It's not productive and I'd argue its a waste of a life to have so many young minds wasting them so closely following the ebbs and flows of a trading sardine.


I'm pretty confident that the market has moved on from hanging off of Elon's tweets! I am hoping that he never tweets about crypto ever again - that would be a net positive. That's not to say that there are not people who act on such tweets. In the case of the Elon example, they were all proven to be newcomers who didn't understand what it was they were buying. That resulted in them being the first to exit the market.
I'd much prefer a nice sober gradual rise in BTC spot price in tandem with adoption but this is not how people behave (hype cycles are in no way exclusive to Bitcoin).


----------



## LosLobos

CuriousGeorge11 said:


> I understand you fail to see any use cases for crypto so you must have a fairly good understanding of how to use it as you speak with such expertise.
> 
> I'm just curious if you could explain how someone could spend crypto in their local shop


I do. I have a Mastercard where I decide beforehand which of my crypto or fiat balances are used in which order to pay for groceries etc.


----------



## Tickle

LosLobos said:


> I do. I have a Mastercard where I decide beforehand which of my crypto or fiat balances are used in which order to pay for groceries etc.


Are you actually spending crypto in that case or are you cashing in your crypto in order to pay in the local currency?


----------



## tecate

Tickle said:


> Are you actually spending crypto in that case or are you cashing in your crypto in order to pay in the local currency?


Why is that important? For many conventional payments, there are settlements being made in the middle that users are totally oblivious to.

For a user who wants to spend crypto, what difference does it make to them if there's a conversion done immediately before the actual or ultimate transaction? Last month, Mastercard announced its intention to enable crypto payments in 90 million stores. Its CEO said that the move unlocks crypto's potential in terms of everyday purchases.

What it means for a crypto user is that suddenly they are enabled in using crypto for payments. In the past, they might have wanted to be paid in crypto and to pay for goods and services in crypto but come to the conclusion that its simply not feasible as much as they'd like to operate in crypto. Now they can. For people around them that have never held or accepted crypto,  if they interact with them in a situation where crypto can be spent at will anywhere for anything, then those individuals are going to be more likely to accept a crypto payment.

Case in point. I offered to pay someone I know in BTC the other week. He didn't want to accept it - and it's understandable - as all of his bills are in fiat. If - as this progresses, his obligations remain in fiat BUT he knows he can spend crypto at ease to settle those obligations, he's not going to object to my request.


----------



## letitroll

tecate said:


> Last month, Mastercard announced its intention to enable crypto payments in 90 million stores. Its CEO said that the move unlocks crypto's potential in terms of everyday purchases.



Dont you get it @tecate these institutions love this crypto settlement layer stuff.........not because they are all in on crypto and are believers.........its just an unbelievable opportunity for them to do two very important things (listed below) and your also btw coming to the wrong macro conclusion to boot! Read on, let me enlighten you first with the two reasons below, the big picture at the end. I have so much to teach you....but we'll get you out of this Crypto cult yet :0 Only joking, I'm just pretend gas lighting you (all in good fun).  

(1) MasterCard are engaging in whats commonly referred to as *'innovation theatre'.*........large cap publicly traded corporates have whole divisions of people ensuring they are seen to be at the 'cutting edge' on whatever the 'hot' new thing might be...keeping up appearance is important nobody wants to be the old crusty institution thats behind on the new shiny stuff..........that 'hot thing' however dumb it might in practise needs to show up somewhere in their innovation/next generation strategy/press release documents to keep Wall St. & investors happy.

(2) *Make a shed load of fees (while doing (1)).*...Crypto is like the best innovation theatre anybody ever invented because you can actually get paid a SHED load to engage in it...Why?......... we've talked about this before....and as you know already.....Crypto is a pigs trough of transaction fees & hidden spread capturing..........the likes and level of which were last seen in 'Trad-Fi' three or four decades ago before regulation and competition killed it. Mastercard/PayPal/Coinbase.....cant believe there's people out there willing to pay the brokerage and transaction fees they are getting right now (some explicit, some hidden). Whoever runs these crypto divisions in these groups must chuckle at night going to bed.........cause they are fully aware how competition in 'trad-fi' has driven all manor of transaction fees down to practically ZERO over the last 30 years......and then this crypto baby shows up out of no where with just unbelievably juicy spreads/fees.......... I'd say the people in MasterCard's eyes nearly popped out of their heads when they first heard what fees/spreads could be made offering this settlement service. While also engaging in Innovation theatre....win/win as they say.

The only thing you might say in defense is the following @tecate and I'll say it for you to save you typing and it goes something like this........I'm channeling my inner crypto so bear with me.............. perhaps this fee stuff is the necessary evil required to drive adoption, the trojan horse if you will, thats getting these established institutions to unbeknownst to them let the fox (disrupt everything crypto)...into the hen house (trad-fi)....I've heard that argument it sounds smart, weaponize these blood hungry corporates desire for money against.........sucker them in with juicy crypto fees, then take over from the inside out and they wont know what hit them! Did I get that crypto insider talking point about right? Thats the line I think? 

Only problem is.........I know these guys, they play 4D chess, I've met crypto guys they play 3D chess.........

See you've got it all wrong, you champion this news as sign that BTC is 'winning' & adoption is growing........its the opposite in fact............MasterCard isn't adopting crypto to allow it to disrupt the traditional payment rails like you dream it is....MasterCard & Visa are cold blooded monopolists, like I said they play 4D chess....they've looked at this crypto crap from top to bottom, put their best MBA & consulting group minds on it and have come to the conclusion that....well........ its kind of joke, a fad, the hot new thing with a shed load of fees attached to it and if in the unlikely even it ever looked like it might be a fox in the hen coop they've also done a risk assesment on how they would tank it and are obviously happy that they could kill that fox before its out of nappies............ (all while getting (1) & (2) done in the meantime)....as Del Boy used to say lovely jubbly Rodney, lovely jubbly


----------



## tecate

@letitroll No harm to point out some of the stuff that you've pointed out in your last post. Some of it, I agree with, some of it, I don't. Let's go through it  



letitroll said:


> I have so much to teach you....but we'll get you out of this Crypto cult yet :0 Only joking, I'm just pretend gas lighting you (all in good fun).


Delighted to hear that. Teach away. I've been hanging out here in what has been less than partisan territory where crypto is concerned so that at some stage, someone could help me challenge my own thesis re. crypto. I'm still waiting but I live in hope and every day is a school day.



letitroll said:


> (1) MasterCard are engaging in whats commonly referred to as *'innovation theatre'.*........large cap publicly traded corporates have whole divisions of people ensuring they are seen to be at the 'cutting edge' on whatever the 'hot' new thing might be...keeping up appearance is important nobody wants to be the old crusty institution thats behind on the new shiny stuff..........that 'hot thing' however dumb it might in practise needs to show up somewhere in their innovation/next generation strategy/press release documents to keep Wall St. & investors happy.


I'm not sure whether that is MasterCard's specific approach or not - although I'm quite happy to believe that it may be (on the basis that there are definitely some tradfi companies doing that). I think it's important to be aware of it. If we take this particular example - I think you can't see the forest for the trees. I don't give a <futon> about MasterCard. However, that doesn't mean to say that there can't be some upside from whatever they're doing here.

So whether they can see what's coming down the tracks (and in the case of companies involved with payments I believe that's likely) OR they're doing what you have pointed out - you know what? Who cares? Go back to my previous post - where I explained that they're now making crypto A. more acceptable to mass market folks and B. they're enabling ME in being able to pay for a much broader range of stuff (I don't know - like everything?) with crypto and C. they're enabling mass market folks because now if presented with a scenario of whether or not to take a payment in crypto, why the hell not - because it can be spent and used just as easily.

You talk of 3 and 4D chess. Well there's a point in the much longer term where there is no dependence on Mastercard. They can do it or not - because effectively every payments company will offer it some way or other. Why wouldn't they? You mean as a payments company you're going to make yourself less useful and deprive your customers from taking money from their customers when there's some off the shelf API that takes care of all of that?

Presumably you believe that MasterCard - having introduced what they're about to introduce - will take it away again, right? If so, when do you think they will take this option off the market?



letitroll said:


> (2) *Make a shed load of fees (while doing (1)).*...........cause they are fully aware how competition in 'trad-fi' has driven all manor of transaction fees down to practically ZERO over the last 30 years......and then this crypto baby shows up out of no where with just unbelievably juicy spreads/fees.......... I'd say the people in MasterCard's eyes nearly popped out of their heads when they first heard what fees/spreads could be made offering this settlement service. While also engaging in Innovation theatre....win/win as they say.


Firstly, good for them. Secondly, you already provided the counter point to what you've laid out there. TradFi fees used to be fat. Now they're so thin on these big platforms that there practically isn't any fee. What do we know about services that cost nothing? YOU'RE the product. Your data is being sold a la order flow.
Secondly, when markets start out from a standing start - of course fees are high. Fees were a lot higher than they are right now. As markets grow, fees go down. They may still be fat but they're going down the whole time and they will continue to decrease. When analysts appraised Coinbase when it IPOed, the cannibalization of fees was the first thing they all identified. Coinbase is a key example (I have not used them for years mainly because of fees). The company knows that this will be an issue. They know they will need to innovate once more or pivot in some way. The last I heard was that they were thinking about a subscription model. The example proves that as markets both grow and mature, fees are cannibalized.

Now, I'm talking about exchange fees. In this example, we're talking about using MasterCard to pay with a debit/credit card. Now, do you have the low down on MasterCard fees in this respect? What are the fees? And if they are higher than normal, that is in no way surprising to me. As the market gets bigger the cut gets smaller. This is not rocket science.



letitroll said:


> The only thing you might say in defense is the following @tecate and I'll say it for you to save you typing and it goes something like this........I'm channeling my inner crypto so bear with me.............. perhaps this fee stuff is the necessary evil required to drive adoption, the trojan horse if you will, thats getting these established institutions to unbeknownst to them let the fox (disrupt everything crypto)...into the hen house (trad-fi)....I've heard that argument it sounds smart, weaponize these blood hungry corporates desire for money against.........sucker them in with juicy crypto fees, then take over from the inside out and they wont know what hit them! Did I get that crypto insider talking point about right? Thats the line I think?


I've referred on previous occasions to the perils of Wall Street involvement. There's both good and bad in it. Of course these greedy pigs won't turn down the opportunity to make money. And yes, there is an opportunity to divide and conquer in that respect. Let's put government in there as well and the whole regulatory deal.

So the establishment (both TradFi and governments) can do the full court press re. crypto. I'd prefer if they didn't - as although they won't destroy it, they will hold it back. Now with governments, I've never seen them all get on the same page on anything. You might get most of them - but not all of them. Some here might think but we only need the important ones. But that won't shut crypto down. The genie is out of the bottle and it won't be going back in.
And yes, there is also opportunity to make $. That will keep things legal for the most part. Will there be attempts made to 'capture' crypto and tame it? All day long. Those games are ongoing and in play right now - and will continue to play out over the next few years. Last week I warned about Gold being captured by the powers that be. I think Bitcoin has the right characteristics so as not to be pinned down.
There are concerns with regard to a whole host of DeFi protocols right now (unrelated to Bitcoin) and whether they really cut the mustard when it comes to decentralization and censorship resistance. But whatever has to play out   - let it play out. I have no doubt that robust products can be built. I do have some concerns about some constituencies not realizing the importance of a certain minimum level of decentralization - but let it play and let's see how we go.
And the third point - I referred to governments not being on the same page. You think it's smart for a government to drive innovation overseas? You'll say there is no innovation - and we'll disagree - but let's suppose for a second that you're wrong. Then there will be winners in terms of the governments that nurture the development of this tech (and the products being built out on top of it) and losers in terms of those that don't. Like I said - divide and conquer.



letitroll said:


> See you've got it all wrong, you champion this news as sign that BTC is 'winning' & adoption is growing........its the opposite in fact............MasterCard isn't adopting crypto to allow it to disrupt the traditional payment rails like you dream it is....MasterCard & Visa are cold blooded monopolists, like I said they play 4D chess....



See above for the caveats that I've attached to my thinking on this all along. MasterCard and Visa can't stop this. Kodak led with the digital camera, then tried to burry it - and it buried them. Blockbuster passed up the opportunity to buy Netflix and went on to be destroyed by them. See number 3 on that list in that last article I've linked to. I'm not close enough to Visa or MasterCard to know what the nature of their engagement is - but maybe they've considered that point number 3. But I'm not a Visa/MasterCard shareholder - so I don't give a tuppence either way.


----------



## letitroll

tecate said:


> You think it's smart for a government to drive innovation overseas?



that’s one of my favorite crypto industry talking point strategies……using FOMO on politicians…..its clever and it could work…..to date….only third world countries have fallen for it….I hope you send a few satoshies to the people of El Salvador  every few weeks….things are rough down there after they listened to that nonsens And incinerated millions of dollars of wealth

El Salvador Had a Bitcoin Revolution. Hardly Anybody Showed Up
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...tcoin-btc-revolution-hardly-anybody-showed-up

The people down there have voted with their feet and smartphones….and they ain’t interested in funny money backed by an anonymous Japanese sounding man, a bunch of kids in their basements & a bunch of server farms in god knows.


----------



## tecate

letitroll said:


> that’s one of my favorite crypto industry talking point strategies……using FOMO on politicians…..its clever and it could work…..to date….only third world countries have fallen for it….I hope you send a few satoshies to the people of El Salvador  every few weeks….things are rough down there after they listened to that nonsens And incinerated millions of dollars of wealth
> 
> El Salvador Had a Bitcoin Revolution. Hardly Anybody Showed Up
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...tcoin-btc-revolution-hardly-anybody-showed-up


That's total BS from mainstream media. Nobody gave a fiddlers about El Salvador or where it was and then all of a sudden, they're all worried about how the country is being run! Things are no more rough than they were before - when all three previous President's had been embroiled in some sort of 'help yourself' scandal or other.

But you can pay heed to that clickbait. Having spent time there, I'm reasonably happy with where the project is. A project which was borne out of a community led initiative in El Zonte. Now we have other community projects following suit - in South Africa, Brazil, Guatemala, Honduras and Costa Rica. Meanwhile, in San Salvador, an NGO has been established to roll out education on all things Bitcoin to schoolkids and to ordinary people.

The finances of the country were not in any way good coming into La Ley Bitcoin - but listen to these guys and they'll have you believe that it's the very reason why it has issues. Furthermore, the IMF isn't inclined to play ball - and want to make an example of them because they had the audacity to suggest that they'd raise a BTC-based bond. That's IMF turf - they no likey.

Your El Salvador example is just one direction that relates to Bitcoin. There is broader innovation being put together with implications for markets and a whole host of verticals beyond Bitcoin (or maybe it will implicate Bitcoin as we move on - if DeFi products are built on top of it).


----------



## letitroll

My last point - isn’t it funny that bitcoins rise is completely linked to the last decade plus of lower real interest rates & peaking as it did with the peak in money printing last year…..you would say yes Bitcoin is an antidote to fiat chaos. I laugh, you’ve got it back to front.

My prediction is bitcoins value will fall completely and utterly with a super strong negative correlation as rates normalize.

We have our 2030 bet……but we’ll see normalized rates 3-5% much sooner than that in 2023/24 and you watch as bitcoin falls in perfect response.

*See bitcoin isn't the antidote to chaos……it WAS chaos.*

The unfortunate malignant side effect of the low interest rate environment policy makers had to enact to bail out the system post-GFC.

It’s unfortunate it created little bubbles & manias like this along the way and they got so big……the Fed could have saved a lot of pain by normalizing as planned in 2018…..but chickened out after the taper tantrum. Cowards, shame on them. This time Jay Powell has grown a pair of big ones and let’s watch the show……as bubbles go pop everywhere. The most egregious of all your beloved BTC.

We are moving to a new era, if you haven’t noticed, one of inflationary pressures (demographics/safe shoring & deglobalization) and hire rates as a result……see all assets compete with other assets for investment…..see what’s going to kill bitcoin & crypto isn’t regulation (I thought that would get it first) ……but it’s that your granny will be getting 3% in her despoil account soon for the first time in 15 years……the sucking sound your hearing in crypto…….is investors cascading back along the far end of the risk curve……from the lunatic (crypto),  to the plain old exceptionally risky (VC)….and so on and so forth……but all driven by your granny calling Irish life and telling them she doesn’t need to be in that bond fund anymore, Bank of Ireland has a new savings account that straight up pays 3%.

Hope you get that dynamic?I dont how much of your liquid net worth you have tied up in this stuff you sure write a lot about it……but crypto is playing a game of musical chairs with other financial assets right now and when the music stops (4-5% Fed Funds) there will be no seat left for people with laser eyes? You get that right?

Lets revisit this post in a year  and 2030


----------



## letitroll

Thought this was funny - couldn’t resist sharing


----------



## tecate

letitroll said:


> Isn’t it funny that bitcoins rise is completely linked to the last decade plus of lower real interest rates & peaking as it did with the peak in money printing last year


You brought this up a week ago or so. The answer is the same now as it was then. It's entirely logical. You might want to do a bit of research on how Bitcoin came into existence.



letitroll said:


> *you* would say yes Bitcoin is an antidote to fiat chaos. I laugh,* you’ve* got it back to front.


What's this 'you' business? I gave you the benefit of the doubt (even though I believe I shouldn't have given the fact you've been in this discussion for quite a while already) last week but that's as far as it goes. You're referring directly to the hype and adoption cycles that Bitcoin is going through. It has been discussed to death. I've always said that Bitcoin is developing into the role of something akin to a digital gold - that volatility is inevitable as its market cap. expands.

Secondly, last time I checked, Bitcoin still had a market cap that is totally insignificant by comparison with the fiat-based monetary system. Every single person on this planet participates in this fiat-based system and so of course it matters what sort of policy that gets implemented by the Fed, the ECB, etc.

I haven't gotten anything back to front in terms of the specifics of what you're discussing right here. As regards Bitcoin being
an antidote to fiat chaos', Bitcoin's development in a store of value and digital gold-like use case will be multi-year. How could it be otherwise given the cycles its going through in its early innings? Since Bitcoin's store of value/digital gold use case was first discussed here, it has always been discussed with a recognition that Bitcoin in its current form is cyclical and going through hype cycles.




letitroll said:


> My prediction is bitcoins value will fall completely and utterly with a super strong negative correlation as rates normalize.
> 
> We have our 2030 bet……but we’ll see normalized rates 3-5% much sooner than that in 2023/24 and you watch as bitcoin falls in perfect response.



Yeah, I'm not sure how you think this is a major prediction. Respectfully, I wouldn't even stand you a pint for that info. So less money floating around so Bitcoin goes down. Nothing else goes down right? You claimed that gold was such a big performer recently and I pulled you on it. The comparison was totally disingenuous given that you were clearly aware that Bitcoin was coming out the other side of yet another hype cycle. And even beyond that, gold itself hasn't moved up at all in these conditions.

It won't be going up in the rate environment you are talking about either. Nor will real estate. Nor will equities.


letitroll said:


> The unfortunate malignant side effect of the low interest rate environment policy makers had to enact to bail out the system post-GFC.


Firstly where is the bile for the GFC itself? It should never have happened. Secondly, that's not the truth. You're making excuses for them. Having gotten into that situation, currencies should have come first (and particularly so in the case of the USD given that it acts as the global reserve currency).



letitroll said:


> It’s unfortunate it created little bubbles & manias like this along the way and they got so big


Little bubbles? You mean the 'everything' bubble I hope? Equities, art, collectibles, gold, Bitcoin, real estate, etc. Last week, you gave Mark Yusko a sledging but when I asked you to come back and objectively respond to what he actually posted (that equities are just 7% off their peak valuation in the entire history of markets), we got crickets.



letitroll said:


> the Fed could have saved a lot of pain by normalizing as planned in 2018…..but chickened out after the taper tantrum. Cowards, shame on them. This time Jay Powell has grown a pair of big ones and let’s watch the show……as bubbles go pop everywhere.


The Fed succumbed to short term domestic interests as per The Triffin Dilemma. So you think rates go up and that's it. And they all lived happy ever after? The system is broken. That's not the end. How do you think debt repayments are going to be made in this apparently permanent high rate environment?



letitroll said:


> The most egregious of all your beloved BTC.


lol. The most egregious? Sounds more like the special place in hell classification to me.



letitroll said:


> We are moving to a new era, if you haven’t noticed, one of inflationary pressures (demographics/safe shoring & deglobalization) and hire rates as a result……see all assets compete with other assets for investment…..see what’s going to kill bitcoin & crypto isn’t regulation (I thought that would get it first) ……but it’s that your granny will be getting 3% in her despoil account soon for the first time in 15 years……the sucking sound your hearing in crypto…….is investors cascading back along the far end of the risk curve……from the lunatic (crypto),  to the plain old exceptionally risky (VC)….and so on and so forth……but all driven by your granny calling Irish life and telling them she doesn’t need to be in that bond fund anymore, Bank of Ireland has a new savings account that straight up pays 3%.


See above. This is not the end point. There's a reason why our bet gets settled in 2030.



letitroll said:


> I dont how much of your liquid net worth you have tied up in this stuff you sure write a lot about it……but crypto is playing a game of musical chairs with other financial assets right now and when the music stops (4-5% Fed Funds) there will be no seat left for people with laser eyes? You get that right?


Quite happy to debate BTC/Crypto with you - but I'm all good on portfolio advice, thanks. And by the way, I'd suggest you consider the very same yourself relative to holding of equities, property, etc.

If currencies and economies can be run perfectly then Bitcoin isn't going to be all that significant. They're not run perfectly and never will be.



letitroll said:


> Lets revisit this post in a year  and 2030


You're free to revisit any post anytime you feel like it. If, however, you think that Bitcoin going down with every other asset class in a high rates environment is some kind of prophesy, it's not.


----------



## tecate

letitroll said:


> Thought this was funny - couldn’t resist sharing


I prefer this one...


----------



## letitroll

tecate said:


> So less money floating around so Bitcoin goes down.



Bitcoin goes down the MOST of any asset class you can think off, well sh!tcoins go down the most....then bitcoin.........but your not getting my point....... the nominal price of financial assets will go down in a response to rising discount rates.......but the point your laser eyes are missing @tecate and all you cyrpto people are missing it........is that stocks, bonds... sure will go down....but they have REAL cash flows, products & services sitting underneath them.....and so once inflation normalizes and discount rates can too, they will rise again in proportion to their cash flows exceeding their all time highs as their cash flows grow with the economy.............dont you get @tecate I'm trying to help.......Bitcoin's gonna fall 9x% from its peak price (inflation adjusted).......and its NEVER coming back up again, *ever*.......don't shoot the messenger.....catch you in 2030


----------



## tecate

letitroll said:


> Bitcoin goes down the MOST of any asset class you can think of



That's not news - it's been like that to the upside and the downside for quite some time now. In assessing that, you have to bear in mind that it's not a mature asset - it's a long way off maturity just yet.



letitroll said:


> but the point all you crypto people are missing it........is that stocks, bonds... sure will go down....but they have REAL cash flows, products & services sitting underneath them.....and so once inflation normalizes and discount rates can too, they will rise again in proportion to their cash flows exceeding their all time highs as their cash flows grow with the economy



All roads lead to Rome. These discussions always lead back to the assessment of value where Bitcoin is concerned. You don't see any in it, you don't see any utility - I and others like me do. Gold doesn't produce REAL cash flows - is it going to be done for also?

Also, let me query  this normalisation of inflation. That may be the way this plays out - or we may have inflation above the norm over a number of years. It certainly seems like Powell is going to continue on with the rate hikes...but lets see what happens when he continues on down that road.



letitroll said:


> Dont you get @tecate I'm trying to help.......Bitcoin's gonna fall 9x% from its peak price (inflation adjusted).......and its NEVER coming back up again, *ever*.......don't shoot the messenger.....catch you in 2030



I appreciate the concern but I'm not swayed by your argument today but I'll keep an open mind on it as always as we trundle forward. 

BTW, if you believe that BTC/stocks/property/Gold, etc are all going into the toilet over the next while as the Fed hikes rates, how are you hedging that eventuality?


----------



## letitroll

tecate said:


> BTW, if you believe that BTC/stocks/property/Gold, etc are all going into the toilet over the next while as the Fed hikes rates, how are you hedging that eventuality?



With hedges of course....thats why its called hedging....but it isnt for amateurs & novices will get hurt doing it.

Plenty of ways to protect the downside & ensure you dont suffer permanent impairment of capital sure your stocks might go down for a LITTLE while but come back up (not like those who bought BTC @ $69k have/will) and I'd point everyone to the below from Bill Ackman....people going into this secular re-pricing of assets that own a portfolio of stocks that meet the requirements below have all the hedging protection they need, they *own superior businesses at reasonable prices:*

Simple and predictable
Free cash flow generative
Dominant market position
Large barriers to entry (MOAT)
High return on capital
Limited exposure to extrinsic risks the investor can’t control
Strong balance sheet and the business doesn’t need access to outside capital (equity or debt) to survive
Excellent management and good governance
Finally & most importantly - pay a reasonable price which ensures positive real FCF yield generation from Day 1 relative to the price you pay
Follow the above and you'll get filthy rich. Its so simple yet people find it so hard........they want to get rick quick, they dont have the patience to get rich slow.....as a friend of mine say they are short term greedy, instead of long term greedy. Unfortunately they end up roadkill & victims of financial promoters of every kind. 

Books will be written about the crescendo of greed and malfeasance centered around the crypto bubble of 2020/21 and so many people have got hurt and are about to get hurt.


----------



## tecate

letitroll said:


> I'd point everyone to the below from Bill Ackman



Bill is smart for sure. He teaches us the evils of paying heed to CNBC.



letitroll said:


> Its so simple yet people find it so hard........they want to get rick quick, they dont have the patience to get rich slow.....as a friend of mine say they are short term greedy, instead of long term greedy. Unfortunately they end up roadkill & victims of financial promoters of every kind.


That makes complete sense to me. Gates' Law: "Most people overestimate what they can achieve in a year and underestimate what they can achieve in ten years."  See you in 2030. 



letitroll said:


> Books will be written about the crescendo of greed and malfeasance centered around the crypto bubble of 2020/21 and so many people have got hurt and are about to get hurt.


Books have already been written about the wild west that is and has been crypto. Stick _The Cryptopians_ on your reading list. That doesn't mean to say that there isn't something worthwhile going on in the middle of it all.


----------



## DazedInPontoon

letitroll said:


> We have our 2030 bet……but we’ll see normalized rates 3-5% much sooner than that in 2023/24 and you watch as bitcoin falls in perfect response.


In europe, the US or both? and for how long would you see them staying that high?


----------



## DazedInPontoon

I ask about interest rates, because when I look at data like the above chart, firstly the normalised rates don't seem very normal, and secondly what happens when debt to GDP is as high as it is now and rates go higher for any significant period of time.


----------



## MugsGame

letitroll said:


> (1) MasterCard are engaging in whats commonly referred to as *'innovation theatre'.*........large cap publicly traded corporates have whole divisions of people ensuring they are seen to be at the 'cutting edge' on whatever the 'hot' new thing might be...keeping up appearance is important nobody wants to be the old crusty institution thats behind on the new shiny stuff..........that 'hot thing' however dumb it might in practise needs to show up somewhere in their innovation/next generation strategy/press release documents to keep Wall St. & investors happy.
> 
> (2) *Make a shed load of fees (while doing (1)).*...Crypto is like the best innovation theatre anybody ever invented because you can actually get paid a SHED load to engage in it...Why?......... we've talked about this before....and as you know already.....Crypto is a pigs trough of transaction fees & hidden spread capturing..........the likes and level of which were last seen in 'Trad-Fi' three or four decades ago before regulation and competition killed it. Mastercard/PayPal/Coinbase.....cant believe there's people out there willing to pay the brokerage and transaction fees they are getting right now (some explicit, some hidden). Whoever runs these crypto divisions in these groups must chuckle at night going to bed.........cause they are fully aware how competition in 'trad-fi' has driven all manor of transaction fees down to practically ZERO over the last 30 years......and then this crypto baby shows up out of no where with just unbelievably juicy spreads/fees.......... I'd say the people in MasterCard's eyes nearly popped out of their heads when they first heard what fees/spreads could be made offering this settlement service. While also engaging in Innovation theatre....win/win as they say.


It's arguably even more pragmatic than that. Under their previous CEO, Mastercard pivoted from a card scheme to a payment services company, and value-added services now account for about 50% of their revenue. Mastercard have deep expertise in compliance, dispute resolution, consumer identification and onboarding, fraud prevention etc.

As regulation increasingly demands that crypto providers invest in these areas, there is an opportunity for trusted brands who have pre-made shovels ready to repurpose for the crypto gold rush.

Interestingly, you can see from articles on Silicon Republic and hiring on LinkedIn that a lot of Mastercard's innovation and indeed crypto activity is based in Dublin.


----------



## tecate

DazedInPontoon said:


> what happens when debt to GDP is as high as it is now and rates go higher for any significant period of time.



So rates go higher, the crypto infidels get "permanently" wiped out but it's not happy ever after??


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1567161810767286277

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1566820627943677958


----------



## Gordon Gekko

Everytime I see this thread pop up, I expect the title to be a punchline that “If Crypo is the answer, what is the question?”


----------



## letitroll

tecate said:


> So rates go higher, the crypto infidels get "permanently" wiped out but it's not happy ever after??



Its always happy ever after for real businesses selling goods and services that people want & that produce genuine value.

The above never goes out of fashion.....crypto nonsense does and will


----------



## DazedInPontoon

letitroll said:


> ... genuine value.


All roads lead to the Subjective Theory of value


----------



## tecate

letitroll said:


> The above never goes out of fashion.....crypto nonsense does and will


Your claim is that rates go up and stay up. I've referred to the economic reality not being that simple. I referred to debt being a major factor in the ability of CBs to raise rates and keep them raised. @DazedInPontoon also referred to debt as a factor.
In my last post, I linked to two examples where there are symptoms of major issues on the debt front. If you wish to participate and discuss, then do so but I really don't think it's reasonable to go and post something totally unrelated to what I posted - when you quoted my post  in response.

- You're hand waving that away without anything substantive.
- You spent a couple of posts discrediting Mark Yusko. Yet when I put it to you that his Twitter post (stating that equities have only been 7% more expensive in the history of markets) was accurate, all that came back was *crickets*.
- You went to great lengths to try to demonstrate that gold is responding positively in a higher rate environment when it's actually down.

You don't have to address those things - but you'll appreciate I'll draw my own conclusions if you're not able to.



letitroll said:


> Its always happy ever after for real businesses selling goods and services that people want & that produce genuine value.



- You've stated that 2x in as many posts. Yet on the first mention, I asked you, what of gold? - which is NOT something that produces a return. Again, *crickets*. Seems like gold gets a free pass from the parameters you're trying to set up but a special place in hell is reserved for Bitcoin.


----------



## LosLobos

Tickle said:


> Are you actually spending crypto in that case or are you cashing in your crypto in order to pay in the local currency?


Isn't it the same thing? If I have a USD balance on my debit card, and I pay for something in Europe - its converted. The shop doesn't receive dollars.  There are at least 7 different crypto companies  offering this service - probably more.


----------



## letitroll

DazedInPontoon said:


> In europe, the US or both? and for how long would you see them staying that high?



Both…..…..& forever…..2010’s will be a blip in terms of long term interest rates…everything points towards interest rates reverting to their long run averages….given the inflationary mega trends (demographics, deglobalization, friend shoring, climate action) & likely demands for capital moving forward in the next decades will be large….as I’ve said you’ll see savings accounts pay real interest rates again sooner than you think


----------



## letitroll

tecate said:


> Yet on the first mention, I asked you, what of gold? - which is NOT something that produces a return. Again, *crickets*.



Gold has no intrinsic value above & beyond its use as jewelry….the price in excess of this use case is an exercise in trying to determine how many crazy catastrophe people are out there , what their negative or a positive view of the future right now ,  how much they’re willing to pay to feel safe owning gold. THIS determines the marginal price of gold.

Gold is game of guessing human psychology and stupidity. It is a pointless game to determine the value of gold….. it’s pointlessness only exceeded by the pointlessness of trying to figure out the value of bitcoin.


----------



## tecate

letitroll said:


> Gold has no intrinsic value above & beyond its use as jewelry….the price in excess of this use case is an exercise in trying to determine how many crazy catastrophe people are out there , what their negative or a positive view of the future right now ,  how much they’re willing to pay to feel safe owning gold. THIS determines the marginal price of gold.
> 
> Gold is game of guessing human psychology and stupidity. It is a pointless game to determine the value of gold….. it’s pointlessness only exceeded by the pointlessness of trying to figure out the value of bitcoin.


Ah, so gold bugs are bat crap crazy like the crypto set. Got it.

Last I checked, the gold market had a value of $11 Trillion.


----------



## letitroll

tecate said:


> You spent a couple of posts discrediting Mark Yusko. Yet when I put it to you that his Twitter post (stating that equities have only been 7% more expensive in the history of markets) was accurate, all that came back was *crickets*.



SPY is an index…..the index is expensive….but it’s market of stocks, not a stock market….lots of good companies selling for reasonable prices (always)….the nifty 500 has been bid up…it will come down ~3,000 on SPY…20-25% to fall from here…no biggie SPY is underpinned by earnings…….eventually the earnings support the price & earnings grow over time…people who paid SPY4500 will be made whole again in time….…Bitcoin well, apart from voodoo charts and Mark Yusko & Raoul Paul et al, what’s gonna stop it falling? …..I’d imagine owning bitcoin feels like when your out in the ocean and you go to touch the bottom with your feet and there’s nothing there, it must be hard feeling not having any idea what something is actually ‘worth’….……with companies with intrinsic value you can always feel the bottom


----------



## letitroll

tecate said:


> Ah, so gold bugs are bat crap crazy like the crypto set. Got it.



no no no don’t lump the gold people in with crypto people, that’s not fair on them….like I said gold has base use case as jewelry going for it…..it then also a history that stretches back millennia for being coveted for its color and beauty…..that history is ‘worth’ something

Gold people are a little crazy….but crazy like your lovable Auntie

Crypto people are bat crap crazy


----------



## tecate

letitroll said:


> SPY is an index…..the index is expensive….but it’s market of stocks, not a stock market….lots of good companies selling for reasonable prices (always)….the nifty 500 has been bid up…it will come down ~3,000 on SPY…20-25% to fall from here…no biggie SPY is underpinned by earnings…….eventually the earnings support the price & earnings grow over time…people who paid SPY4500 will be made whole again in time….…Bitcoin well, apart from voodoo charts and Mark Yusko & Raoul Paul et al, what’s gonna stop it falling? …..I’d imagine owning bitcoin feels like when your out in the ocean and you go to touch the bottom with your feet and there’s nothing there, it must be hard feeling not having any idea what something is actually ‘worth’….……with companies with intrinsic value you can always feel the bottom


So let me get this straight. Yusko's chart is actually accurate?  The point that was being made at the time of me posting it was to demonstrate that it's in no way just Bitcoin that's in a bubble. Everything is. I'm not part of any Yusko fan club. I'm pretty sure that he skates onto CNBC to sell product to retail (the same as practically anything or anyone that features on CNBC). Long story short, I don't think it was reasonable to spend the time on sledging him - when it was the chart that was (and still several posts later) and is relevant.
Beyond that, you now agree that equities are over-valued across the board (although you are savvy enough in knowing how to pick them) - in line with the point Yusko was making.


letitroll said:


> no no no don’t lump the gold people in with crypto people, that’s not fair on them….like I said gold has base use case as jewelry going for it…..it then also a history that stretches back millennia for being coveted for its color and beauty…..that history is ‘worth’ something
> 
> Gold people are a little crazy….but crazy like your lovable Auntie
> 
> Crypto people are bat crap crazy


The gold jewelry use case is an extension of store of value. There are any number of examples of jewelry that's equally as ornate, etc. - but the attraction is the store of value. That leaves a sliver of industrial use case (that is very much recent in the overall history of gold).

Bottom line is that most gold does nothing - it's dug out of the ground at huge environmental cost - only to go back under the ground again in vaults - sitting there, gathering dust. And for that, it has a market cap of $11 trillion today.

Placing gold and bitcoin side by side, Bitcoin has a whole range of advantages over it - in terms of utility that you refuse to recognise (not going to go back into it in detail as it's been thrashed out to death).


You're saying that conventional asset classes will nosedive and then bounce back but Bitcoin won't. Your claim that we simply resume in having a higher rate environment indefinitely doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It disregards a monetary system that's broken. Lots of moving parts but debt levels up the wazoo is part of that. Yesterday, the Chinese agreed to pay Russia rubles and yuan for gas.  

There will be more stimulus. It's inevitable.


----------



## letitroll

tecate said:


> It disregards a monetary system that's broken.



Its working pretty well @tecate ....you crypto dystopians seem to forget that the last 100 years (under Fiat currency's, the Gold standard & Bretton woods) has seen greatest aggregate growth in human prosperity, technology, health & living standards/mortality ever recorded in literally millennia of human history. Broken LOL.....I'd love you to show me something you consider fixed?

Doom mongering as you are about all that is wrong with 'the system' instead of whats right.....is the equivalent of moaning about that way David held his sling while he defeated Goliath. Get a grip of yourself......things are better than they've ever been EVER, and you cant see it - as you sit dreaming about the demise of 'the monetary system' from behind a keyboard. Perfect is the enemy of good and we have it pretty good.....throwing out the good in the pursuit of the perfect is dangerous game as you can end up with neither.

You dont know you have it so good, cause you've never really seen it bad.

"Monetary System thats broken".....only a fish who doesnt realize he's swimming in water, would say such a thing.


----------



## tecate

letitroll said:


> you crypto dystopians


You can't even get beyond three words in a sentence and you're into inaccurate labelling.



letitroll said:


> seem to forget that the last 100 years (under Fiat currency's, the Gold standard & Bretton woods) has seen greatest aggregate growth in human prosperity, technology, health & living standards/mortality ever recorded in literally millennia of human history.


And you can't help yourself but to come out with lies. I'm on record here as stating that all of what has gone before is part of the evolution and progression of money and monetary and economic systems.



letitroll said:


> Broken LOL.....I'd love you to show me something you consider fixed!


Well let's turn that right around on you. Many times I've referred to the shortcomings of digital assets. Provide a link to ONE post where you identified something that needed to be improved upon with the current system. Just one.
You won't be able to - because you're in no way open minded to that. You're not open to change and you're invested in 'winning' an argument rather than openly discussing something.

Systems evolve. They can only evolve by identifying shortcomings or areas in need of improvement.



letitroll said:


> Doom mongering as you are about all that is wrong with 'the system' instead of whats right.


Once again with the personal commentary and the lies. I'm on record as stating here on a number of occasions that what has gone before is part of the evolution of monetary systems - as what's emerging right now in terms of digital assets will be also. But it seems that one mention of anything critical and the 'doom mongering' tar and feathering begins. There are many well regarded folks in finance - with nothing at all to do with crypto - who recognise deficiencies in the current monetary system. I'll cite Ray Dalio as one - but there are many others. Is Ray Dalio a doom monger?

If you can't even be open to a discussion and consideration of deficiencies, how would anything ever improve? But stick your head back in the sand if that's your preference.



letitroll said:


> Get a grip of yourself.


A wonderful advancement to the discussion - thank you.



letitroll said:


> Perfect is the enemy of good and we have it pretty good.


Who here talked about perfect, first off? You're making assumptions based on your own bias. I've never talked in terms of any system past/present/future - as being perfect.

Furthermore, you know what the enemy of evolution and progression is? Shouting down someone at the mention of the potential to improve upon aspects of an existing system. Shouting them down at the notion that there may be deficiencies in the current system (and it's you that needs to "get a grip of yourself" if you really believe that there are not deficiencies in the system we have).
But you're not open to that, right? Isn't that the reason you won't address debt in the context of what you set out re. alleged normalisation of rates going forward?



letitroll said:


> .throwing out the good in the pursuit of the perfect is dangerous game as you can end up with neither.


More lies. In 5 years of discussion here, I've never referred to 'throwing out' anything. I've also never referred to digital assets/crypto/BTC as being 'perfect' - far from it. They do provide optionality - and anyone with an open mind would recognise that whilst still being critical of that optionality if they so choose.



letitroll said:


> You dont know you have it so good, cause you've never really seen it bad.


You have no idea what you're saying or who you're saying it to - apart from the fact that the statement doesn't advance the discussion in any way, shape or form.

But why should we be surprised that you're not open to Bitcoin continuing to progress. From your posts it's clear that you are not open to considering the possibility of its ongoing development. I would suggest that someone challenging themselves and their own beliefs would go out of their way to be open to that (even if giving it a minor chance of success) - but what would I know.

This already played out once before. You screamed bloody, blue murder - Bitcoin would never see $60k again - you wouldn't hear of it. You were proven wrong within months. Aligned with jumping on me at the very mention of chinks in the current system, you never acknowledged that your belief back then was wrong. Instead, you left the forum for 6 months straight - acknowledging nothing.  Ordinarily, I'd like to take the  moral high ground (and I have up until this post) but your indulgences here cross the line.


----------



## letitroll

We are long way from $60k, even further from $69k.....the feeling your feeling @tecate and your lashing out now.....is the knowledge that there is nothing sitting underneath BTC's quoted price to hold it up just brain farts and dreams......your drifting far from shore and for the first time in a couple of years you've put your feet down to feel the bottom to see if your safe..........and there's nothing there.

It's a scary feeling....and its why these types of bubble/mania assets break down so badly once greed turns to fear.


----------



## tecate

letitroll said:


> We are long way from $60k, even further from $69k.....the feeling your feeling @tecate and your lashing out now.....is the knowledge that there is nothing sitting underneath BTC's quoted price to hold it up just brain farts and dreams......your drifting far from shore and for the first time in a couple of years you've put your feet down to feel the bottom to see if your safe..........and there's nothing there.
> 
> It's a scary feeling....and its why these types of bubble/mania assets break down so badly once greed turns to fear.


lol. Still no recognition. Are you capable of uttering the words "I was wrong"? I know that you ran away for 6 months to avoid that. If it wasn't for the invective in your penultimate post, I'd have let it be.

So lets get this straight. You took a position on something and swore blind that it could never be any other way. You were wrong. Now you've entered into another wager swearing blind it can never be any other way. That doesn't add up for me. How can you blindside yourself by taking an absolute view when life has shown you that it's in no way wise to do so or to believe so?

You'll recall when we set that initial wager, I told you that Bitcoin was going to crash, right - but that it wasn't done yet? So given that was the guts of 12 months ago, I was aware of this eventuality, what makes you think I'm not in a position to deal with it? Since the first criticism of Bitcoin was ever made, it's dealt with the intrinsic value argument. You're entitled to hold that belief (i.e. that it stands on nothing - and will fall on that basis). However, I think a lot of perspective has been lost. Zoom out. It's incredibly recent in my memory the jibes here about BTC never seeing $20k again.

I also recall posting up significant developments ref. the build out of digital assets infrastructure during the last crypto winter in 2018/9. I don't do that anymore because on any given day, you couldn't even keep track of the developments that are ongoing. The point is that right through this 5 year discussion, the space has been expanding in every conceivable way. The price dip with this downturn is wild and by all accounts it's still a long way from bottoming. And yet, crypto projects are far, far better financed this time round than back in 2018. The build out continues - regardless of the price action.


----------



## Tickle

LosLobos said:


> Isn't it the same thing? If I have a USD balance on my debit card, and I pay for something in Europe - its converted. The shop doesn't receive dollars.  There are at least 7 different crypto companies  offering this service - probably more.


Disagree. It's only the same if you have used Euros to buy the USD and then pay for something in Euros.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

LosLobos said:


> Isn't it the same thing? If I have a USD balance on my debit card, and I pay for something in Europe - its converted. The shop doesn't receive dollars.  There are at least 7 different crypto companies  offering this service - probably more.


No it's not the same thing.  The USD customer spending in Europe has no choice but to accept the transaction costs.  I suggest there is no situation where paying by way of bitcoin exchange to fiat is the more cost efficient option.  Retail outlets and the likes of Mastercard are simply pandering to a cult which sees buying things with crypto as the equivalent of blessing yourself.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> No it's not the same thing.  The USD customer spending in Europe has no choice but to accept the transaction costs.  I suggest there is no situation where paying by way of bitcoin exchange to fiat is the more cost efficient option.  Retail outlets and the likes of Mastercard are simply pandering to a cult which sees buying things with crypto is the equivalent of blessing yourself.


If its commonplace for a visa/mastercard holder to routinely pay with currency X loaded on card with the transaction in currency Y at POS, then why wouldn't Bitcoin fit into precisely that? It's a global currency that doesn't have any borders. Would you go out and buy the currency for that purpose? In the vast majority of circumstances, no. However, if you had the currency on hand for whatever reason, then it makes perfect sense. 

You can't make a distinction between dealing with any fx charge from USD to EUR as opposed to BTC to EUR. You also can't deny that such products make it entirely practical for :
- Employers to decide to pay staff in BTC.
- Employees to decide that they're happy with accepting payment in BTC.

I doubt this is pandering. I believe this to be two payments companies with a beady eye on the future, making sure that any erosion of there          business is minimised.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> If its commonplace for a visa/mastercard holder to routinely pay with currency X loaded on card with the transaction in currency Y at POS, then why wouldn't Bitcoin fit into precisely that? It's a global currency that doesn't have any borders. Would you go out and buy the currency for that purpose? In the vast majority of circumstances, no. However, if you had the currency on hand for whatever reason, then it makes perfect sense.
> 
> You can't make a distinction between dealing with any fx charge from USD to EUR as opposed to BTC to EUR. You also can't deny that such products make it entirely practical for :
> - Employers to decide to pay staff in BTC.
> - Employees to decide that they're happy with accepting payment in BTC.
> 
> I doubt this is pandering. I believe this to be two payments companies with a beady eye on the future, making sure that any erosion of there          business is minimised.


My dear @tecate I know you will take offence at what I am going to say, but to heck.  From your impassioned posts in these parts I have formed the distinct impression that you see bitcoin in particular as an ideological project that you passionately believe in (I know you find the term cult particularly offensive).  I am therefore convinced that you transact in bitcoin not because that is the most convenient way for you to transact but in pursuit of your ideological goals.  That and maybe just bragging rights are the only reason for 99% of those who transact in bitcoin to do so.  I note that the much touted repatriation utility for El Salvadorians has turned out to be a grand delusion of the cult.


----------



## letitroll

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Ball-et-al-Conference-Draft-BPEA-FA22.pdf 

Short version for those who dont like research papers - nonsense assets are going to be crushed...........only assets/businesses underpinned by strong FCF & clean balance sheets will do well, maybe even these might drop a lot for a little while but come back..........long duration assets....of which BTC is the longest I know.....have a already been taken out and shot.....but now their corpse is going to get dismembered and fed to the pigs.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I have formed the distinct impression that you see bitcoin in particular as an ideological project that you passionately believe in (I know you find the term cults particularly offensive).



My view is as much pragmatic as it is ideological. I find the use of the term 'cult' offensive when to cause offense is the objective or when everyone is being tarred with the one brush. There are a whole host of views out there relative to decentralized digital assets. It's not in any way accurate to stick them all in under one derogatory label.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> I am therefore convinced that you transact in bitcoin not because that is the most convenient way for you to transact but in pursuit of your ideological goals.



By your own admission, you are opposed to the development so hardly a coincidence that you form this opinion. Secondly, I'm pretty sure that I've explained this to you already but I'll do so again. I'm currently contracted to a company that don't have any other form of payment except crypto. The option was to work for them and receive payment in BTC or not to take on the work at all. Is this niche right now?

Of course it is - but it doesn't fit into your explanation above. I've contracted to other crypto firms who have paid me in USD. I'm pretty sure that as it becomes increasingly easier to offer crypto, these companies will do so. There are a whole host of hurdles relative to the tax system, accountancy norms, etc. that make it awkward right now for such companies to offer the option. To the point I made earlier, the likes of Visa and Mastercard make one significant aspect of that much easier.

Here's one I didn't mention. You said that it would make no sense for someone to go out of their way to pay the fx fee via visa/mastercard. I said that if someone was already prepared to fund in one currency and pay in another, then why should btc be any different in this respect. To your point in terms of saving on fx fees though, we know that bitcoin is a truly global currency where everything else isn't. Therefore, if - as this progresses - more and more vendors offer the option to pay in btc directly, then there isn't any fx fee. In an international context, I expect that to happen. What visa/mastercard are doing complements this.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I note that the must touted repatriation utility for El Salvadorians has turned out to be a grand illusion of the cult.


lol. That's complete and utter nonsense. It's done just fine. I've told you before that the measure of success isn't having EVERYONE in the country using it. It's in having the optionality there. Are there circumstances where it can be used more? Sure there are. It's very much misunderstood - but that's completely fine. Time and a bit of attention to education will take care of that.


----------



## tecate

letitroll said:


> https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Ball-et-al-Conference-Draft-BPEA-FA22.pdf
> 
> Short version for those who dont like research papers - nonsense assets are going to be crushed...........only assets/businesses underpinned by strong FCF & clean balance sheets will do well, maybe even these might drop a lot for a little while but come back..........long duration assets....of which BTC is the longest I know.....have a already been taken out and shot.....but now their corpse is going to get dismembered and fed to the pigs.


Firstly, you have linked to an 88 page report from the IMF. My first thought is that this will have an even handed take on whatever it states ref. BTC/digital assets(NOT). But there's no need to consider that because in the entire document, there's no mention of anything to do with Bitcoin or any other digital asset. There isn't even a mention of the word "asset" let alone "long duration assets". 

There is something that the IMF can teach you though - so all is not lost. Have a read of the conclusion and you'll see that unlike you they don't talk about absolutes. They plainly point out they have no notion if they're right or wrong on their take re. inflation.


----------



## letitroll

tecate said:


> because in the entire document, there's no mention of anything to do with Bitcoin or any other digital asset.



Doesn't need to be, if you actually understand the way things ACTUALLY work and can make the connections with the correct mental model......you'd understand the implications for bitcoin......and other long duration assets.


----------



## tecate

letitroll said:


> Doesn't need to be, if you actually understand the way things ACTUALLY work and can make the connections with the correct mental model......you'd understand the implications for bitcoin......and other long duration assets.


Ok, so you're making the same point as you made a few posts back? i.e. you believe high rates environment continues over the longer haul. Higher rates environment not good for 'long duration assets'. And you'll go on from there to suggest that other 'long duration assets' will come back and Bitcoin won't. 

It remains to be seen if they'll be able to stick with the high rates and stay away from stimulus from medium term onwards. And as regards the distinction you will make between long duration assets and the suggestion that Bitcoin offers nothing comparatively, we'll simply disagree.


----------



## OEP1990

I get that some people don't like crypto, don't understand crypto and don't see any value in it. It's an emerging technology, that has gained a cult like following so there is a lot of nonsense around it. However, while the price crashes - development in the area continues. The difference in the technology from the first bull run to the most recent bull run is vast and there has been a lot of progress made. Ethereum yesterday moved to Proof-of-Stake, which makes it 99% more energy efficient and increases the number of transactions it can process. This was years in development.

Every time the price crashes the people that don't like crypto come out and say it's done, it's useless and this is the end. Bitcoin's value may be way down from it's peak but it's still worth the same as the previous peak! The "bottom" value of crypto has only been increasing. Hopefully in time the a lot of the crap coins and projects will fail and drop out with only the good ones remaining - like any emerging technology.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

OEP1990 said:


> I get that some people don't like crypto, don't understand crypto and don't see any value in it.


All Nobel Laureates.  The vast majority of investment analysts and economists.  All central bankers.


OEP1990 said:


> It's an emerging technology,


Fancy term for running a glorified spreadsheet.


OEP1990 said:


> that has gained a cult like following so there is a lot of nonsense around it.


Agreed


OEP1990 said:


> However, while the price crashes - development in the area continues. The difference in the technology


There's that word again.  There is far more technology in a touch screen, for example.


OEP1990 said:


> from the first bull run to the most recent bull run is vast and there has been a lot of progress made. Ethereum yesterday moved to Proof-of-Stake


Yep it doesn't come any more crude than Proof of Work.  Trillions and trillions of mindless guesses at a SHA reversal is stone age stuff.


OEP1990 said:


> Bitcoin's value may be way down from it's peak but it's still worth the same as the previous peak! The "bottom" value of crypto has only been increasing. Hopefully in time the a lot of the crap coins and projects will fail and drop out with only the good ones remaining - like any emerging technology.


You like that word.  I think some millennials are persuaded that being a crypto fan is a badge of how technology savvy they are.  Sad


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> All Nobel Laureates.  The vast majority of investment analysts and economists.  All central bankers.


"The vast majority of investment analysts" is incorrect.
As regards Nobels + economists + central bankers, most of the examples you've provided down through the years have been all three at one stage or other of their "in the pay of the state" careers. So in essence you're talking about a small group - who have spent their lives working on the very centralised systems that Bitcoin and other projects offer an alternative to. You think they like the idea of being replaced by or shown up by code? 

You crossed out his claim that they don't understand. Three words -> Fax Machine Guy .

He didn't understand that new technology at the time but that didn't stop him flexing his ego, not sticking to his own lane and commenting on something he had no earthly idea about. He features prominently within the group of naysayers you've relied on over the past 5 years.




Duke of Marmalade said:


> Fancy term for running a glorified spreadsheet.


If you can't see the implications of A. decentralized hard money and B. smart contracts where code is king after 5 years of discussion, you're way beyond help.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> There is far more technology in a touch screen, for example.



See above.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Yep it doesn't come any more crude than Proof of Work.  Trillions and trillions of mindless guesses at a SHA reversal is stone age stuff.


Wait and see as the 'environmental objectors' will find some other excuse to turn on Ethereum (because it was never about the environment with most of these objectors).
You on the other hand said you had no difficulty at all with Bitcoin's energy use. Your objection is that its unimpressive - while practically everyone else agrees that it offers the best network security you can have. Unless you're saying that PoW doesn't offer the best network security going, all that remains of your point is sour grapes.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> You like that word.  I think some millennials are persuaded that being a crypto fan is a badge of how technology savvy they are.  Sad


Maybe @OEP1990 should have faxed that post to you instead.


----------



## OEP1990

Duke of Marmalade said:


> All Nobel Laureates.  The vast majority of investment analysts and economists.  All central bankers.
> 
> Fancy term for running a glorified spreadsheet.
> 
> Agreed
> 
> There's that word again.  There is far more technology in a touch screen, for example.
> 
> Yep it doesn't come any more crude than Proof of Work.  Trillions and trillions of mindless guesses at a SHA reversal is stone age stuff.
> 
> You like that word.  I think some millennials are persuaded that being a crypto fan is a badge of how technology savvy they are.  Sad


Ha, good man.


----------



## MugsGame

Would anyone like to invest in my homeopathic database startup?


----------



## tecate

MugsGame said:


> Would anyone like to invest in my homeopathic database startup?


Not my bag, but thanks for the offer.   Homeopathy would be very much a faith-based thing. I prefer transparent rules via code.

You're in the right neck of the woods though. I'm sure you will get some takers from the faith-based followers of Saint Jerome. I'd start with the Duke - he tells me blind faith and 'trust' in Saint Jerome is fine, so I'm sure he can stretch that 'logic' to homeopathy.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

@tecate my guess is that @MugsGame* doesn't believe in his homeopathic database either, he is just trying to hook a few suckers.  Just as I suggest that the vast majority of those that have launched the 10,000 cryptos know it is just snake oil but boyo given this internet age you only need to hook about 1 in a 1,000 gullible millennials trying to get Very Rich Very Quick, and you will get VRVQ.

* @MugsGame sincere apologies if you are sincere in your creation and not just trying to sucker a few bitcoin out of @tecate


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> * @MugsGame sincere apologies if you are sincere in your creation and just trying to sucker a few bitcoin out of @tecate


Ok, is there any of that sincerity left for the projects that are working their asses off to try and build something tangible - or do you want to continue to tar them all with the one brush?

As for the projects that started out with the very worst of intentions, you might also acknowledge that this is nothing new - and is in no way exclusive to digital assets. It has happened in every sector down through the years.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

OEP1990 said:


> Bitcoin's value may be way down from it's peak but it's still worth the same as the previous peak! The "bottom" value of crypto has only been increasing.


bitcoin price was 70k in November '21, its peak.  Its previous peak was in April '21 at 64k.  In between in July '21 it hit a "bottom" of 33k.  So far from being worth the same as its previous peak it is a big drop on the previous bottom.
I would not accuse you of porkies, just cognitive bias - you want your statement to be a true and impressive put down to "some people who don't like crypto" and so in your own mind it becomes a true statement.  It happened to me once.  I said there were 7,000 cryptos.  @tecate eat me alive and correctly pointed out that there were "only" 2,000.  There are of course now over 10,000, but that does not excuse my cognitive error.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> bitcoin price was 70k in November '21, its peak.  Its previous peak was in April '21 at 64k.  In between in July '21 it hit a "bottom" of 33k.  So far from being worth the same as its previous peak it is a big drop on the previous bottom.


Lord save us. So you're now picking out price levels from within one Bitcoin bull market, Duke? He rightly referred to the peak of the overall bull market. There's no cognitive bias at play....except for yours that is. It peaked at $67,617 - not $70k. If you want to identify cognitive bias, it's right there. You'll notice that you didn't round down the other way and knock off $3k/ That's no coincidence. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I would not accuse you of porkies, just cognitive bias - you want your statement to be a true and impressive put down to "some people who don't like crypto" and so in your own mind it becomes a true statement.



lol. I don't think he was around for the entire agony. Do you want to tell him the number of times you referred to how savage it was that Bitcoin peaked at $20k, the poor craturs that were hoodwinked, etc.?
And as regards the "some people who don't like crypto", didn't you make a recent confession in that you belong to said group? Are you having a relapse or is this a case of split personality disorder?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> It happened to me once.


Once!!? Jaysus Duke yer riddled with it.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I said there were 7,000 cryptos. @tecate eat me alive and correctly pointed out that there were "only" 2,000. There are of course now over 10,000, but that does not excuse my cognitive error.


So what you're saying is that over the past five years the space continues to expand at pace despite your protestations.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Oh yes the space expands.  I was tempted to ICO  my own Marmalade coin but would I enjoy screwing $100m from the gullible millennial suckers?  I mean I might catch you and you don’t really deserve that.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Oh yes the space expands.  I was tempted to ICO  my own Marmalade coin but would I enjoy screwing $100m from the poor millennial suckers?


Indeed - you were invited to launch MarmaladeCoin countless times but I guess when you were writing your whitepaper, you changed your mind and decided that any old project couldn't be spun up to replace Bitcoin.


----------



## time to plan

tecate said:


> Not my bag, but thanks for the offer.   Homeopathy would be very much a faith-based thing.


Classic!


----------



## TinyChamp

MugsGame said:


> Would anyone like to invest in my homeopathic database startup?


Ehhhh.... le me think about that one


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Retail outlets and the likes of Mastercard are simply pandering to a cult which sees buying things with crypto as the equivalent of blessing yourself.


This pandering is getting waaaay out of hand.

Mastercard is bringing crypto trading to banks.
N26 adds crypto trading
USDT to be made available via 24,000 ATMs throughout Brazil.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> This pandering is getting waaaay out of hand.
> 
> Mastercard is bringing crypto trading to banks.
> N26 adds crypto trading
> USDT to be made available via 24,000 ATMs throughout Brazil.


The cult is still very alive but I am not seeing the Mastercard move as any sign that people are either using or accepting crypto in everyday purchases.
My understanding is that the attraction of USDT is that it is a $.  Not an expert but I presume some Brazilians see the crypto form as more practical than the conventional form.  This is no way an adoption by Brazilians of bitcoin.  But I accept that it does support the view that Tether’s imminent implosion has been exaggerated.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The cult is still very alive but I am not seeing the Mastercard move as any sign that people are either using or accepting crypto in everyday purchases.



I know what you're saying Duke. This pandering is getting waaay out of hand. I'm not sure what these guys are thinking.  I mean if they white-label crypto purchases on the cards issued in association with these member banks, that's just more of it. Bank account holders having the ability to buy/sell crypto through their online banking, mobile banking or local branch - It'll count for nothing. It's just crypto green washing. And their Chief Digital Officer saying "crypto is on the cusp of going mainstream", well them's just ....words.

There must be something in the water though as the CTO of Walmart is riddled with it too. During the week, he came out with this giant whopper:

“Crypto will become an important part of how customers transact. We want to make sure that we make it as friction free for customers to be able to transact, and to be able to buy, and how they are able to derive value out of it"




Duke of Marmalade said:


> My understanding is that the attraction of USDT is that it is a $.  Not an expert but I presume some Brazilians see the crypto form as more practical than the conventional form.  This is no way an adoption by Brazilians of bitcoin.  But I accept that it does support the view that Tether’s imminent implosion has been exaggerated.



Well, this is rather complementary. I would never have seen you as a Tether fan. I mean they could still have a gaping big hole in their balance sheet although they have sold off all commercial paper now and are holding T-bills instead.

In most of the developing world, the default has always been to gather up some USD when their own currency goes to mush. Here's the problem Duke. I've never met anyone who holds USDT or has held it for a time - who doesn't have a few satoshis on hand also. I mean, you can have them there in the same wallet - side by side. It's getting people accustomed to the digital wallet that's the point of friction.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> I know what you're saying Duke. This pandering is getting waaay out of hand. I'm not sure what these guys are thinking.  I mean if they white-label crypto purchases on the cards issued in association with these member banks, that's just more of it. Bank account holders having the ability to buy/sell crypto through their online banking, mobile banking or local branch - It'll count for nothing. It's just crypto green washing. And their Chief Digital Officer saying "crypto is on the cusp of going mainstream", well them's just ....words.


I think I was able to distil out the sarcasm (what was it Oscar Wilde said?).  But the CDO talking up crypto is like the Pope seeing a good future for Rosary beads.


tecate said:


> There must be something in the water though as the CTO of Walmart is riddled with it too. During the week, he came out with this giant whopper.


Ahh!  That razor sharp wit again.  Well I Googled this CTO of Walmart guy.  He sees a big future for crypto in the Metaverse. For those unfamiliar with cultspeak this is how Wiki describes the Metaverse:


			
				Wiki said:
			
		

> the *metaverse* is a hypothetical iteration of the Internet as a single, universal and immersive virtual world that is facilitated by the use of virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) headsets.  In colloquial use, a metaverse is a network of 3D virtual worlds focused on social connection.


I am not familiar with the place but I could certainly see bitcoin having a role in it wherever it is.  Not somewhere that I personally will be going on holiday.


tecate said:


> Well, this is rather complementary. I would never have seen you as a Tether fan. I mean they could still have a gaping big hole in their balance sheet although they have sold off all commercial paper now and are holding T-bills instead.


If that is true indeed, then I agree that is a fingers to the Roubinis of this world and a disappointment to me.  My understanding was that the propaganda of instant Tether implosion was a big deadweight on bitcoin achieving those heights of $500k predicted by the cult.  Now that that existential threat has been removed one might have expected a bitcoin bounce.


tecate said:


> In most of the developing world, the default has always been to gather up some USD when their own currency goes to mush. Here's the problem Duke. I've never met anyone who holds USDT or has held it for a time - who doesn't have a few satoshis on hand also. I mean, you can have them there in the same wallet - side by side. It's getting people accustomed to the digital wallet that's the point of friction.


Yes, that was my understanding.  Tether was just the chips at the casino.  Something you gather up when you want to move from the roulette to the craps table.  It is a surprise to me that this playground would support 30,000 ATMs in Brazil.  Probably more to keep their precious US$ out of the clutches of the authorities, but I am not familiar enough with Brazilian conditions.  Very much doubt it is in anticipation of buying their coffee beans with crypto or taking their holidays in the Metaverse.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> But the CDO talking up crypto is like the Pope seeing a good future for Rosary beads.


So Mastercard are talking up their crypto book. Interesting.




Duke of Marmalade said:


> I Googled this CTO of Walmart guy.  He sees a big future for crypto in the Metaverse. For those unfamiliar with cultspeak this is how Wiki describes the Metaverse:



Cultspeak? I thought crypto folk were being tarred and feathered exclusively with that moniker? I'm open to correction but this Metaverse thing is in  no way the exclusive preserve of crypto. Should I take it that anyone interested or involved in any new technology then is in a cult and is a cultist?

Well over the past 2 years, Zuckerberg has poured $15 billion into the metaverse. I guess he must see something or other in it.




Duke of Marmalade said:


> I am not familiar with the place but I could certainly see bitcoin having a role in it wherever it is. Not somewhere that I personally will be going on holiday.



You do yourself a disservice Duke. You've invested more than a fair few hours in this discussion and it's virtual is it not.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> If that is true indeed, then I agree that is a fingers to the Roubinis of this world and a disappointment to me. My understanding was that the propaganda of instant Tether implosion was a big deadweight on bitcoin achieving those heights of $500k predicted by the cult. Now that that existential threat has been removed one might have expected a bitcoin bounce.


Disappointment? Surely you wouldn't actually want them to collapse? They could still be underfunded - anything is possible. However, they are gearing up for stablecoin regulation. They now have a top 5 auditor on board -  but still running with attestations - not audits...yet.
I don't think Tether fud was holding crypto back in any real way. Only newcomers would have been phased by it.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Probably more to keep their precious US$ out of the clutches of the authorities, but I am not familiar enough with Brazilian conditions. Very much doubt it is in anticipation of buying their coffee beans with crypto or taking their holidays in the Metaverse.


Ah Brazilian conditions? A history of run-away inflation and currency devaluation combined with capital controls? That would probably be it alright. Choose the means to buy those coffee beans is a multiple stage process Duke.
Having a specific means to pay for them is part one. A lack of faith in fiat currency it seems may be driving people towards figuring out how to operate a digital wallet. Stage 2 - you have the means in place already - even if initial motivation wasn't payments. You have the means so its hardly a massive leap to whip out your phone and make a payment should it suit your purposes to do so at that point.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> So Mastercard are talking up their crypto book. Interesting.


Trademarks, or companies for that matter, don't talk.  The CDO was presumably recruited because he was a cultist.  Same with Fidelity Digital Assets - their guys also have the faith.  Like car dealerships.  Salesperson A is trained to tell you how wonderful E-cars are.  Salesperson B explains the huge advantages of petrol over E.  If we want to believe that Mastercard does have some overall personality it would be cult wishful thinking of the highest order to say that it has gone crypto.


tecate said:


> Disappointment? Surely you wouldn't actually want them to collapse?


Well, yes.  I was looking forward to it but then your last post dashed my fantasies.


tecate said:


> They could still be underfunded - anything is possible. However, they are gearing up for stablecoin regulation. They now have a top 5 auditor on board -  but still running with attestations - not audits...yet.


Great, so I can still indulge my fantasy.


tecate said:


> Ah Brazilian conditions? A history of run-away inflation and currency devaluation combined with capital controls?


I thought the solution to that was bitcoin not US$ fiat currency.  30,000 ATMs to dispense Tether, not bitcoin.



tecate said:


> Having a specific means to pay for them is part one. A lack of faith in fiat currency it seems may be driving people towards figuring out how to operate a digital wallet. Stage 2 - you have the means in place already - even if initial motivation wasn't payments. You have the means so its hardly a massive leap to whip out your phone and make a payment should it suit your purposes to do so at that point.


I see.  Wean the gentiles on to it and before long they will all be cultists.  It seems that after spending their $30 bitcoin intro, the El Salvadorians didn't fall for it and the great proselytization of that unfortunate people has been a complete flop.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Trademarks, or companies for that matter, don't talk.  The CDO was presumably recruited because he was a cultist.  Same with Fidelity Digital Assets - their guys also have the faith.  Like car dealerships.  Salesperson A is trained to tell you how wonderful E-cars are.  Salesperson B explains the huge advantages of petrol over E.  If we want to believe that Mastercard does have some overall personality it would be cult wishful thinking of the highest order to say that it has gone crypto.


Seems like you're trying to have it both ways but as you wish. Let's use this last update from Mastercard as the case in point. They're effectively enabling a whole host of banks to offer crypto. You say that's pandering...but wait, who are they pandering to exactly in that example? The banks? It must be the banks they're pandering to? But the banks are like mastercard - they've demanded this product so that they can replicate the pandering. There really is no end to this pandering!
So they're enabling people as far as crypto is concerned and at some stage they will rug pull the whole offering away again? Is that the devious plan? I'm kind of onboard with all of that - including the rug pull. I'd sooner see people replace them - so as long as they introduce a few more people to the future of finance, I'm more than happy with that. Let the pandering continue. 





Duke of Marmalade said:


> Well, yes.  I was looking forward to it



I suppose we should give you points for honesty. I mean, it's a bit bitter and twisted to want them to collapse - and all the misery that would likely bring someone or other just because you despise crypto...but like I said - points for honesty (as this is the reality for many in the Tether FUD camp - they're not as forthcoming as regards that element of it as you are).




Duke of Marmalade said:


> Great, so I can still indulge *my fantasy.*


And this has always been my problem with Tether FUD. I would never ever suggest that we take Tether's word for it - but by the very same token, I would never ever suggest we take Tether FUDsters word for it either - not without providing solid evidence. And the solid evidence was always lacking. It's very much in my interests to be able to gauge if Tether is about to fail so I'd be a fool to not pay attention. But these FUDsters have been less than useful as most of them are driven by a certain venom rather than a neutral altruistic concern. That's the issue.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I thought the solution to that was bitcoin not US$ fiat currency.  30,000 ATMs to dispense Tether, not bitcoin.


I'll redirect to my previous comment. I welcome people getting on board with USDT because USDT and BTC go hand in glove. Everyone has said that Tether is the big enemy of the state but the reality is that they're furthering the US agenda all the while. I haven't met one individual who has owned or does own USDT and doesn't own BTC. If you've gotten comfortable with using a digital wallet that holds USDT, it's a whole lot easier to make the decision to hold BTC also.




Duke of Marmalade said:


> I see.  Wean the gentiles on to it and before long they will all be cultists.  It seems that after spending their $30 bitcoin intro, the El Salvadorians didn't fall for it and the great proselytization of that unfortunate people has been a complete flop.



Yes, and that's the way that it's being spun on your side of the fence. El Salvador and its bitcoin experiment are doing just fine. Of that I'm 110% confident.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Just to explain that my Tether implosion fantasy is not entirely my inner schadenfreude.  My conviction is that bitcoin will end as zero and that has not been rocked one iota, if the timeframe looks rather longer than I might have expected.  Before its eventual demise a lot of innocent folk will continue to conned by whales and shysters.  The sooner it is finished the better.  Tether implosion is the nearest thing to a nuke of bitcoin that there is.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Just to explain that my Tether implosion fantasy is not entirely my inner schadenfreude.  My conviction is that bitcoin will end as zero and that has not been rocked one iota, if the timeframe looks rather longer than I might have expected.  Before its eventual demise a lot of innocent folk will continue to conned by whales and shysters.  The sooner it is finished the better.  Tether implosion is the nearest thing to a nuke of bitcoin that there is.


Expressing the view that bitcoin will go to zero and repeatedly stating that there can't possibly be any other outcome is wayward. It's wayward because you don't have control of that. I pulled Brendan up in the other thread on this point when he went on about credibility. A credible claim Duke would be that you have conviction in bitcoin failing but that it could continue to succeed even if you put its chances of succeeding in the 'very low' category. That would be a credible claim and conviction I would say - even if I don't agree with it.

Tether's failure would be 'unhelpful' to the development of crypto and bitcoin. However, at this point, in no way would it end it. We're nearly 6 months on after Terra/Luna imploded. There was lots of fall-out but crypto trundles forward all the while.

Getting your own schadenfreude caught up in the schadenfreude of others in their baseless prognostications re. Tether isn't helpful. If anything, it's damaging. How the hell is anyone going to believe a word if there is some real smoke signal of Tether going south now that there's been years of lies and half truths told? If it clouds people's judgement what those people are engaging with is dangerous - but of course they don't care about that - just their own venomous agendas.

Tether knows what way the regulatory winds are blowing. Maybe they have a giant sized hole in their finances all the while. I think we will find out one way or another very soon as they will have to oblige re. full and complete audits if they're going to maintain the giant sized business they've built. At that point, the FUDster bandwagon will gather up its things and start to poke holes in some other aspect of crypto.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Before its eventual demise a lot of innocent folk will continue to conned by whales and shysters


Just a note on the 'shysters'. Bitcoin as a protocol is unblemished. There may well be actors that build unethical businesses, incompetently managed businesses or scams that involve themselves with the currency in some way. Celsius is an example of a business that was at best mismanaged (whether worse than that I think we may find out with the fullness of time). What these actors do in no way compromises bitcoin itself. An individual can decide to buy and use bitcoin if they so wish - that's their decision. It's not necessary to involve crypto lenders like Celsius. Someone talking their book happens across all industries. Therefore, any individual has an obligation to themselves to act on their own information and opinion - not on anyone elses.

Time and again, the picture is painted that 'shysters' only exist in crypto. That's not a true representation of the facts. You tell us Duke that you place faith and complete trust in central bankers.

Here are your central bankers.


Here they are again.

And the same thing happens to politicians that insider trade on actionable information as central bankers who do so - NOTHING!

But fear not, Nancy, her stock broker husband and their $120 million  net worth can reassure you that everything is above board...


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

@tecate where do you get this stuff from?  That's what I mean by cult - you are part of a network which is determined to be fed every bit of muck it can find on the established financial order.  Is it really so terribly shocking that some dude held more than the $50k limit in T-Bills that he was permitted?
Of course I am not demonising the bitcoin protocol.  Nor do I swoon at its technological  marvel.
It is the chorus of supposed gurus predicting stellar gains and stellar adoption for the "currency" and winding up a gullible audience of millennial FOMOs that churns my stomach.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> @tecate where do you get this stuff from?  That's what I mean by cult - you are part of a network which is determined to be fed every bit of muck it can find on the established financial order.


Ah, it's inconvenient? I'm very sorry that it's inconvenient for you, Duke. May I suggest another approach then? Be accepting of the fact that there are 'shysters' lurking in every part of the financial system. That's all you have to do. Instead, you're back to the labeling/tar and feathering - that reflects on you.




Duke of Marmalade said:


> Is it really so terribly shocking that some dude held more than the $50k limit in T-Bills that he was permitted?


Are you for real? Did you review ALL of the examples i provided? And you don't think that you're indulging your bias by coming back with what you've tried to present as the most damage-limiting aspect of all that you could find? Not that its in order either. Do you know what the sanction is for someone making the same 'mistake' if they're registered with the SEC? They can't just say they didn't know - not that any sane person believes that to be the case! Do you know how many Fed officials have had to resign over the course of the last 12 months? Do you know how many  officials have left the likes of the SEC and gone on to fat posts in the private sector - some of them who's decision making was positively adjusted prior to leaving the SEC? Get out of it, Duke.




Duke of Marmalade said:


> Of course I am not demonising the bitcoin protocol.  Nor do I swoon at its technological  marvel.


You might as well have had as you didn't make the distinction. In the very same way, what efforts did you make to separate honest actors in the crypto/blockchain space from these 'shysters' that you talk of? None because you're taring everything and everyone within the sector with that one brush simply because you hold a different opinion.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> It is the chorus of supposed gurus predicting stellar gains and stellar adoption for the "currency" and winding up a gullible audience of millennial FOMOs that churns my stomach.


Ok, and so that being the case, can you provide a link to the post here on AAM where you've declared that you're sick to the stomach at the horse crap that's forked out every minute on CNBC? Someone actually started a fund that takes the opposite side of Jim Kramer's claims and forecasts. It's a complete manipulation. But there won't be a word here from you on that. The usual double standards.

That people talk up their own book is as old as time began. It is not exclusive to crypto and by repeatedly singling it out, you're implying that to be the case. Secondly, I suspect you're not of the 'snowflake' generation but why take a 'snowflake' position? I'm not in any way down with people not taking responsibility for their own financial decisions - whether that's related to crypto, stonks, property or whatever else.

If someone is making a decision that they're not owning, then they shouldn't be making that trade/investment. If a fraud has been committed that has led directly to someone taking a decision, then all day long, have those fraudsters drawn and quartered. Otherwise, people should grow a pair and take responsibility.


----------



## time to plan

tecate said:


> Just a note on the 'shysters'. Bitcoin as a protocol is unblemished. There may well be actors that build unethical businesses, incompetently managed businesses or scams that involve themselves with the currency in some way. Celsius is an example of a business that was at best mismanaged (whether worse than that I think we may find out with the fullness of time). What these actors do in no way compromises bitcoin itself. An individual can decide to buy and use bitcoin if they so wish - that's their decision. It's not necessary to involve crypto lenders like Celsius. Someone talking their book happens across all industries. Therefore, any individual has an obligation to themselves to act on their own information and opinion - not on anyone elses.
> 
> Time and again, the picture is painted that 'shysters' only exist in crypto. That's not a true representation of the facts. You tell us Duke that you place faith and complete trust in central bankers.
> 
> Here are your central bankers.
> 
> 
> Here they are again.
> 
> And the same thing happens to politicians that insider trade on actionable information as central bankers who do so - NOTHING!
> 
> But fear not, Nancy, her stock broker husband and their $120 million  net worth can reassure you that everything is above board...


Where have you ever heard it said that shysters only exist in crypto?


----------



## tecate

time to plan said:


> Where have you ever heard it said that shysters only exist in crypto?


I'm explicitly pointing out that they don't only exist in crypto.


----------



## time to plan

tecate said:


> I'm explicitly pointing out that they don't only exist in crypto.


You were explicitly saying



> Time and again, the picture is painted that 'shysters' only exist in crypto.



I have never heard anyone say that shysters only exist in crypto, so I'm curious where you have.


----------



## tecate

time to plan said:


> I have never heard anyone say that shysters only exist in crypto, so I'm curious where you have.


Are you saying that there are genuine, hard-working creative people in the Web3/crypto space building out projects with integrity?


----------



## time to plan

tecate said:


> Are you saying that there are genuine, hard-working creative people in the Web3/crypto space building out projects with integrity?


Good Lord.


----------



## tecate

time to plan said:


> Good Lord.


Is that a yes? (...or were you just in the middle of reciting a passage from the good book).


----------



## tecate

tecate said:


> It's getting people accustomed to the digital wallet that's the point of friction.


----------



## letitroll

Decentralized crypto sure is getting very centralized lately......


----------



## tecate

letitroll said:


> Decentralized crypto sure is getting very centralized lately......



I think you're getting the hang of this, @letitroll . You've identified the centralized bits as the most troublesome.  

I'll say what I said the time of another centralized meltdown - Celsius (which was only a few short months ago although it feels like a lifetime ago). The integrity of bitcoin remains intact - the same as it was and always has been and will be. I can send you a satoshi today the same as I could last week/month/year - or vice versa - on a truly decentralized basis. Nothing has changed in that respect.

Internet company fails  ≠  Internet failed
Crypto company fails  ≠  Bitcoin failed

That's not to say that the overarching 'crypto' space having its Lehman Bros. moment due to the shenanigans of some former Jane St. quants is a good day at the office by any stretch of the imagination. But, if this is the way it has to play out, so be it. In the short term, it's a god awful mess, in the longer run, it's for the best.

There are plenty within 'crypto' that agree with you by the way and they're hell bent on developing further purely DeFi systems and they're at pains to point out that this failure is a centralized failure - and not the failure of a decentralized platform. You don't need to take my word for that. Here's some commentary from a former CFTC commissioner:

"The evil financial trinity of centralization, leverage and opacity keep finding ways to blow things up. Until now, regulation was the only solution. DeFi presents a new one."

Meanwhile, centralized exchanges are moving to a proof of reserves model. It's not entirely foolproof but it goes much further than what we've got right now.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

A good day for common sense. Trump and Bitcoin on their death throes.  I really should suppress this schadenfreude.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> A good day for common sense. Trump and Bitcoin on their death throes.  I really should suppress this schadenfreud.


 Embrace the Schadenfreude Duke.

On the 'death throes', I won't pose this as a question as we've been down this road before. I'll just provide the clarification.

'Death throes' suggests that it's almost kicked the bucket. Yet if I was to ask you to improve on your frequently repeated timeline for bitcoin's death (Duke's bitcoin expiry prediction has always been between now and ∞ ), you still wouldn't have the confidence to improve on " ∞ "
As per previous posts, I had maintained that we were heading into the low teens anyway. I just didn't have FTX using customer funds to support Alameda's gambling on my crypto bingo card for 2022 in getting us there!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> Embrace the Schadenfreude Duke.
> 
> On the 'death throes', I won't pose this as a question as we've been down this road before. I'll just provide the clarification.
> 
> 'Death throes' suggests that it's almost kicked the bucket. Yet if I was to ask you to improve on your frequently repeated timeline for bitcoin's death (Duke's bitcoin expiry prediction has always been between now and ∞ ), you still wouldn't have the confidence to improve on " ∞ "
> As per previous posts, I had maintained that we were heading into the low teens anyway. I just didn't have FTX using customer funds to support Alameda's gambling on my crypto bingo card for 2022 in getting us there!


That was quick.  Got me before I added the e to sf.  Just teasing you.  Bitcoin will be last woman standing, I’ll grant you that.  Amazed by its recent “stability” but normal service has been restored.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> That was quick.  Got me before I added the e to sf.  Just teasing you.  Bitcoin will be last woman standing, I’ll grant you that.  Amazed by its recent “stability” but normal service has been restored.


And your point is that that last woman could be on her feet until -> ∞ or maybe some time before ->  ∞
Would you be confident enough to take a stab at the following:
BTC will never see 
A. $20k ever again.
B. $30k ever again.
C. $50k ever again.

I mean if you're using the phrase 'normal service' then my read on that is that you don't think it can hit those numbers, right?


----------



## Purple

My problem with Crypto is that I don't really understand it, in that I don't get what its intrinsic value is and I don't think the price Bitcoin trades at is a reflection of any intrinsic value, rather it is a reflection of a speculative bubble as a result of copious amounts of cheap money in a low interest rate environment looking for a return.
That's not to say that is doesn't have an intrinsic value, I just have no idea what it is and why it should have it and I don't invest in things I don't understand.


----------



## 24601

Purple said:


> My problem with Crypto is that I don't really understand it, in that I don't get what its intrinsic value is and I don't think the price Bitcoin trades at and a reflection of any intrinsic value, rather it is a reflection of a speculative bubble as a result of copious amounts of cheap money in a low interest rate environment looking for a return.
> That's not to say that is doesn't have an intrinsic value, I just have no idea what it is and why it should have it and I don't invest in things I don't understand.



This is it. And I've yet to come across a single person that can explain its value in simple terms, which suggests to me that they don't understand it either.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

24601 said:


> I've yet to come across a single person that can explain its value in simple terms



There is no legitimate use case for bitcoin as it is not very efficient as a means of payment and displays such huge volatility.

*Bitcoin's main use case is for illegal, cross-border transactions at wholesale level.* The price of bitcoin is hugely volatile but sending large amounts of notes around in cash also has a lot of risk. Illegal use case is why I think Bitcoin value will ever go to zero. It is indeed finite in nature and has the advantage of being the first one.

I don't rule out a future state of the world where crypto exchanges become illegal everywhere by way of international agreement either. Either way I think the future use case for bitcoin is by criminals.


----------



## DazedInPontoon

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> *Bitcoin's main use case is for illegal, cross-border transactions at wholesale level.*


which of the bitcoin users here do you think are using it for this purpose?


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

DazedInPontoon said:


> which of the bitcoin users here do you think are using it for this purpose?


Probably none. I am talking about use case as a means of payment.

I've said this before. I lead a boring life and my financial transactions are extremely legal and dull. There is absolutely no reason for me to use bitcoin as a means of payment for anything at all.

As an asset class it produces no income and has extreme volatility so is of no interest to me.


----------



## Purple

FTX Crypto Exchange is on the brink of collapse with the next to impossible task of finding $8 billion in real money to fill their liquidity gap. Sequoia Capital have said they are marking down their more than $200 million investment in the exchange to zero... at least with Tulips you could get a nice garden...


----------



## Purple

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> As an asset class it produces no income and has extreme volatility so is of no interest to me.


It's the not understanding it bit that gets me. I see no reason for the increase in value, other than low returns in real assets and excess cash, and no reason for the decline other than a increase in interest rates and a reduction in cash (QE to QT). That tells me that it's a reaction, a bubble.

I could of course be completely wrong but the global value of Crypto currencies has declined by two thirds in less than a year.


----------



## DazedInPontoon

FTX can fail, and Sequoia can lose their investment. But my self-custodied bitcoin is not at risk from that, nor will it be diluted either to bail them out.

Regulation is not a silver bullet to prevent failure or even fraud in companies as Irish people should know well by now, we like having the choice to isolate ourselves completely from the counter-party risk of companies.


----------



## Purple

DazedInPontoon said:


> FTX can fail, and Sequoia can lose their investment. But my self-custodied bitcoin is not at risk from that, nor will it be diluted either to bail them out.


You should tell Time Magazine and the FT. They are under the impression that there will be a broader sectoral impact.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> And your point is that that last woman could be on her feet until -> ∞ or maybe some time before ->  ∞
> Would you be confident enough to take a stab at the following:
> BTC will never see
> A. $20k ever again.
> B. $30k ever again.
> C. $50k ever again.
> 
> I mean if you're using the phrase 'normal service' then my read on that is that you don't think it can hit those numbers, right?


A.  50%
B.  75%
C.  95%
But a few things I can assert *won't *happen.
It will not be the next World reserve currency as per $95bn man.
It will not achieve 15% penetration of World medium of exchange as per John Kelleher of Investopedia.  In fact it will NEVER have any meaningful role as a MOE.
It will not attain a value of $500k as per same JK.

It will lose all aspirations to be digital gold - that has probably happened already.

I think it will retain some allure as a speculator bauble and as rosary beads for a cult following and that could spell a long but rather futile lifespan for Satoshi's experiment.


----------



## DazedInPontoon

Purple said:


> You should tell Time Magazine and the FT. They are under the impression that there will be a broader sectoral impact.


There may well be a sectoral impact, and maybe other investors and companies are somehow related to FTX, but I have no counter-party risk to *any* company, and bitcoin itself has no systemic dependence on any company either.
Also of course, bad sentiment, fear and forced selling are all a downward pressure on the (short term) price.


----------



## letitroll

SEC Chair Gary Gensler on FTX fallout: Investors need better protections in crypto
					

SEC Chair Gary Gensler joins 'Squawk Box' to discuss what crypto exchange FTX's fallout means for potential crypto regulation and investors. For access to li...




					www.youtube.com
				




Funny seeing all the crypto bros running around crying out where were the regulators


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> A.  50%
> B.  75%
> C.  95%


Good to know. I won't comment on the rest of it - as those views you've expressed previously and have been well and truly thrashed out.



letitroll said:


> SEC Chair Gary Gensler on FTX fallout: Investors need better protections in crypto
> 
> 
> SEC Chair Gary Gensler joins 'Squawk Box' to discuss what crypto exchange FTX's fallout means for potential crypto regulation and investors. For access to li...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.youtube.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny seeing all the crypto bros running around crying out where were the regulators


Funny how? Because of an assumption you've made? You've identified centralized aspects re. crypto - and when it comes to those centralized parts, the sector has been trying to get regulatory clarity for a number of years already. Anyone that's spent more than 5 minutes researching activity in that respect over the past couple of years knows that.

This is an accurate take on the current scenario.  As is this. SBFs shenanigans is truly spectacular but in no way is all of this a clean game. From the Ripple case, to the lack of approval of an ETF (causing the grayscale fund to exist in the way that it does (not as an etf)  - and the issues with that leading to AC3 blowing up earlier this year), to the double speak (Gensler saying that they'll talk to anyone but refusing to talk to Armstrong/Coinbase - then meeting with SBF because of the fat wads of cash which he was giving to the Demo's (who Gensler is aligned with), Gensler and his counterpart in the CFDC openly fighting for regulatory control over crypto (at the expense of actually getting the job done).

The assertion seems to be that nobody in the space has wanted regulation until now. That's simply untrue and the evidence is there in spades to prove it. When it comes to the decentralized aspects, those working on that tech are also looking for regulation - as there are actions that can be taken around the edges that can hold back the development  of that innovation.

Of course there are many who would prefer that such systems are developed to a point where they're robust enough not to be impacted by anything a regulator or government might do. I'd sooner prefer that myself - but most recognize that it's not that simple (for the next few years at least). With that, there's been an ongoing fight for A. regulatory clarity and B. good regulation that doesn't stymie the innovation.

On that second point, I remember a previous discussion here a couple of years back where someone was trying to corral me into saying regulation is either good or bad - either you're on board with it or you're not. That could never be the case. There are plenty of examples (of progressive and horrendous regulation) and we have one with this crap storm right now.

SBF was throwing big money to the Democrats over the course of the past year or so. It's unethical but it's how everything is done in the US. If that was simply to draw attention to a need for sensible regulation, fine. The issue is described in Tom Emmer's tweet that I linked to above (i.e. he wanted it tailor made to exclude others - and that's what set off the chain of events in recent days as his main competitor responded).


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> My problem with Crypto is that I don't really understand it, in that I don't get what its intrinsic value is and I don't think the price Bitcoin trades at is a reflection of any intrinsic value, rather it is a reflection of a speculative bubble as a result of copious amounts of cheap money in a low interest rate environment looking for a return.
> That's not to say that is doesn't have an intrinsic value, I just have no idea what it is and why it should have it and I don't invest in things I don't understand.



Maybe it's an age thing, but I agree. I had to move my Ulster Bank account recently and I set-up a Revolut account in a few minutes. It has great functionality (virtual debit card, vaults for saving, and the ability to transfer funds to contacts immediately). Why would I bother with Bitcoin for normal transactions? Maybe, for an edge case, where someone is living under a despot regime they could get their money out of the country with Bitcoin, but for the rest of us? I just don't see where this update will come from. If it was any good, adoption rates would be higher - Revolut a case in point.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Firefly said:


> Maybe, for an edge case, where someone is living under a despot regime they could get their money out of the country with Bitcoin,


Or if you were engaged in criminal activity at a big scale and wanted to receive or make a payment. You still face money-laundering controls at the point where you want to transfer it back to fiat currency.



Firefly said:


> but for the rest of us?


Zero legitimate use case. The price is volatile and retail options for payments are far simpler.


----------



## DazedInPontoon

Firefly said:


> If it was any good, adoption rates would be higher - Revolut a case in point.


From a quick search Revolut had 15 million users as of last year. Bitcoin likely has more users than that.

I'm a user of both Bitcoin and Revolut, my use-case for each is not the same. As a data point to emphasise this - around 65% of all bitcoin has not been involved in any transaction in over a year.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

DazedInPontoon said:


> I'm a *user *of both Bitcoin and Revolut, my use-case for each is not the same.


Do you use Bitcoin has a means of payment? If so, what for? I'm genuinely curious.


If it's to hold as an asset that's something different. The merits have been well hashed out.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

DazedInPontoon said:


> From a quick search Revolut had 15 million users as of last year. Bitcoin likely has more users than that.



I use Revolut every day and usually a few times a day.

@DazedInPontoon  How often have you used Bitcoin? 

Brendan


----------



## DazedInPontoon

Once again you're missing my point, 65% of all bitcoin has not been involved in any transaction in over a year, but it's still serving a purpose.

I use my bitcoin every day as a store of value.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

DazedInPontoon said:


> I use my bitcoin every day as a store of value.


So you don't use bitcoin at all then.


----------



## DazedInPontoon

In your view it would seem not, in my view I do. We disagree on that, so be it.


----------



## Purple

DazedInPontoon said:


> Once again you're missing my point, 65% of all bitcoin has not been involved in any transaction in over a year, but it's still serving a purpose.


If 65% is not being used doesn't that tell you that it's being held for speculative purposes?


----------



## DazedInPontoon

Purple said:


> If 65% is not being used doesn't that tell you that it's being held for speculative purposes?


My point is that holding it for speculative purposes is using it.


----------



## Purple

DazedInPontoon said:


> In your view it would seem not, in my view I do.


So what do you use it for?
If I bought a classic car and kept it under a tarp in a garage would I be using it or holding it as an investment?


----------



## DazedInPontoon

Assuming you were doing so with the intent of some time later selling it again you would be using it as a store of value (and perhaps using it a collectible - some people get a warm fuzzy feeling merely from knowing they own something even if it just sits in storage). You would not be be using it as a mode of transport. Some things such as a classic car, can be used in multiple ways.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

I have a painting on my wall that I like to look at. I might sell it some day. But a painting is not a means of payment or a unit of account. It's a store of value for sure, but a pretty volatile one.

So don't think my "use" of a painting is vaguely comparable to my "use" of Revolut which functions for payments, unit of account, and a store of value.


----------



## DazedInPontoon

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> I have a painting on my wall that I like to look at. I might sell it some day. But a painting is not a means of payment or a unit of account. It's a store of value for sure, but a pretty volatile one.


Volatility being only one of the many downsides of using it as a store of value. It's also non-fungible, probably has an illiquid market, is non-divisible and may deteriorate in quality over time. It may also be difficult to verify or prove its authenticity.

It's a subjective opinion as to whether you feel that the value you find in it being nice to look at is worth all those store-of-value downsides. Personally I would never use art as a store of value.


NoRegretsCoyote said:


> So don't think my "use" of a painting is vaguely comparable to my "use" of Revolut which functions for payments, unit of account, and a store of value.


Revolut is just a layer on top of fiat/stocks/crypto. It provides the payment function and acts as a custodian (introducing counter-party risk of course), but the unit of account and store of value are ultimately functions of the underlying fiat currencies, stocks or even crypto, that you're holding in your revolut account .


----------



## tecate

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> I have a painting on my wall that I like to look at. I might sell it some day. But a painting is not a means of payment or a unit of account. It's a store of value for sure, but a pretty volatile one.
> 
> So don't think my "use" of a painting is vaguely comparable to my "use" of Revolut which functions for payments, unit of account, and a store of value.


If your painting could somehow be digitally split into fractions and transmitted on a decentralized network, then it very much has some strong characteristics that would allow it to be a means of payment (with certain advantages that no other means of payment has) and maybe even a unit of account. Volatility - has been discussed to death - so I won't rake over the coals anymore other than to acknowledge that it's far from optimal - but where we disagree is that this will change over time.

You can't exchange value with me via Revolut right now or vice versa. I live in a country with capital controls firstly and beyond that, Revolut is not licensed to operate here. Someone mentioned this type of use being an 'edge case' but there are 7 billion people living in the developing world. They all have either issues with inflation, with banks going bust and no guarantee or capital controls etc - at one time or another.

I can instruct you in installing a Lightning Network wallet on your phone right now, you'd have it installed within 5 minutes and within 6 minutes I would have sent you a payment. No intermediary, no kyc - a simple peer to peer payment. There's nothing else that can do that in that way.

On using Revolut as a store of value, I think most of you have agreed that euros, usd, etc cant act as a store of value. On bitcoin - it's been debated to death - we all know the opposing sides to that discussion.

To your previous post - re. the only use for bitcoin is criminality and that there can't possibly be any other use - then isn't right now the moment that there is complete capitulation and an acknowledgement of your point IF you are correct? Although it's no fault of bitcoin, this black swan event that's just played out is a complete crap show and its tied up with bitcoin whether I like that or not. The fallout has to continue for another 6 months as we don't know who else has to fall (BlockFi raised the white flag yesterday - there's definitely some more that will go under). Sentiment is low and its been very damaging.

Against that backdrop, if your thesis is correct, then BTC will not emerge beyond $20k ever again. I know that most doubters here have said that can't be accounted for - but surely after how many of these cycles?, that can't possibly be. That would make sense maybe once - but how many times? That's not in any way normal - as in there is NO other example of something like that.

The only thing that makes sense is that there IS value and utility being developed here. Take the development of the internet which went on over decades. Some found use cases with it early on while others thought it was a load of nonsense (there's any amount of old articles out there saying how it would never work and was pointless, useless, etc.). And by comparison with what it is today, it was mostly pointless and useless back in the day.

Let me tie that in with the requests to demonstrate how anyone is using bitcoin. I want to - and I am - using it as a store of value, just like DiP. I agree that it's imperfect in that role right now over shorter timespans while over a longer timespan, it's working just fine. I also use it as a means of payment. To your point, no I don't use it much in that way - but I'm limited in my ability to do so - until more people jump on to the network.

 The same with the internet. It either wasn't available to me in the earliest years that I wanted it or even when it was, it was a god awful mess (dial-up) with little utility and where utility was found, it was very much imperfect. To my point, that utility was diminished further because it still hadn't reached critical mass. All goes back to network effect - it's hard to build - and harder still where we're talking about a virtual/digital means of payment that is not just some other payment layer on top of the fiat money system.

Look for the signal amid the noise and my ability to use bitcoin in that way is improving all the time. The user experience (lightning payments were not available when this discussion first kicked up here) has also improved. But there's lots still that needs to be improved.

Recent events have shown everything that's bad about crypto. Some have lost their life savings, there's a lot of pain out there. So if there was ever a moment to acknowledge that there's nothing in this, it is right now. If you're right, then Bitcoin (and other projects on a decentralized theme) fizzle out from here. That's not my thesis. Unfortunately, some have paid a savage price (and this is not the first time - this has happened many times before) - but it's already sobered up credible players in the space to act to improve on this - and create systems and standards so that this crap show can't happen again.

This recent issue can and will be tackled in a number of ways:

*- Regulation: *Many think that people in this space don't want anything to do with it - but that's not entirely true. There's an acknowledgement that if an exchange is centralized - then its no different to a conventional bank. So of course, there needs to be effective regulation. Of course, there's concern in its application because if its heavy handed, it can destroy the innovation entirely or be bastardized to favour the JP Morgan's of this world (or a deluded JP Morgan wannabe as per this example) , etc.

*- Improvement of Standards from Within:* Within 48 hours of this crap-show unfolding, other major exchanges have come out and said they're implementing proof of reserve-based systems. In their current iteration, they're not foolproof but they go a lot of the way in proving reserves exist. My understanding is that the tech is there to develop that further still.

*- Decentralized Exchanges (DEXs):* They already exist but they need to become more intuitive and user friendly for regular people.  Of course, the difficulty comes in the on-ramp/off-ramp with fiat money - as they can't really interact so well with fiat (just yet). More people will be using them in the future nonetheless - which minimizes the risk going forward.

*- Use of Multi-Signature Tech:* So that centralized exchanges can store your funds but where multiple digital signatures are required in order for it to be moved i.e. in that scenario, the likes of FTX can't treat your funds like casino play money.

A mountain of work in all of that - but I believe that's what happens next. It wouldn't happen if there's simply no point to any of this.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

DazedInPontoon said:


> - around 65% of all bitcoin has not been involved in any transaction in over a year.


That's 65% nursing losses of 75%.  Yep, sure is a store of value.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> That's 65% nursing losses of 75%.  Yep, sure is a store of value.


He said > 1 year. Last I checked, BTC has been around for quite a few years. You'll notice a few hype cycles below. None of them killed it - and neither will this one.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> He said > 1 year. Last I checked, BTC has been around for quite a few years. You'll notice a few hype cycles below. None of them killed it - and neither will this one.
> 
> View attachment 6833


A bit off topic.  I was referring to the store of value motif.


DazedInPontoon said:


> I use my bitcoin every day as a store of value.


It takes some act of faith to keep "using" it as a store of value as it falls from 70k to 16k.


----------



## joe sod

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> I have a painting on my wall that I like to look at. I might sell it some day. But a painting is not a means of payment or a unit of account. It's a store of value for sure, but a pretty volatile one.
> 
> So don't think my "use" of a painting is vaguely comparable to my "use" of Revolut which functions for payments, unit of account, and a store of value.


another advantage of a painting is that you can always throw a can of vegetable soup at it if you wake up annoyed some morning


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> A bit off topic.  I was referring to the store of value motif.


By cherry picking market tops? I've seen this movie before.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> It takes some act of faith to keep "using" it as a store of value as it falls from 70k to 16k.


See above. You can decide to cast aside the cherry picked timelines and acknowledge the trend on a lower time preference any day you want Duke.

Here's another one for you that adds perspective (for those who are open to perspective of course) relative to crypto ownership/use:


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

I understand how cultists see bitcoin as a store of value.  Their numeraire is bitcoin.  They measure all value in bitcoin terms.  So, by definition, a bitcoin will ALWAYS be a bitcoin - the permanent store of value.  They build their faith on the foundation stone that bitcoin will not be devalued by increases in supply - there will never be any more than 21 million of them.  The bitcoin in 50 years' time will be to all intents the same as a bitcoin today, which of course can't be said of, say, the €, which probably won't even exist.
I thought @DazedInPontoon was on the more rational end of the spectrum, so I was surprised at her/his faith of its "use" as a store of value.


----------



## tecate

The cultist is right there in the mirror staring back at you Duke. Why? Because in over 5 years of discussion anytime you've taken to refer to btc-related timeframes, you'll cherry pick that timeframe to meet your bias.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> The cultist is right there in the mirror staring back at you Duke. Why? Because in over 5 years of discussion anytime you've taken to refer to btc-related timeframes, you'll cherry pick that timeframe to meet your bias.


Well, when the cherry is the last 12 months it is a bit low hanging.  You're having to reach higher and higher to reach your cherries.


----------



## Sunny

This is all getting a bit silly at this stage. We started off with cheerleaders going on about microstrategy and how bitcoin on the balance sheet was a sign of corporate acceptance. That hasn't worked out very well. 
We had El Salvador held up next and that hasn't worked out very well either. 
We have seen major financial institutions get involved in crypto and people say it is because they see the value..eh, no. They see an opportunity to make money from simpletons....
We now have people moving from saying that Bitcoin is a currency to saying it is a commodity. It isn't either. 

Anyone above who says they don't understand it has hit the nail on the head. I used to sell CDO's, CDO squared and eventually CDO cubed for a living. I convinced myself that these were great products. Then I realised they were products made by people way smarter than me than who made money and ran.....People like me were left feeling completely stupid....bitcoin will be no different. People will make money but they will be the minority.....Good luck to them but i hope the social cost is worth it....


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Well, when the cherry is the last 12 months it is a bit low hanging.  You're having to reach higher and higher to reach your cherries.


No. What that tells me (not that I needed confirmation) is that you're going to use that $67k high mark in every timeframe between now and whenever it meets that price target again (just as you did with the $20k high for the previous cycle). Because today you talk about 12 months - every other time, you've set X number of months to heighten the difference. Like I said - I've seen this movie before.
Bottom line is that bitcoin's volatility is far from ideal and hype cycles are unhelpful but after all is said and done, with a longer time preference, bitcoin adoption and price go up and to the right.




Sunny said:


> This is all getting a bit silly at this stage.


To have a discussion where people offer opposing views? I can't imagine how that could ever be deemed to be 'silly'.....unless of course your thinking is that it's silly because you've decided there can only be one outcome here and no other. That's the part that I find silly regardless of whether or not bitcoin ultimately fails or succeeds.




Sunny said:


> We started off with cheerleaders going on about microstrategy and how bitcoin on the balance sheet was a sign of corporate acceptance. That hasn't worked out very well.



You can use the 'term' cheerleader' if you want but all that tells me is that it's use in that sentence is steeped in your own bias on the subject of bitcoin. Secondly, if you think that it wasn't worthy of discussion here, then I very much disagree. If you think that bringing that up as a significant development makes me a 'cheerleader', there's no way in the world I agree.

You'll be aware that before it ever came to pass, there had been discussion and acknowledgement that in its ongoing development, bitcoin is getting caught up with hype cycles. We knew somewhere in the Microstrategy discussion, that bitcoin was already on its way into the higher point of a hype cycle with the acknowledgement that it would hit a peak price and fall back. I assume this is how you're deeming placing it on the balance sheet as being a mistake. I don't think that this volatility is helpful but I also don't think it will always be like that.

In the case of the two entities that were discussed back then (MS and Tesla), both still hold bitcoin. As regards new entrants on that front, we know that it's far from straightforward for institutions to add it. It's still an asset that lacks complete regulatory clarity. Step by step the pieces are being put together. Regulatory clarity will have to come soon as the pressure is building in the US to sort it out. As the House of Representatives flips to red, it's looking like all of this will get sorted very soon.

Alongside that, the accountancy approach taken by corporates needed to be addressed. Just four weeks ago, the FASB decided to take a far more reasonable and accommodating approach to the treatment of assets like bitcoin.

So you've already written it off when its far too premature to do so. Institutions move incredibly slowly (and in fairness not without good reason).



Sunny said:


> We had El Salvador held up next and that hasn't worked out very well either.


According to WHO it hasn't worked out well? Yes, you'll be able to list of commentary from the IMF (who feel threatened by Bukele's move -so much so that they've warned one other country they're not to dare go down the same path while making it a condition of a finance deal with Argentina.).

Isn't it interesting that nobody gave a fiddlers about El Salvador before La Ley Bitcoin - most people couldn't point it out on a map. The moment Bukele went there, the focus was in tarring him up - yet nobody cared that this three predecessors all were implicated in financial scandals! Don't get me wrong - I'm not going to take a position on the guy, what he does or doesn't do is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned - but I do note the attempts to put him back in his box all because of La Ley Bitcoin.
On the position El Salvador has taken in bitcoin - so it's down - big wuff. We were repeatedly told that this was going to take the country down  when its a ridiculously small position that the country has taken. And no word at all about inward tax receipts from crypto-related tourism.

On daily usage we're being told that its a failure because nobody uses it. Who said that everyone was going to use it straight off the bat? That's completely and utterly ridiculous. I've been there - and I'm quite happy where it is and isn't being used. The bottom line here is - is there adoption to the  point where someone can come along and utilise the digital currency as a means of payment on a day to day basis most of the time. The answer to that question is yes - and when a place get to that point, it changes everything - because at that point, the individual has choice. It enables people like me (and there are far more of those than you appreciate) to go there and use it as a currency.

It's also given major retail corporates a live pilot to work with in implementing bitcoin payments. Take McDonalds as an example. They went to the trouble of setting up lightning based payments in their locations throughout El Salvador. They now have that IP in rolling that out in other places. No doubt they were able to tap into that knowledge base in enabling BTC payments in Lugano, Switzerland - a city which is also embracing Bitcoin.

Bukele would never have even considered going down that road if it were not for the community-based project that emerged in El Zonte (Bitcoin Beach). They continue to expand that circular economy and their work has now led to the very recent development of similar community initiatives in Brazil, Honduras, Vietnam, South Africa, Guatemala and The Philippines. They're continually working on education relative to Bitcoin. In San Salvador an NGO has been founded and they're continually providing education relative to bitcoin to school groups and adults.

All of that to say - everything that's happening re. bitcoin in El Salvador is positive and continues to be a success, with the grass roots development being far more important than what government has done in my view.



Sunny said:


> We have seen major financial institutions get involved in crypto and people say it is because they see the value..eh, no. They see an opportunity to make money from simpletons....



We haven't seen anything yet when it comes to the big institutions.  Most are holding back for complete regulatory clarity. Mostly we're still talking about niche hedge funds although there are a couple of exceptions like Fidelity. There will be more soon enough. Have we seen the worst of wall street practices applied in crypto related to crypto? Absolutely. Everything related FTX smacks of that. You'll note too that little of that activity has to do with bitcoin and everything to do with the random crap coin casino that has been bolted on. Actually you won't make that distinction because I've never seen anyone here make the distinction on the opposing side of the discussion.

None of that means that there isn't utility in bitcoin itself. It's been pointed out many times - beyond finding a venue to buy or sell the asset, an individual doesn't have to screw around with any other intermediary or get themselves would up with some complex financial product that they don't understand - or some complex tokenomics in some other project that they don't understand. Tarring everything with the one brush means that you cant see the forest for the trees.



Sunny said:


> We now have people moving from saying that Bitcoin is a currency to saying it is a commodity. It isn't either.


In. Your. Opinion.
I disagree.



Sunny said:


> Anyone above who says they don't understand it has hit the nail on the head.



I agree with them - they don't understand it. No contest.




Sunny said:


> I used to sell CDO's, CDO squared and eventually CDO cubed for a living. I convinced myself that these were great products. Then I realised they were products made by people way smarter than me than who made money and ran.


Well, kudos. Let this 'simpleton' award you a gold star - because you've actually achieved something that it seems some others can't. You've proven that you've been able to accept that you had to adjust your view on something and that your initial take was wayward.



Sunny said:


> People like me were left feeling completely stupid.


You felt stupid because you reassessed and came to a different conclusion? I guess now I know why I was called an 'idiot' here many months ago.
I'm open to circumstances changing or my take changing or bitcoin simply failing (because it's not a foregone conclusion either way - you or I alone don't have control of that outcome and it's wayward to ever think that to be the case. We can of course make an assessment but at no point would it be correct to run with an absolute position - on bitcoin or anything else.



Sunny said:


> bitcoin will be no different.



And there it is. In.Your.Opinion.
I may be a 'simpleton' and you a TradFi wizzard and yet that still doesn't make an absolutist position on the subject. Here's how wrong it is to talk in absolute terms ->


Sunny said:


> And that is the problem with Bitcoin. It has severe scalability problems. Look at how long it can take a transaction to be verified currently.* That problem won't be solved.*


That's an absolute statement of yours from 2018 - which is now obsolete.



Sunny said:


> People will make money but they will be the minority.....Good luck to them but i hope the social cost is worth it....


What 'social cost'? If you're referring to someone deciding to use BTC to some degree or other as a store of value and that they would have to deal with the 'social cost' of bitcoin failing, that's the individuals decision. Nobody should be making a financial decision if they're not prepared to take responsibility for that decision. And to that point, you'll notice that in TradFi oftentimes there are bailouts as the fiat money system backstops the whole show. There is no such thing in the crypto world - it's a pure capitalist view - sans bailout.


----------



## Sunny

Not even reading the above. It's pure waffle. Read your posts over the past couple of years. Every positive article from crypto media you have linked and used as evidence of some sort of movement. You have portayed and dismissed every single bit of bad news as some some sort of scaremongering by people who don't understand. 
You believe crypto currency is the future. Good for you. Just not sure why you have spent so much of your life over the past couple of years trying to convince others on this site. I think that's why @Duke of Marmalade refers to it as a cult. Take a break. I am sure you are super intelligent so go off and enjoy watching the rest of us livie in the dark ages....


----------



## LosLobos

Duke of Marmalade said:


> A good day for common sense. Trump and Bitcoin on their death throes.  I really should suppress this schadenfreude.


You could go short on Bitcoin !? If not, why not ...


----------



## LosLobos

24601 said:


> This is it. And I've yet to come across a single person that can explain its value in simple terms, which suggests to me that they don't understand it either.


many many varied uses for many different types of crypto - I am not surprised no-one has explained it to you.  Volumes and volumes of explanations required, to be an expert.


----------



## LosLobos

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Probably none. I am talking about use case as a means of payment.
> 
> I've said this before. I lead a boring life and my financial transactions are extremely legal and dull. There is absolutely no reason for me to use bitcoin as a means of payment for anything at all.
> 
> As an asset class it produces no income and has extreme volatility so is of no interest to me.


I have been involved in a transaction where crypto was exchanged as a means of payment costing tens of thousands only.  Regular payment via a high-street institution would have cost about 250,000 dollars in fees.


----------



## LosLobos

Sunny said:


> We now have people moving from saying that Bitcoin is a currency to saying it is a commodity. It isn't either.


The ECJ has determined it to be a currency.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

LosLobos said:


> You could go short on Bitcoin !? If not, why not ...


I did once back in 2018.  Made a humble profit.  Haven’t dabbled since. Prefer the horses.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

LosLobos said:


> I have been involved in a transaction where crypto was exchanged as a means of payment costing tens of thousands only.  Regular payment via a high-street institution would have cost about 250,000 dollars in fees.


Now that is bull.  Let’s say the amount of the transfer was $100m.  That would need two cultists whose primary currency is bitcoin, one having $100m worth of bitcoin available and the other happy to hold that amount.  Otherwise it involves fiat to crypto and/or followed by crypto to fiat and no way that makes economic sense.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

@tecate you tell us that the IMF won’t lend to Argentina if they do a Bukele.  The cult interpretation of this is that the devil that is the IMF is afraid of the bitcoin messiah.  The rest of us know it is because the IMF are scared stiff that lending to a Bukele is throwing money down the drain.


----------



## LosLobos

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Now that is bull.  Let’s say the amount of the transfer was $100m.  That would need two cultists whose primary currency is bitcoin, one having $100m worth of bitcoin available and the other happy to hold that amount.  Otherwise it involves fiat to crypto and/or followed by crypto to fiat and no way that makes economic sense.


Happy to see you know my business more than me. (Sum was in excess of 100m.)


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

LosLobos said:


> Happy to see you know my business more than me. (Sum was in excess of 100m.)


Well, my first guess was 10bps but I didn't want to overstate my point so I went for 25bps.  And my point was that I am sure bitcoin would be cheaper *IF* A had $100m+ worth of btc hanging around (earning nothing)  and B was happy to hold $100m+ worth of btc.
Sorry to spoil your happiness but I don't know your business at all.  Or perhaps you mean that even that is more than you know about your business.


----------



## tecate

Sunny said:


> Read your posts over the past couple of years. Every positive article from crypto media you have linked and used as evidence of some sort of movement. You have portrayed and dismissed every single bit of bad news as some some sort of scaremongering by people who don't understand.


You'll find that I've linked much more to main stream media than crypto media. Other than that, I've linked to what I would have seen as important developments in the space. Lets take the one that you brought up - MicroStrategy. You can hold whatever opinion you want about MicroStrategy's Bitcoin venture but whatever that opinion is, the development is an important one - and worthy of discussion.

As for providing my opinion on developments or takes, whether positive or negative - I would have thought that's the whole point of a discussion board. I would have also thought that it provides an opportunity because in an open discussion you can express whatever opinion or take that you want in response.

I already asked you what post you can point to where you've acknowledged anything positive about Bitcoin and I'm still waiting on an answer on that. Meanwhile, despite what you say above, I can point to a whole host of acknowledgements of Bitcoin shortcomings.



Sunny said:


> Just not sure why you have spent so much of your life over the past couple of years trying to convince others on this site.


I have zero interest in convincing you of anything relative to bitcoin/crypto. In the first couple of years, I did have a concern that the view expressed on the subject on AAM was totally one-sided and with that, inaccurate and misleading.

So I thought that it would be interesting to provide the counter view - and see how the discussion and thinking on the subject would develop. I also thought I could have my own thesis on the subject challenged - and I could learn myself if any of my thoughts on the subject were wayward. I have zero interest in convincing you of anything - and I would add that in discussing any subject - whether crypto or anything else - the goal should not be to develop an echo chamber but to continually have your thoughts/beliefs/understanding on a subject challenged.



Sunny said:


> I think that's why @Duke of Marmalade refers to it as a cult.



I don't believe that having a strong interest and views on something means that someone should then be labelled as belonging to a cult. As an example, I think that time spent on discussing politics is for the most part a waste of time and energy. There are people that put all of their energies into that - I wouldn't tell them they should stop and I wouldn't call their strong interest in that as being cult-like.




Sunny said:


> Take a break. I am sure you are super intelligent so go off and enjoy watching the rest of us livie in the dark ages....



I'm not sure if you're conscious of it or not, but effectively you're looking to create an echo chamber. At least its by invitation - that's an improvement on the creation of an echo chamber on a subject via censorship. However, it's still the antithesis of what a discussion board should be about. Instead of welcoming an opposing view, you want to silence it. Nobody learns anything or advances anything in an echo chamber.




Duke of Marmalade said:


> @tecate you tell us that the IMF won’t lend to Argentina if they do a Bukele.  The cult interpretation of this is that the devil that is the IMF is afraid of the bitcoin messiah.  The rest of us know it is because the IMF are scared stiff that lending to a Bukele is throwing money down the drain.


So the IMF has been knees deep in the developing world for an age. What has it achieved Duke? - in those developing countries?

As regards Bukele 'throwing money down the drain', in the breakdown of finances at a national level, its not in any way a significant amount - certainly not to the extent that the IMF would be bothered mentioning it.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> So the IMF has been knees deep in the developing world for an age. What has it achieved Duke? - in those developing countries?


You see, that's what I mean by cult.  It is not just that bitcoin is the best thing since sliced bread.  It is also about Central Bankers, IMFs, World Banks etc. being part of an axis of evil.
We're talking Argentina here.  If the IMF are such a malevolent force in developing countries, they are entirely free to spurn their involvement and go the Bukele route.
The troika of the IMF, the ECB and the EC saved Ireland from disaster.  So these are definitely not on my dartboard of villains.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> You see, that's what I mean by cult.  It is not just that bitcoin is the best thing since sliced bread.  It is also about Central Bankers, IMFs, World Banks etc. being part of an axis of evil.
> We're talking Argentina here.  If the IMF are such a malevolent force in developing countries, they are entirely free to spurn their involvement and go the Bukele route.
> The troika of the IMF, the ECB and the EU saved Ireland from disaster.  So these are definitely not on my dartboard of villains.


You are the one using emotive language like 'axis of evil', the 'devil', 'bitcoin messiah', etc. I asked you a simple matter of fact question. That's perfectly reasonable. And yet, you are applying the 'cult' labelling on the basis of that enquiry.

So Ireland isn't a developing nation. In the developing world, what are the IMFs stand out successes?


----------



## letitroll

It's beyond hilarious whats going on the last few days lots of people coming to the world and discovering for the first time the concepts of assets, liabilities, equity & collateral...counterparty credit risk......as well as supposedly unrelated related party chicanery...........its hilarious if it weren't for naive innocent folks taken in by the digital asset neoloibralism technobabble getting hurt........

Like all schemes - eventually you run out of idiots


----------



## tecate

letitroll said:


> It's beyond hilarious whats going on the last few days lots of people coming to the world and discovering for the first time the concepts of assets, liabilities, equity & collateral...counterparty credit risk......as well as supposedly unrelated related party chicanery...........its hilarious if it weren't for naive innocent folks taken in by the digital asset neoloibralism technobabble getting hurt........
> 
> Like all schemes - eventually you run out of idiots


What has been playing out this week (and will continue to play out over the next few weeks) has nothing to do with bitcoin.


----------



## letitroll

tecate said:


> What has been playing out this week (and will continue to play out over the next few weeks) has nothing to do with bitcoin.



  (sorry is the most extreme laugh emoji I could find, what would more appropriate would be an emoji with his sides ripping open with laughter)


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> In the developing world, what are the IMFs stand out successes?


I sourced this in Wiki.


			
				Wiki said:
			
		

> Apart from Cuba, the other UN states that do not belong to the IMF are Liechtenstein, Monaco and North Korea.
> Any country may apply to be a part of the IMF.


I am not as expert as you on the dealings of the IMF.  It looks to me like a voluntary concern.   A lot of developing countries seem to have no difficulty in volunteering for its wickedness.  The only exceptions are those developing countries, Monaco and Liechtenstein (and of course the usual basket cases of Cuba and NK.)
But the credo of the cult must hold that the IMF are oppressors of the underdog.


----------



## tecate

letitroll said:


> (sorry is the most extreme laugh emoji I could find, what would more appropriate would be an emoji with his sides ripping open with laughter)


Thanks for that additional descriptive detail @letitroll  .
There are two groups within the over-arching crypto space that feel validated in what they've been advocating over the duration:
1. Bitcoin centric folks - who believe in decentralized self custody and that most or all other crypto is vapourware.
2. Ethereum-centric defi projects who's decentralized platforms and decentralized exchanges can't go the way of FTX.

FTX was centralized and the centralized aspects of crypto have brought all of the wall street chicanery with them. You may wish to conflate it all together but that's an error. Bitcoin has not died - far from it. Decentralized tech has not died - it will continue to be developed. The overarching crypto market is a train wreck right now - but this too will pass. See you in 2030. 


Duke of Marmalade said:


> I sourced this in Wiki.
> 
> I am not as expert as you on the dealings of the IMF.  It looks to me like a voluntary concern.   A lot of developing countries seem to have no difficulty in volunteering for its wickedness.  The only exceptions are those developing countries, Monaco and Liechtenstein (and of course the usual basket cases of Cuba and NK.)
> But the credo of the cult must hold that the IMF are oppressors of the underdog.


So that doesn't answer the question I put to you...which was what has the IMF achieved in the developing world?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> So that doesn't answer the question I put to you...which was what has the IMF achieved in the developing world?


I am not going to research that.  The fact is the cult demonises the IMF.  This is not supported by the overwhelming support of the IMF by developing countries.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I am not going to research that.  The fact is the cult demonises the IMF.  This is not supported by the overwhelming support of the IMF by developing countries.


That's ok Duke - no pressure. The fact is that you tried to look it up and found nothing. I didn't demonize anything - I asked you a straightforward question.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

LosLobos said:


> The ECJ has determined it to be a currency.


No it didn't.

Anyone trying to pay their tax in Bitcoin in any EU member state won't be able to, and I would take a 1/100 bet that the ECJ would support the member state.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> No it didn't.
> 
> Anyone trying to pay their tax in Bitcoin in any EU member state won't be able to, and I would take a 1/100 bet that the ECJ would support the member state.


??  sounds like ECJ accept that it is a currency albeit virtual.  I am sure a member state would be able to refuse US$ for tax payments.


----------



## LosLobos

The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that the services of a Bitcoin exchange in exchanging Bitcoin for a traditional currency is exempt from VAT on the basis of the ‘currency’ exemption (Skatteverket v David Hedqvist Case C-264/14).


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

LosLobos said:


> The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that the services of a Bitcoin exchange in exchanging Bitcoin for a traditional currency is exempt from VAT on the basis of the ‘currency’ exemption (Skatteverket v David Hedqvist Case C-264/14).


Just as @NoRegretsCoyote posted, though with the implication that it meant it wasn’t a currency.


----------



## Purple

tecate said:


> So the IMF has been knees deep in the developing world for an age.


Just on that; you do understand that's exactly what it was set up to do, right? It was established after the Second World War to help rebuild the global economy.   
What has it achieved? It's helped lift more than 3 billion people out of absolute poverty in the last 30 years. It's success is nothing short of miraculous. 

On the contention that Bitcoin has an intrinsic vale because it's held it's value when looked at in the longer term... that could be a reflection of the "greed x stupidity = bubble" equation.


----------



## tecate

Purple said:


> Just on that; you do understand that's exactly what it was set up to do, right? It was established after the Second World War to help rebuild the global economy.
> What has it achieved? It's helped lift more than 3 billion people out of absolute poverty in the last 30 years. It's success is nothing short of miraculous.



I'm well aware of its 'stated' aims and objectives. Which country in the developing world would you say is the IMFs standout success?



Purple said:


> On the contention that Bitcoin has an intrinsic vale because it's held it's value when looked at in the longer term... that could be a reflection of the "greed x stupidity = bubble" equation.



I'm pretty sure I've been misquoted. I don't recall mentioning 'intrinsic value' insofar as I can remember over recent weeks. It's completely pointless to drag that up again as it's been discussed to death.

Now you say that bitcoin is in a bubble? Which bubble exactly? Is this bubble number 4 or 5? Can you remind me of what other asset has gone through a series of bubbles and then perished, never to be heard from again?
Greed and stupidity are not functions of this asset (or the assets pertaining to any other market either). That some actors might demonstrate those traits does not account for all actors and doesn't reflect badly on the asset itself.

Greed and stupidity are in evidence in every market - and have been since markets existed.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> I'm well aware of its 'stated' aims and objectives. Which country in the developing world would you say is the IMFs standout success?


This is getting to be a tiresome "what have the Romans ever done for us?".
Hover over the countries in this map to see the extent of support from the IMF to developing countries.
Standout success? Are you looking for a comparable to what bitcoin was done for El Salvador?


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> This is getting to be a tiresome "what have the Romans ever done for us?".
> Hover over the countries in this map to see the extent of support from the IMF to developing countries.
> Standout success? Are you looking for a comparable to what bitcoin was done for El Salvador?


I agree it's tiresome given that you spent 3 posts responding to a very straightforward question with anything but an answer to it. You don't have to answer it if you don't want to Duke - or you simply can say that you don't know. You already went searching for an answer, came back and said what you've just said with this last post (the IMF has many member countries) and when probed further you said you weren't going to look it up. You demonstrated that you already had!

I agree that it's tiresome - so please don't respond to this unless of course you have an actual answer to the actual question.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I'm responding in the very unlikely event that I will have the* last word*.


It's never been a thing as far as I'm concerned. I've never once mentioned it in five years of discussion. If you want to post and that's the only purpose of your post, then you're welcome to your 'last word'!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> I agree it's tiresome given that you spent 3 posts responding to a very straightforward question with anything but an answer to it. You don't have to answer it if you don't want to Duke - or you simply can say that you don't know. You already went searching for an answer, came back and said what you've just said with this last post (the IMF has many member countries) and when probed further you said you weren't going to look it up. You demonstrated that you already had!
> 
> I agree that it's tiresome - so please don't respond to this unless of course you have an actual answer to the actual question.


I'm responding in the very unlikely event that I will have the last word.


----------



## Purple

tecate said:


> I'm well aware of its 'stated' aims and objectives. Which country in the developing world would you say is the IMFs standout success?


What you are really talking about id the World Bank. Both it and the IMF were founded at the Bretton Woods conference in 1944. They have complimentary aims. There are countries that are no longer in the developing world that are stand out successes. If you want a specific example then look at South Korea.
The biggest criticism I would levy at it is that it is too socialist and so doesn't emphasise labour market and banking reforms that free us productive human and financial capital and so it has had limited success in recent decades. But we are off topic. 


tecate said:


> I'm pretty sure I've been misquoted. I don't recall mentioning 'intrinsic value' insofar as I can remember over recent weeks. It's completely pointless to drag that up again as it's been discussed to death.


I didn't say that you said that. It was a general point. 


tecate said:


> Now you say that bitcoin is in a bubble? Which bubble exactly? Is this bubble number 4 or 5? Can you remind me of what other asset has gone through a series of bubbles and then perished, never to be heard from again?


Who said it would never be heard from again?
The South Sea Bubble does seem similar though.



tecate said:


> Greed and stupidity are not functions of this asset (or the assets pertaining to any other market either). That some actors might demonstrate those traits does not account for all actors and doesn't reflect badly on the asset itself.
> 
> Greed and stupidity are in evidence in every market - and have been since markets existed.


Greed and Stupidity, also knows as sentiment, are drivers in the appreciation and depreciation of every asset. The only variable is the extent to which they influence the change.


----------



## tecate

It's an organization that ships a lot of criticism for the lack of standout successes in the global south and for voting rights that are unequally distributed in favour of the US and its developed nation allies, with a resultant impact on the self serving nature of decision making.



Purple said:


> Who said it would never be heard from again?
> The South Sea Bubble does seem similar though.


From what I understand, the S. Sea Bubble played out as one neat boom n bust over the course of a year. In answer to your question, most here that have criticized Bitcoin bubbles have done so while putting forward the notion that it is in a bubble and it will decline and die. If you're saying the outcome is otherwise, fair enough.


Purple said:


> Greed and Stupidity, also knows as sentiment, are drivers in the appreciation and depreciation of every asset. The only variable is the extent to which they influence the change.


Some may be more pronounced than others in that respect. Bitcoin has been a retail phenomenon so it makes sense that it should play out that way to a greater extent. However, it's interesting to note that the recent FTX shambles shows the idiocy of the big/professional money also. The likes of Sequoia and BlackRock and many others have been found to have carried out zero due diligence into what they were throwing money at.


----------



## Purple

tecate said:


> It's an organization that ships a lot of criticism for the lack of standout successes in the global south and for voting rights that are unequally distributed in favour of the US and its developed nation allies, with a resultant impact on the self serving nature of decision making.


He who pays the piper calls the tune.


tecate said:


> From what I understand, the S. Sea Bubble played out as one neat boom n bust over the course of a year. In answer to your question, most here that have criticized Bitcoin bubbles have done so while putting forward the notion that it is in a bubble and it will decline and die. If you're saying the outcome is otherwise, fair enough.


I don't know what the outcome will be but since few people understand what they are investing in it seems reasonable that their motivations are speculative. 
I don't know if Bitcoin or any Crypto currency has an intrinsic value but I'm certain that the price it is currently trading at is not a reflection of any current intrinsic value. 


tecate said:


> Some may be more pronounced than others in that respect. Bitcoin has been a retail phenomenon so it makes sense that it should play out that way to a greater extent. However, it's interesting to note that the recent FTX shambles shows the idiocy of the big/professional money also. The likes of Sequoia and BlackRock and many others have been found to have carried out zero due diligence into what they were throwing money at.


Yep, when there's lots of money and no cost of credit we get bubbles. 
Much like derivatives many driving investment decisions in Crypto don't understand the product they are investing in.


----------



## tecate

Purple said:


> He who pays the piper calls the tune.


So the guys with the voting rights and the holders of most of the wealth optimize IMF decision making to benefit themselves.



Purple said:


> I don't know what the outcome will be but since few people understand what they are investing in it seems reasonable that their motivations are speculative.
> I don't know if Bitcoin or any Crypto currency has an intrinsic value but I'm certain that the price it is currently trading at is not a reflection of any current intrinsic value.


If you embrace the 'no intrinsic value' argument to its fullest extent then the only value you would place on Bitcoin is $0. That's your belief right?



Purple said:


> Yep, when there's lots of money and no cost of credit we get bubbles.


Indeed. Can you point me to an asset that has gotten tangled up in a  bubble that inflates and deflates but that has no intrinsic value? We have had many assets that have inflated and deflated but to my mind they've all had value one way or another - unless you can point me to one that hasn't?



Purple said:


> Much like derivatives many driving investment decisions in Crypto don't understand the product they are investing in.


The 5 years of discussion here has centered on Bitcoin 95%+ of the time. It's important that the distinction is made and recognized that Bitcoin is not representative of what is termed as 'crypto'. That said, I agree with you that there has been a lack of understanding of what Bitcoin is. As this develops further it will move from being treated as a risk on asset to being treated as a risk off asset.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

This whole IMF sideshow highlights what I mean by cult.  Bitcoin is seen as the saviour of those oppressed by international capitalism.  You just wait and see El Salvador winning the next World Cup.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> This whole IMF sideshow highlights what I mean by cult.  Bitcoin is seen as the saviour of those oppressed by international capitalism.  You just wait and see El Salvador winning the next World Cup.


Ah, I see. The IMF can take a free shot at Bitcoin but the IMF is not to be critiqued in any way. At least your consistent in that you've never once been open to acknowledging any failure of traditional finance or conventional economic systems. According to the Duke, it's simply not possible to improve in any way on what we have or to offer alternatives. Remind me again Duke why one third of the global population (and 70% of the Salvadoran population) is unbanked?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> Ah, I see. The IMF can take a free shot at Bitcoin but the IMF is not to be critiqued in any way. At least your consistent in that you've never once been open to acknowledging any failure of traditional finance or conventional economic systems. According to the Duke, it's simply not possible to improve in any way on what we have or to offer alternatives. Remind me again Duke why one third of the global population (and 70% of the Salvadoran population) is unbanked?


I suppose by constantly refuting the cult claim that bitcoin is the ultimate attainment in medium of exchange (limited supply, wow!) I do give the impression that existing systems are perfect.  Not at all.  They are constantly improving.  You will hardly believe it but not so long ago our money had to be backed by some shiny metal.  These days you just wave a small plastic card vaguely near some machine and your account is adjusted instantly.  But I am sure there is room for improvement - but no, it will never be limited in supply.
As to your request for a reminder, let me ask you a question - "why is four fifths of the global population without a car?"


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I suppose by constantly refuting the cult claim that bitcoin is the ultimate attainment in medium of exchange (limited supply, wow!)


Bad Faith argument No.1 - the suggestion that anyone who might ever have anything positive to say about Bitcoin is a 'cultist' - to include those that have participated in this discussion.
Bad Faith argument No.2 - the beyond exaggerated claims with this and nearly every other post. I could ask Duke to link to any post here where anyone has claimed Bitcoin to be 'the ultimate attainment in medium of exchange' - but I won't bother. We've covered this ground before. In your pen-ultimate post, you go on about 'Bitcoin being seen as the saviour of the oppressed from international capitalism'. Again, who here has claimed or even suggested such a thing? Additionally, Bitcoin attracts broad interest but to say that they're mixed up in a fight against 'capitalism' is laughable (when there's a large chunk of those folks who believe in nothing else but latent unadulterated capitalism) and just demonstrates that your own pet bias (I've seen yer Shinner posts) clouds your thinking.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I do give the impression that existing systems are perfect.  Not at all.  They are constantly improving.


Ok. 5 years of discussion here - link to the post where you've critiqued fiat currency, central banking and conventional banking/monetary/economic systems....because to my knowledge you've never referenced one shortcoming.




Duke of Marmalade said:


> You will hardly believe it but not so long ago our money had to be backed by some shiny metal.



So you and others spent the first couple of years of this discussion going on about intrinsic value and then you come out with this? What you have nailed is that it's not so long ago - entirely the point. The real experiment here isn't Bitcoin - it's fiat money.




Duke of Marmalade said:


> These days you just wave a small plastic card vaguely near some machine and your account is adjusted instantly.


Yes, it took forty years to get that adopted but I agree - it's a great innovation. I'm a big fan of the use of cards.
And I'm sure we will see greater use of cards in the future in places that embrace innovation.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> As to your request for a reminder, let me ask you a question - "why is four fifths of the global population without a car?"



So your answer to those people is as follows: "You can't afford to run a car so you don't deserve to be banked. We know that you are being disadvantaged as its been proven that locking people out of the financial system means they have less opportunity  but well, you can't afford to run a car so tough! Deal with it."


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> And I'm sure we will see greater use of cards in the future in places that embrace innovation.


The latest missive from Cult Central to cheer up the demoralised faithful.
So Brazil is introducing regulation of crypto.  Just for clarification:


> The invoice applies broadly to a sector which it calls “digital property,” and now solely wants the President’s signature earlier than it turns into legislation. *It doesn’t make bitcoin or any cryptocurrency an authorized tender within the nation*.


  Apparently 7% of Brazilians own some crypto in their desperate attempts to seek an alternative to the Real (down 40% against the US$ in 5 years).  It has reached a point where it needs regulation.
So my dear @tecate the Real and many, many other situations including indeed in recent times respectable currencies like our own are evidence of big weaknesses in our money system. These are possibly weaknesses of human behaviour itself, probably never to be fully eradicated. And it is indeed these weaknesses that spawned a desperate desire for a Messiah to bring salvation.  The cult believes that Bitcoin is that Messiah with leading Prophets claiming it will not be long before it replaces the US$ as the World's reserve currency.  We will all then bask in currency paradise, especially those currently oppressed by the IMF.
But just because you desperately want a Messiah does not mean that one will present itself.


----------



## Purple

tecate said:


> So the guys with the voting rights and the holders of most of the wealth optimize IMF decision making to benefit themselves.


No.


tecate said:


> If you embrace the 'no intrinsic value' argument to its fullest extent then the only value you would place on Bitcoin is $0. That's your belief right?


I don’t know what its intrinsic value is. 


tecate said:


> Indeed. Can you point me to an asset that has gotten tangled up in a  bubble that inflates and deflates but that has no intrinsic value? We have had many assets that have inflated and deflated but to my mind they've all had value one way or another - unless you can point me to one that hasn't?


Tulips


tecate said:


> The 5 years of discussion here has centered on Bitcoin 95%+ of the time. It's important that the distinction is made and recognized that Bitcoin is not representative of what is termed as 'crypto'. That said, I agree with you that there has been a lack of understanding of what Bitcoin is. As this develops further it will move from being treated as a risk on asset to being treated as a risk off asset.


I see no evidence to back up that claim.


----------



## tecate

Purple said:


> No.


I disagree but heck, don't take my word for it:
_“Let us remember that the main purpose of aid is not to help other nations but to help ourselves.” 
Richard Nixon._



Purple said:


> Tulips



Tulipmania equaled one boom n bust.




Purple said:


> I see no evidence to back up that claim.



There's a wealth of evidence to back up that claim, not least of which is the drama that has played out in recent weeks. To conflate them all together without any distinction is lazy at best, self serving at worst.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> The latest missive from Cult Central to cheer up the demoralised faithful.
> So Brazil is introducing regulation of crypto.  Just for clarification:
> 
> Apparently 7% of Brazilians own some crypto in their desperate attempts to seek an alternative to the Real (down 40% against the US$ in 5 years).  It has reached a point where it needs regulation.
> So my dear @tecate the Real and many, many other situations including indeed in recent times respectable currencies like our own are evidence of big weaknesses in our money system. These are possibly weaknesses of human behaviour itself, probably never to be fully eradicated. And it is indeed these weaknesses that spawned a desperate desire for a Messiah to bring salvation.  The cult believes that Bitcoin is that Messiah with leading Prophets claiming it will not be long before it replaces the US$ as the World's reserve currency.  We will all then bask in currency paradise, especially those currently oppressed by the IMF.
> But just because you desperately want a Messiah does not mean that one will present itself.


A minute ago you told us that fiat money was an innovation - now you're dissing the Real. What gives? As for your 'respectable' currency, how did your 'respectable currency' find itself on the cliff edge of extinction a few short years ago? There's every possibility it will find itself there again.

If you really believe that those that are putting in the hard work behind bitcoin development and adoption are 'demoralised' right now, you have not done your homework. They actually think the very opposite - and recent events are providing the proof of the value of a properly decentralized digital asset.

And lastly, on the tract of text you've bolded out, nobody suggested that Bitcoin has been made legal tender in Brazil. However, the bill does facilitate and recognize it as a legitimate means of payment.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> A minute ago you told us that fiat money was an innovation - now you're dissing the Real. What gives?


Just disproving your earlier assertion that I have unquestioning faith in fiat in all its manifestations.


tecate said:


> As for your 'respectable' currency, how did your 'respectable currency' find itself on the cliff edge of extinction a few short years ago? There's every possibility it will find itself there again.


In 1999 11 currencies which either were traditionally respectable or had recently attained respectability became extinct.  They were replaced by the euro.  The euro got near the position where it itself might have to be reversed into its predecessors.  I wasn't particularly worried about the prospect.  When bitcoin becomes effectively extinct a trillion $ "asset" will have gone up in smoke.


tecate said:


> If you really believe that those that are putting in the hard work behind bitcoin development and adoption are 'demoralised' right now, you have not done your homework. They actually think the very opposite - and recent events are providing the proof of the value of a properly decentralized digital asset.


I will concede that I am surprised at the stability of bitcoin in the face of recent very strong crypto headwinds.  I take your word that morale with the faithful is on a high.


tecate said:


> And lastly, on the tract of text you've bolded out, nobody suggested that Bitcoin has been made legal tender in Brazil. However, the bill does facilitate and recognize it as a legitimate means of payment.


I was just clarifying for other listeners that this development is not in any way an endorsement of bitcoin by the Brazilian authorities, in the way that Bukele has positioned himself for canonisation by the faithful.  Brazil is simply recognising that it needs to protect the 7% of its population that are now vulnerable to the scammers who abound in crypto space.


----------



## Firefly

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The cult believes that Bitcoin is that Messiah with leading Prophets claiming it will not be long before it replaces the US$ as the World's reserve currency.  We will all then bask in currency paradise, especially those currently oppressed by the IMF.
> But just because you desperately want a Messiah does not mean that one will present itself.


My thoughts exactly. The fall of the dollar is the primary wish & desire here...


----------



## Purple

tecate said:


> I disagree but heck, don't take my word for it:
> _“Let us remember that the main purpose of aid is not to help other nations but to help ourselves.”
> Richard Nixon._


Are you aware of the context of the full quote? I suspect not.


tecate said:


> Tulipmania equaled one boom n bust.


You asked for one.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Just disproving your earlier assertion that I have unquestioning faith in fiat in all its manifestations.


And yet you told us fiat was an innovation. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> In 1999 11 currencies which either were traditionally respectable or had recently attained respectability became extinct.  They were replaced by the euro.  The euro got near the position where it itself might have to be reversed into its predecessors.


'Respectable'? Were the Drachma, Peseta, Lira and Escudo 'respectable' or they were included only so that ze Germans could sell more of their stuff into said markets?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I wasn't particularly worried about the prospect.


Well delighted to hear it Duke. However, that was not the consensus here on AAM. There were lads scrambling to open accounts in Berlin, Brussels n' Belfast on here! 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> When bitcoin becomes effectively extinct a trillion $ "asset" will have gone up in smoke.


The prophet marmalade has been making this prophecy for years now - and still not delivering. In fact, he can't even narrow it down to the nearest century if I recall correctly.
The euro has a far better chance of going bye-bye before Bitcoin ever does.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I take your word that morale with the faithful is on a high.



Serious and talented people building out this tech don't fit into your chosen stereotypical profile, Duke.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I was just clarifying for other listeners that this development is not in any way an endorsement of bitcoin by the Brazilian authorities, in the way that Bukele has positioned himself for canonisation by the faithful. Brazil is simply recognising that it needs to protect the 7% of its population that are now vulnerable to the scammers who abound in crypto space.


It means that any individual, business or corporation is free to utilize Bitcoin as a means of payment within Brazil without any hindrance from the state. That's all that's needed. It doesn't have to be legal tender.
Regulation is needed where the finance you espouse - centralized finance - is concerned.
As you well know, when it comes to Bukele, that's not the view that most people have taken. What Bukele does or doesn't do is neither here nor there. His actions may have made the road to adoption a tiny bit easier but Bitcoin isn't in any way under his control.


Firefly said:


> My thoughts exactly. The fall of the dollar is the primary wish & desire here...


Yes, of course - and in the gazillion posts on here over the past 5 years, you will be able to link to at least ONE post where someone expressed that wish & desire?????


----------



## tecate

Purple said:


> Are you aware of the context of the full quote? I suspect not.



Do tell your interpretation of that full context.




Purple said:


> You asked for one.




I asked for one that had inflated and deflated multiple times - not one simple boom n bust.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> Well delighted to hear it Duke. However, that was not the consensus here on AAM. There were lads scrambling to open accounts in Berlin, Brussels n' Belfast on here!


Berlin and Brussels, euro accounts I presume.


tecate said:


> The prophet marmalade has been making this prophecy for years now - and still not delivering. In fact, he can't even narrow it down to the nearest century if I recall correctly.


3/4 trillion lost in the last 12 months.  Doing better than the prophets of bitcoin, predicting it will soon be the World's reserve currency, will command 15% of the global need for medium of exchange, not to mention attaining prices ranging up to million US$.


tecate said:


> The euro has a far better chance of going bye-bye before Bitcoin ever does.


Technically bitcoin will of course never go bye-bye.  The blockchain ledger is immutable after all.  I wonder how it will be exhibited as a monument to the capacity for human greed to lead to monumental delusion.  The problem with 17th century tulips is that they could not at that time be preserved as future museum pieces.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Berlin and Brussels, euro accounts I presume.


Huh? The euro didn't collapse. AAMers were trying to position themselves in the event that it did. The speculation was that a Berlin-based euro would be converted to the Mk3 Deutsche Mark. Bitcoin was still  being discussed in a tiny corner of the interweb at that point.
The point is that IF that conversion took place (and if it ever takes place in the future), there will be national currencies that will be immediately devalued....with the holder of that coin taking a major hit.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> 3/4 trillion lost in the last 12 months.  Doing better than the prophets of bitcoin, predicting it will soon be the World's reserve currency, will command 15% of the global need for medium of exchange, not to mention attaining prices ranging up to million US$.


No you don't Duke. I said months ago that I expected BTC to go to 10k. All through this 5 years and the up part of this last cycle, I'm not aware of anyone who didn't acknowledge the cyclical nature of BTC on here - and that with the hype cycle up, it would be accompanied by the crash down. That's all recorded via past posts.
And again, it's not that long ago that the current price was perceived to be fantastic. People have short memories. Maybe they also forget you harping on about how bitcoin would never see $20k again.

On the world reserve currency, any mention of that was in terms of a long term view. Again, the post is there in my case - I said that I wasn't all that comfy talking in terms of world reserve currency today - that' Bitcoin had a lot of work to do to get there. And by the way, just in case you think anything has changed, it hasn't! I'm not making any predictions but if it continues to develop over the coming years, it's not outrageous to suggest such a thing. Nothing has changed.
On predictions of prices ranging up to 1 million usd, I don't believe that I've ever made any such prediction - nor have I seen any other contributor here that's enthusiastic about bitcoin make such a prediction. What I have said - and I continue to say today - is that if adoption continues, then that can only drive up demand on a fixed issuance asset. Nothing has changed in that respect.

The centralized finance crap show has been far more spectacular than anyone could ever have imagined. And yet, as you acknowledged yourself, the price is still holding up. There's plenty of time yet for it to fall further. We could be in for a prolonged downturn. But we've been here before. This thing is going to keep moving onwards one way or another.  As an example, while everyone was watching SBFs criminal shenanigans at FTX, Fidelity quietly extended crypto trading to its 40 million clients.




Duke of Marmalade said:


> I wonder how it will be exhibited as a monument to the capacity for human greed to lead to monumental delusion


And what you omit is that we've had all of this play out with traditional markets or with other technologies before. There's nothing new in that.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

trying desperately to have the last word  
I'll concede my dear @tecate that you have followed a more rational line that what is typical of bitcoin prophets. Yet you still see a possibility of bitcoin being the World's reserve currency.  No way.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> trying desperately to have the last word



Yer better than that Duke.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> I'll concede my dear @tecate that you have followed a more rational line that what is typical of bitcoin prophets.


And this is the point that some either misunderstand or choose to misunderstand for convenience. Are there morons in crypto? It's a retail phenomenon - so of course there are. However, these are not the people that progress the technology. Those with the capability to build this out are not the idiots that you make them out to be (when you tar everyone with the one brush) - far from it.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Yet you still see a possibility of bitcoin being the World's reserve currency.  No way.



I told you back then when that topic came up that I didn't think it was really helpful to spend more than 2 minutes thinking about BTC in that role right now - given that it has a hell of a lot of work to do to get to that point. However, in no way do I agree with taking an absolutist view on this (or anything else for that matter). There's no need to even think about such a thing for the foreseeable - but does BTC have some attributes/characteristics that would be beneficial in that role? - absolutely.

Most likely the plan is SDR next but making assumptions is never a good idea Duke.


----------



## Purple

tecate said:


> Do tell your interpretation of that full context.


It's not my interpretation, it historical fact. Nixon reformed and greatly increased the US's foreign aid while decoupling it from what were narrow political aims and funnelling most of it though international organisations such as the World Bank. The comment you quoted was said in the context of building good will and projecting American soft power during the Cold War. Nixon had many flaws but he did some great stuff too. 



tecate said:


> I asked for one that had inflated and deflated multiple times - not one simple boom n bust.


No, you said "_ Can you point me to an asset that has gotten tangled up in a bubble that inflates and deflates but that has no intrinsic value?_"
I gave you one.


----------



## tecate

Purple said:


> It's not my interpretation, it historical fact. Nixon reformed and greatly increased the US's foreign aid while decoupling it from what were narrow political aims and funnelling most of it though international organisations such as the World Bank. The comment you quoted was said in the context of building good will and projecting American soft power during the Cold War. Nixon had many flaws but he did some great stuff too.



Just to recap, this is the statement that you say was made "in the context of building good will":

"Let us remember that the main purpose of aid is not to help other nations but to help ourselves"

You say that what you've just presented is not a matter of interpretation. How anyone could claim it as the 'fact' that you have is out of this world! It's the equivalent of claiming that someone saying 'I shot him in the knee cap' and somehow interpreting that as being an act of "building good will".

In writing about it around the time of Nixon stating that, author Teresa Hayter put Nixon's statement in the context it clearly belongs - aid being used as a political weapon.




Purple said:


> No, you said "_ Can you point me to an asset that has gotten tangled up in a bubble that inflates and deflates but that has no intrinsic value?_"
> I gave you one.


Tulipmania didn't inflate and deflate repeatedly. It was one single boom n bust. My point is that something that doesn't have any value isn't going to re-inflate repeatedly.


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> Yes, of course - and in the gazillion posts on here over the past 5 years, you will be able to link to at least ONE post where someone expressed that wish & desire?????


Plenty of posts scattered throughout AAM by you and others  if you care to search - you're quite good at the ole searching anyway , so shouldn't take you too long


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> In writing about it around the time of Nixon stating that, author Teresa Hayter put Nixon's statement in the context it clearly belongs - aid being used as a political weapon.


There you go.  All Western establishment behaviour is Satanic, even when masquerading as altruistic.  Brethren I tell you Bitcoin is your salvation from Satan.


tecate said:


> My point is that something that doesn't have any value isn't going to re-inflate repeatedly.


Bitcoin disproves your point


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> Plenty of posts scattered throughout AAM by you and others  if you care to search - you're quite good at the ole searching anyway , so shouldn't take you too long


So your claim is baseless then. You make the baseless claim and this nonsense is the only way out. Lets be very clear. I have not expressed the 'wish and desire' for the fall of the US dollar. Likewise, I'm not aware of any other contributor here who has expressed such a view.

If you're going to make the big phat claim, then the onus is on you to back up your assertion. I've called BS on your claim. 




Duke of Marmalade said:


> There you go.  All Western establishment behaviour is Satanic, even when masquerading as altruistic.  Brethren I tell you Bitcoin is your salvation from Satan.


Always the wayward inflammatory skew. Not that any rational individual needs to hear this, I have not suggested that 'all western establishment behaviour is Satanic'. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Bitcoin disproves your point


That's your assertion, Duke. The point is that time and time again, we've had this comparison with S.S.bubble and Tulipmania - yet there has never been an instance of an asset that has repeatedly inflated and deflated and not brought value to the table.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

@tecate, I take your point that bitcoin's behaviour like those birthday candles that keep reigniting after you blow them out is probably unprecedented in economic history.  Still it is destined to go the way of said re-igniting candles.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> @tecate, I take your point that bitcoin's behaviour like those birthday candles that keep reigniting after you blow them out is probably unprecedented in economic history.  Still it is destined to go the way of said re-igniting candles.


No, it's not unprecedented at all. Anything that has gone through multiple boom n bust cycles otherwise has been valued by society. Bitcoin will be no different. If it was vapourware, it would have disappeared on the first boom n bust - never to be seen again.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> No, it's not unprecedented at all. Anything that has gone through multiple boom n bust cycles otherwise has been valued by society.


Example?


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Example?


We can start with property and equities.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> We can start with property and equities.


Well, it is difficult to conceive of an economy where property is worth zero and companies are worth zero.  Even you can conceive of a possibility that bitcoin will be zero. So I don't see why you keep making this comparison.  
Now you are probably right that there have been very few individual assets that have gone through bitcoin's gyrations.  But that hardly points to evidence that surviving such gyrations guarantees immortality.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Well, it is difficult to conceive of an economy where property is worth zero and companies are worth zero.  Even you can conceive of a possibility that bitcoin will be zero. So I don't see why you keep making this comparison.
> Now you are probably right that there have been very few individual assets that have gone through bitcoin's gyrations.  But that hardly points to evidence that surviving such gyrations guarantees immortality.


Although you do, I don't take an absolutist view on the outcome - so sure, no guarantees. However, we can certainly leave the ill-fitting comparisons with S.S. bubbles and Tulipmania behind. Whatever it is and becomes, it's neither of those things.


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> So your claim is baseless then. You make the baseless claim and this nonsense is the only way out. Lets be very clear. I have not expressed the 'wish and desire' for the fall of the US dollar. Likewise, I'm not aware of any other contributor here who has expressed such a view.
> 
> If you're going to make the big phat claim, then the onus is on you to back up your assertion. I've called BS on your claim.


Over the years, it has been you who has repeatedly made baseless claims, old chap. Posters have called you out on it time & again and asked you to support assertions you have made. You have continuously squirmed your way out and often have just replied along the lines of that nobody can force you. Pot calling the kettle black indeed!


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> Over the years, it has been you who has repeatedly made baseless claims, old chap. Posters have called you out on it time & again and asked you to support assertions you have made. You have continuously squirmed your way out and often have just replied along the lines of that nobody can force you. Pot calling the kettle black indeed!


Complete deflection. You made a claim that's wayward. I've the guts of 2,000 posts here - and you can't pick out one in which I have ever expressed the 'wish and desire' that the US dollar would fail (as per your big phat claim). Extending that out further, nor has anyone else here that has otherwise posted enthusiastically about Bitcoin. Anyone with a bit of class would put their hands up and say, my bad, I made a 'mistake'.


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> I've the guts of 2,000 posts here


Yes, you have spent an inordinate amount of energy on it, nearly as much as a Bitcoin miner!



tecate said:


> Anyone with a bit of class would put their hands up and say, my bad, I made a 'mistake'.


Again, you're the one with a long & checkered history of baseless claims. Throwing stones in a glass house!


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> -> vapour <-


More deflection. You were wrong in your assertion and you don't have the good manners to own up to it.


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> More deflection. You were wrong in your assertion and you don't have the good manners to own up to it.


-> #237 <-


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> -> #237 <-


Where -> #237 <- is code for someone who won't admit that he's posting a groundless, baseless claim and doesn't have the manners or decency to acknowledge that. #classy.


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> Where -> #237 <- is code for someone who won't admit that he's posting a groundless, baseless claim and doesn't have the manners or decency to acknowledge that. #classy.


Where -> #237 <- is code for someone who has for years posted groundless, baseless claims and doesn't have the manners or decency to acknowledge that. #classy.


----------



## Firefly

Anyway, back on topic. Anyone buy anything with Bitcoin recently?


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> Anyway, I might let up in my deflection trolling. Anyone buy anything with Bitcoin recently?


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> View attachment 6886


You have misquoted me in your post #245. Would you be so decent to amend?


----------



## tecate

Lightning network capacity continues to grow all the while - so given that Lightning is largely retail/payments-related, I think it's a reasonable assumption that more stuff is being purchased with Bitcoin.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> More deflection. You were wrong in your assertion and you don't have the good manners to own up to it.


@tecate the whole body language of your posts is that the existing monetary order is corrupt and unsound.  Can there be any doubt that a failure of a major fiat would give you great pleasure, if only to tell us "I told you so". Stop arguing like a barrister chewing on a semantic bone.  I am honest enough to say that when bitcoin fails I will wallow in telling the cult that "I told you so"; actually done a bit of wallowing already.

Ian Paisley probably never actually said "I wish the Pope would choke on his cornflakes".  He didn't have to.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> @tecate the whole body language of your posts is that the existing monetary order is corrupt and unsound.


Firstly, that is incorrect. And secondly, even if you wrongly believe that to be the case, to even use that and extend it to what the other guy has run with lacks any shred of honesty.

Last time I checked, my thoughts on this subject were my own. And if we must go there, I've oftentimes pointed to deficiencies in traditional finance/currency/banking/economics. The nature of any systems that we have is such that there is always scope for innovation and improvement - or optionality. That doesn't mean that I want current systems thrown out. As you well know, I've explicitly pointed that out to you many times.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I am honest enough to say that when bitcoin fails I will wallow in telling the cult that "I told you so"; actually done a bit of wallowing already.


See above on your honesty, Duke. I've learnt a lot in spending time on this subject here - and the most valuable learnings have nothing to do with crypto or Bitcoin and everything to do with the last few posts. In fact it was the 'wallowing' that you refer to that intrigued me most in 2017.

I don't foresee a scenario where one system wins out over another. I do foresee a scenario where systems adapt and mesh in with whatever new innovation proves to be useful - over time.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Ian Paisley probably never actually said "I wish the Pope would choke on his cornflakes".  He didn't have to.


If anyone thought the notion of 'thought police' was bad, this is a far more advanced form of tyranny (in policing thoughts that the accused has never assembled). Let me put it like this. Because you approach this discussion with an entrenched and embittered view, don't assume that everyone else does.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Quick search of @tecate to see any evidence that he would like to see the demise of the current monetary and geopolitical order.  Picked up this and there will be 100s more but I need to watch a World Cup match.


			
				tecate said:
			
		

> The central bank high priests that Dukey tells us we have to blindly trust are getting it wrong. On the back of that, Drukenmiller predicts that the reserve currency status of the USD will come to an end within 15 years.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Quick search of @tecate to see any evidence that he would like to see the demise of the current monetary and geopolitical order.  Picked up this and there will be 100s more but I need to watch a World Cup match.


So - tell me where in that tract of text have I said that I "would like to see the demise of the current monetary and geopolitical order"????


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> So - tell me where in that tract of text have I said that I "would like to see the demise of the current monetary and geopolitical order"????


I'm going to play your game.  When did I ever say we had to "blindly trust" the Central Bank high priests?  I have stated that monetary policy is probably the most challenging human group behaviour to manage and that the professionals of the Central Banks are best placed to do that.  I have frequently admitted that they could get it wrong.   I am not going to search your 2,000 posts but you have frequently questioned not only their competence but their basic integrity.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I am not going to search your 2,000 posts but you have frequently questioned not only their competence but their basic integrity.


Of course I have. The claim that is being made is this -> The fall of the dollar is the primary wish and desire. Me critiquing current systems and the boffins that you have told us previously that we'd simply have to trust does not equal 'a primary wish and desire' for the entire system to collapse/for the dollar to collapse.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> When did I ever say we had to "blindly trust" the Central Bank high priests?


Hold my beer....

"I prefer to trust to the wisdom of mainstream commentators and Nobel laureates" - Duke, 2017.
"In this very complex world we all *have to* trust experts in those fields we are not expert ourselves." - Duke, Dec. 2017.
"We even trust our Central Banks to manage the value of our currency." - Duke, Dec. 2017.
"I actually still have trust in experts in their field" . . . "who am I to disagree with the experts." - Duke, Jan. 2018.
"With the unprecedented money printing, they may lose the plot but I *have to* trust them." - Duke, Nov. 2020.
"I have a fair bit of trust that my €X in my bank account won't lose too much of its purchasing power" - Duke, Nov. 2020.
"I trust that when I see online that I have €X in my bank account that indeed I do have €X.: - Duke, Nov. 2020.
"I trust in the motivations and expertise of the monetary authorities in their efforts to steer us through this." - Duke, Apr. 2021.

I think they have a facility to change username on AAM. Might I suggest 'trust me bro' if it's not already taken?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> Of course I have. The claim that is being made is this -> The fall of the dollar is the primary wish and desire. Me critiquing current systems and the boffins that you have told us previously that we'd simply have to trust does not equal 'a primary wish and desire' for the entire system to collapse/for the dollar to collapse.
> 
> 
> Hold my beer....
> 
> "I prefer to trust to the wisdom of mainstream commentators and Nobel laureates" - Duke, 2017.
> "In this very complex world we all *have to* trust experts in those fields we are not expert ourselves." - Duke, Dec. 2017.
> "We even trust our Central Banks to manage the value of our currency." - Duke, Dec. 2017.
> "I actually still have trust in experts in their field" . . . "who am I to disagree with the experts." - Duke, Jan. 2018.
> "With the unprecedented money printing, they may lose the plot but I *have to* trust them." - Duke, Nov. 2020.
> "I have a fair bit of trust that my €X in my bank account won't lose too much of its purchasing power" - Duke, Nov. 2020.
> "I trust that when I see online that I have €X in my bank account that indeed I do have €X.: - Duke, Nov. 2020.
> "I trust in the motivations and expertise of the monetary authorities in their efforts to steer us through this." - Duke, Apr. 2021.
> 
> I think they have a facility to change username on AAM. Might I suggest 'trust me bro' if it's not already taken?


It was the word "blindly" that I questioned.  But that is fair in the context and tone of the debate.  But when you gleefully show graphs of the US$ going up in flames, as provided by Cult Central, it is also fair comment that you would welcome a final bonfire.
I see you are now latching on to the semantics of "primary".  Your primary desire is to see bitcoin lord it over the corrupt and unsound fiats of this world.  @Firefly is substantially correct in his assertion despite the semantics.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> But when you gleefully show graphs of the US$ going up in flames, as provided by Cult Central, it is also fair comment that you would welcome a final bonfire.


Lol. I'm not sure what 'graph' your talking about. Other than that, once again, I have not said and have never said that I 'wish or desire' the ruination of the dollar or the current financial system.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I see you are now latching on to the semantics of "primary".


I was quoting Firefly.   



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Your primary desire is to see bitcoin lord it over the corrupt and unsound fiats of this world.


If you can't cite it, then I never said such a thing.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

I'll concede you the last word.  Did a search and it turns out that 420 of your 1,921 posts are in fact the last word.  So either your incisive logic defeats us all or you just wear us out


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I'll concede you the last word.  Did a search and it turns out that 420 of your 1,921 posts are in fact the last word.  So either your incisive logic defeats us all or you just wear us out


I was shocked and disappointed with those findings - and started to contemplate checking myself in somewhere for 'last word' counselling and then this happened..
Hold my beer.

"I am glad that you are conceding the last word on this." - Duke, in a non-bitcoin-related discussion.
"Great, you have given me the last word." - Duke, in a non-bitcoin-related discussion.
"Please _Sarenco _let this one go, let me have the last word." - Duke, in a non-bitcoin-related discussion.
+9 other instances of LWIS (Last Word Insecurity Syndrome).


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> I was, as usual, mis-quoting Firefly.


----------

