Price Volatility vs. System Volatility

Gus1970

Frequent Poster
Messages
143
You are misunderstanding your own weak references so. You suggest Bitcoin is 'a complex adaptive system'. I'm not arguing that point, but you go on to claim that means 'as such there is no way of predicting its future behaviour.' It is here you are mistaken. Bitcoin in its entirely is governed by strict rules, that makes if very easy to model how that system will function.

Such modelling and testing of complex IT systems is commonplace, tools like LoadRunner, NeoLoad, jMeter, etc. are used in large development houses every day to test various load scenarios for the software they produce. Various scenarions for user behaviour patters are all configured via scripts and input parameters.

Your Wiki reference states complex adaptive system 'is a system in which a perfect understanding of the individual parts does not automatically convey a perfect understanding of the whole system's behavior.' I don't see how that is relevant? The entire Bitcoin system is very well understood, go to GitHub and look at the source code for yourself.

You also suggested that science says human interaction with systems like Bitcoin is unpredictable. You haven't backed that claim up with anything.




Hint, take a look at the calculator I linked to previously. That'll give you a good indication.
I am happy for you to stick to your certainties, I'll stay with my doubts. Have a great day
 

Leo

Moderator
Messages
10,086
Knowledge is a great thing, it can go some way towards eliminating doubt.
 

Duke of Marmalade

Frequent Poster
Messages
2,366
Thanks Duke. But would I be correct in saying that bitcoin supply is not fixed until 2140?
Jayz, do I need a lawyer to vet my posts :cool: I understand that there are c.17m btc now that they are on a certain trajectory to be 21m at some stage in the future. To all practical intents M is fixed so far as Fishers Equation is concerned.
Arguably, the supply of oil and gas is fixed, or at least along way short of being replenished to levels that would in anyway adequately meet current demand.
No argument about it and so the price follows demand despite the efforts (e.g. OPEC) to manage supply.
Hence the "true value" of oil and gas must be zero. Correct?
Where on earth is this non sequitur coming from? I have pointed out that according to Fishers Equation (which is common sense) the only stable price when the supply is fixed is when the price is zero and demand is zero (fixed non zero demand, in which case supply, demand and price are all fixed, is theoretically possible, but this is wholly unrealistic for a currency.) Oil et al does have intrinsic value and therefore will always be in demand (barring step changes in technology) and I am afraid its limited supply does imply price volatility. If bitcoin has intrinsic value then its limited supply destines its price to be for ever unstable. However, if the satoshi drops and folk recognise it has no value its price will stabilise at zero.

Nobody is disputing the tampering with the supply of money and its demand. What is being relayed to you, is that such tampering is obviously artificial and is set to a series of changeable rules that basically are in the hands of a few dozen decision makers at best.
In turn, the bauld Caitlin, pointing out that this will result in investor misallocation of capital, serving to destabilize the system at future points. Such misallocation is, from my perspective is at an all time high, given the level of frequency in which banks throughout the developed world are being caught with their pants down in some shady and fraudulent activities.
So central banks can target price stability all they want, the inevitability of their shortcomings is system instability. This system instability is easily recognizable in a number of ways. House price inflation v wages stagnation, bond yields and negative interest rates, all time record high stock markets in the US, sluggish or moderate growth rates, increasing debt levels - sovereign, personal, corporate.
The CB's traditionally use the interest rate as a tool to control the inflation rate. These days however, CB's are trying to manage inflation in order to control the interest rate.
Its all a bit back-to-front these days, but I don't make the rules.
These are all Shortie points which are debated elsewhere but it is a complete non sequitur (again) to infer that because Libra is tied to fiat it is systemically unstable.
 

tecate

Frequent Poster
Messages
499
Jayz, do I need a lawyer to vet my posts :cool:
Eh, if yer going to be rolling out Fischers Equation on a regular basis, then you'll need 2 seniors, 2 juniors, a gaggle of garden variety lawyers and I'd throw in a security detail just to be on the safe side, your dukeness.

but it is a complete non sequitur (again) to infer that because Libra is tied to fiat it is systemically unstable.
No it's not. Systemically, Bitcoin is set. It's as clear as night and day how it's set for years to come. At a given moment, you don't know what the story is with FIAT currency. CB's tinker with it on an ongoing basis. It's logical to believe that over time, FIAT currency will face a systemic crisis. We know this from past performance.
 

WolfeTone

Registered User
Messages
233
I understand that there are c.17m btc now that they are on a certain trajectory to be 21m at some stage in the future. To all practical intents M is fixed so far as Fishers Equation is concerned.
Yes, like oil and gas. Of course that streaming of that supply is not fixed today, which adds a variable to the equation you have endorsed, because both supply and demand are fluctuating at all times, and will do for the foreseeable future. Making Fishers equation an efficient tool to determine a stable price of zero when demand is zero, but inefficient to determine a stable price of zero at all other times.

I have pointed out that according to Fishers Equation (which is common sense) the only stable price when the supply is fixed is when the price is zero and demand is zero
You needed Fishers equation to figure that out?


Oil et al does have intrinsic value and therefore will always be in demand (barring step changes in technology) and I am afraid its limited supply does imply price volatility. If bitcoin has intrinsic value then its limited supply destines its price to be for ever unstable. However, if the satoshi drops and folk recognise it has no value its price will stabilise at zero.
Back to the 'intrinsic value' argument. I'm sure this has been trashed out to the death at this point. But notably you offer up the prospect "If bitcoin has intrinsic value...." which differs from earlier comment of "its true value which is zero". Ok, I'm being pedantic, but sometimes it is the nuances that shed light for discoveries to be found.

These are all Shortie points which are debated elsewhere but it is a complete non sequitur (again) to infer that because Libra is tied to fiat it is systemically unstable.
That is just opinion, and you are of course entitled to it. Myself, and the bauld Caitlin and others, will have to disagree with you on that.
 

Duke of Marmalade

Frequent Poster
Messages
2,366
No it's not. Systemically, Bitcoin is set. It's as clear as night and day how it's set for years to come. At a given moment, you don't know what the story is with FIAT currency. CB's tinker with it on an ongoing basis. It's logical to believe that over time, FIAT currency will face a systemic crisis. We know this from past performance.
We are trying to grab ownership of "systemically" here and maybe we should set out a ground set of definitions. I took Caitlin's interpretation to mean that it's system was stable meaning secure and well defined and all that. No reason why Libra qua system cannot be equally secure and well defined. Libra is tied to fiat which has systemic difficulties from time to time. Bitcoin is tied to Hot Air.
Caitlin thought she had come up with a smartass trophy for bitcoin: in the blue corner representing quasi price stability fiat and Libra, in the red corner our hero representing systemic stability, no less, is bitcoin. Turnips versus Gold.
 

tecate

Frequent Poster
Messages
499
We are trying to grab ownership of "systemically" here and maybe we should set out a ground set of definitions. I took Caitlin's interpretation to mean that it's system was stable meaning secure and well defined and all that. No reason why Libra qua system cannot be equally secure and well defined. Libra is tied to fiat which has systemic difficulties from time to time. Bitcoin is tied to Hot Air.
Caitlin thought she had come up with a smartass trophy for bitcoin: in the blue corner representing quasi price stability fiat and Libra, in the red corner our hero representing systemic stability, no less, is bitcoin. Turnips versus Gold.
Ok, well here's one for you, your dukeness. All FIAT currencies fail - it's just a question of when. Turnips vs. Gold indeed.
 

WolfeTone

Registered User
Messages
233
No reason why Libra qua system cannot be equally secure and well defined. Libra is tied to fiat which has systemic difficulties from time to time.
So you apply value (prospective, at least) to Libra?
You may not see any usage for it for yourself, but you can at least see how it may have usage in developing countries?
 

Duke of Marmalade

Frequent Poster
Messages
2,366
So you apply value (prospective, at least) to Libra?
You may not see any usage for it for yourself, but you can at least see how it may have usage in developing countries?
Libra has potential and that's why the authorities seem to be more scared of it than of bitcoin. Libra is potentially unregulated fiat despite their commitment to co-operate with regulators. It is a genuine product with intrinsic value and devoid of any speculative significance. If I was a duke in Venezuala I would love to be able to stash away some in Libra, though I would probably prefer dollars. I would be scared stiff of bitcoin - even enthusiasts do not dismiss the possibility that it could drop 80% over the next 12 months.
 
Last edited:

WolfeTone

Registered User
Messages
233
Im starting to think that the Duke & co have given themselves a 120yr window (2140) to be proven correct about bitcoins price returning to its "true value" of zero.

Ah, cmon, say it ain't so? When I told everybody that Marc Kenny (who?) would be the next Liam Brady, it was under the premise that it would occur in 5 to 10yrs. He is 46 now. Its still a possibility, but I have consigned myself to the realisation that its not going to happen, and that I was wrong.

But we have definite assertions, backed up with mathematical equations that bitcoin has no value, and will return to zero.
Surely there is a reasonable timeframe in which this will manifest itself? Surely we are not relying on technological advances to replace bitcoin, in the same way as the CD replaced vinyl? Or Libra to replace bitcoin, as it itselfs asserts that it can provide price stability and scalability that bitcoin and others have failed to do.
If Libra answers the questions that bitcoin has thus far failed to do (I dont think it will, it will compliment bitcoin) and fulfills its vision, then it will replace bitcoin as a global cryptocurrency that has given the masses of unbanked and on the fringes of the financial system real autonomy over their financial affairs. And all because, before it, bitcoin was invented. That it, bitcoin, has no value is surely a redundant argument?
 
Last edited:

tecate

Frequent Poster
Messages
499
Libra has potential and that's why the authorities seem to be more scared of it than of bitcoin. Libra is potentially unregulated fiat despite their commitment to co-operate with regulators. It is a genuine product with intrinsic value and devoid of any speculative significance. If I was a duke in Venezuala I would love to be able to stash away some in Libra, though I would probably prefer dollars. I would be scared stiff of bitcoin - even enthusiasts do not dismiss the possibility that it could drop 80% over the next 12 months.
I watched the House Committee on Finance session earlier today when they hauled in David Marcus of Libra/Facebook. We're talking about politicians so it's to be expected that there were some of them that were totally clueless (like the guy that had to google "FIAT" in the middle of proceedings to find out what it meant). There were many of them grandstanding (just wanted to present a certain optic by flaming him about Facebook's previous misdemeanors). However, there were quite a few forward thinking congressmen who understand the innovative proposition that both Bitcoin and Libra bring. The immediate urgency is with Libra as Facebook has an immediate market of 2.4 Billion customers to pimp it to.

However, whilst they'll want it on their terms, I didn't find them stuck in the past. Here's a couple of them..



Tech and innovation wait for no-one.

WolfeTone said:
Im starting to think that the Duke & co have given themselves a 120yr window (2140) to be proven correct about bitcoins price returning to its "true value" of zero.
They may as well - but it won't matter. One of those two congressmen that I've referred to above (McHenry) had this to say earler today:

“The world that Satoshi Nakamoto, author of the Bitcoin white paper, envisioned is an unstoppable force. We should not attempt to deter this innovation. And those that have tried have already failed.”
 
Last edited:

Duke of Marmalade

Frequent Poster
Messages
2,366
I watched the House Committee on Finance session earlier today when they hauled in David Marcus of Libra/Facebook. We're talking about politicians so it's to be expected that there were some of them that were totally clueless (like the guy that had to google "FIAT" in the middle of proceedings to find out what it meant). There were many of them grandstanding (just wanted to present a certain optic by flaming him about Facebook's previous misdemeanors). However, there were quite a few forward thinking congressmen who understand the innovative proposition that both Bitcoin and Libra bring. The immediate urgency is with Libra as Facebook has an immediate market of 2.4 Billion customers to pimp it to.

However, whilst they'll want it on their terms, I didn't find them stuck in the past. Here's a couple of them..



Tech and innovation wait for no-one.


They may as well - but it won't matter. One of those two congressmen that I've referred to above (McHenry) had this to say earler today:

“The world that Satoshi Nakamoto, author of the Bitcoin white paper, envisioned is an unstoppable force. We should not attempt to deter this innovation. And those that have tried have already failed.”
Not sure this post is in the right thread. Anyway, you might take solace from a random congressman seeking cheap coverage for his passion for innovation. I personally prefer to listen to those who actually understand the subject.
Bitcoin magazine said:
The vast majority of economists seem to have a serious distaste for Bitcoin. Whenever an economist who has received a Nobel Prize, teaches at an Ivy League school or works at a central bank comments on Bitcoin, they always seem to have something negative to say about the technology. Some of these individuals simply say that Bitcoin has no future whatsoever, while others go as far as to claim it is pure evil.
Of course Bitcoin magazine is a big evangelist of said currency and sees this consensus of the economics community as tantamount to persecution.

The second YouTube link had a very relevant observation. The guy was pointing out that if Bitcoin ever gained escape velocity (and became a true global currency) the authorities would shoot it down, and oh yes it would still have an existence in the Dark Web. Several takeaways from this.
1. Yes indeed, if the authorities act they can severely curtail internet activity. I should know, I spend a lot of time in France and find it nearly impossible to get a bet on the internet without using the State run PMU.
2. That there has been 10 years and no real attention paid by the authorities to bitcoin, shows that they are quite complacent about bitcoin ever achieving escape velocity. It is the bigger threat of Libra that is grabbing their attention.
3. But as the commentator pointed out if it ever showed signs of achieving that breakthrough the authorities (representing you and me) would shoot it down.
4. With less than 1% of transactions actually buying things I would say bitcoin has scarcely reached the top of Hill 16, never mind achieving escape velocity.
 

WolfeTone

Registered User
Messages
233
Shutting down the internet, or curtailing activities in order to inhibit bitcoin does not amount to bitcoin having no value. It merely reduces its value to zero or next to it, being the reason to curtail its activities.
The same could be said if authorities revoked banking licences, blocked trading between banks and ordered shutdown of ATMS. How much would would your money be worth then if you couldn't access it to buy stuff?
 

Duke of Marmalade

Frequent Poster
Messages
2,366
Shutting down the internet, or curtailing activities in order to inhibit bitcoin does not amount to bitcoin having no value. It merely reduces its value to zero or next to it, being the reason to curtail its activities.
The same could be said if authorities revoked banking licences, blocked trading between banks and ordered shutdown of ATMS. How much would would your money be worth then if you couldn't access it to buy stuff?
Wolfie I find your logic to be in a parallel universe from mine. Of course, I might be the outlier but I hope you will accept my apology for giving up the challenge of addressing the points in your universe.
 

WolfeTone

Registered User
Messages
233
That is perfectly fine Duke. I can summarise your reasoning as to why bitcoin has no value;



  1. Using mathematical equations such as the Fisher equation, inappropriately.
  2. That, bizarrely imo, the opinions of economists must be elevated above the expert opinions of anyone else.
  3. New technologies are not to be considered as having any value until such time as it can be shown that it is the finished product. Would Libra (which you admit has prospective value) exist if it weren’t for bitcoin? Page 1 of the Libra Whitepaper.
    Blockchains and cryptocurrencies have a number of unique properties that can potentially address some of the problems of accessibility and trustworthiness. These include distributed governance, which ensures that no single entity controls the network; open access, which allows anybody with an internet connection to participate; and security through cryptography, which protects the integrity of funds.”
  4. That if bitcoin does ever gain significant traction into the world of commerce, US authorities will start shooting down satellites to bring it to heel.
  5. The price afforded to the value of new emerging technologies (if any) should not be determined by traditional methods of supply and demand.
But Im ok with this disengagement. Like I said before, you only have to be right once (about bitcoins value and its associated price), the years of being wrong about its demise will evaporate into hot air. The window of opportunity you have afforded to yourself to calling it right is yours to define.
 

tecate

Frequent Poster
Messages
499
Anyway, you might take solace from a random congressman seeking cheap coverage for his passion for innovation. I personally prefer to listen to those who actually understand the subject.
Random? I watched the whole hearing. There were quite a few that were extremely knowledgeable on the subject. As regards innovation, you misunderstand completely. If it wasn't for the innovative angle, they'd have shut this down long since. Say what you might about the yanks but they are savvy enough never to stymie innovation.

Of course Bitcoin magazine is a big evangelist of said currency and sees this consensus of the economics community as tantamount to persecution.
You quoted something from 2016? 2016 your dukeness? You realise this space moves fast right? I've seen attitudes change considerably over the past 12-18 months - never mind 3 years.

The second YouTube link had a very relevant observation. The guy was pointing out that if Bitcoin ever gained escape velocity (and became a true global currency) the authorities would shoot it down, and oh yes it would still have an existence in the Dark Web.
This is the guy (McHenry) who said that Bitcoin was unstoppable? I made the point that they find the greater urgency with Libra as Facebook has the 2.4 Billion users that they can pimp this to. But there was also an understanding that to ban it will mean that innovation moves off shore.

1. Yes indeed, if the authorities act they can severely curtail internet activity. I should know, I spend a lot of time in France and find it nearly impossible to get a bet on the internet without using the State run PMU.
And you arent savvy enough to use a $3/month vpn? Curtailed, yes. Stopped - no. They recognised that it's "unstoppable". They also recognised that they would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater (i.e. doing away with innovation in the process).
2. That there has been 10 years and no real attention paid by the authorities to bitcoin, shows that they are quite complacent about bitcoin ever achieving escape velocity. It is the bigger threat of Libra that is grabbing their attention.
There's a couple of things here. First, I made this point myself - i.e. that Libra becomes the more immediate concern as Facebook have the 2.4 billion users to onboard with this. Isn't that the whole point? Second, yes they've been complacent. Congressman Enmer said exactly that - that they were both complacent and behind the times. They got the message that Switzerland was the choice for the Libra Foundation because the U.S. is behind in putting in train up to date and fit for purpose regulation. Securities laws from the 1940's are not going to be fit for purpose for a technology and fintech innovation that has come along decades later. Many of them get this as some of them are backing legislation to address this.
3. But as the commentator pointed out if it ever showed signs of achieving that breakthrough the authorities (representing you and me) would shoot it down.
'Shoot it down' appear to be your words. How would that commentator come up with that when he actually said that Bitcoin was 'unstoppable'? Sure, there's going to be a level of a battle on this KYC/AML nonsense but not to the extent that they will ban it. They know that will be an own goal.

4. With less than 1% of transactions actually buying things I would say bitcoin has scarcely reached the top of Hill 16, never mind achieving escape velocity.
Over the past month, it has achieved a trading volume of $770 billion. In terms of consumer transactions, sure its a drop in the ocean. That is but one use case. Secondly, as needs to be mentioned with you in every instance, because it can't do it today doesn't mean that it won't and isn't getting there (overall - in terms of a number of use cases). It's been widely understood that applications wouldn't be built on the Bitcoin network which makes sense as its programming language is very limited in that respect. And yet, technologists are finding a way to do exactly that too. A recent example is Microsoft's project to develop a digital identity system on top of the Bitcoin blockchain network.

AI has been a coming force for years and years. If we were to take your view with it, then it would have been killed off at birth. Yet, right now - there are nothing but profound life changing use cases emerging right now - implicating the use of that technology. Technology needs a certain time and space to develop in - something that you're not prepared to allow it - it seems. That's a mistake on your part.

My takeaway from that hearing is very bullish and that's the view right throughout the sector.
 

Duke of Marmalade

Frequent Poster
Messages
2,366
Random? I watched the whole hearing. There were quite a few that were extremely knowledgeable on the subject. As regards innovation, you misunderstand completely. If it wasn't for the innovative angle, they'd have shut this down long since. Say what you might about the yanks but they are savvy enough never to stymie innovation.
Fair enuff.


You quoted something from 2016? 2016 your dukeness? You realise this space moves fast right? I've seen attitudes change considerably over the past 12-18 months - never mind 3 years.
Yes, I just Googled this morning. I have to admit that one of my greatest confirmations that bitcoin is BOTHA has been the consensus of the vast majority of economic thinking. I would till be in the BOTHA camp if it shifted to 50/50 but if it swung the other way to the vast majority supporting it, I would have to rethink. Have you any sense were the spectrometer of mainstream economic thinking is today? Can you point to any significant converts to the faith?

This is the guy (McHenry) who said that Bitcoin was unstoppable? I made the point that they find the greater urgency with Libra as Facebook has the 2.4 Billion users that they can pimp this to. But there was also an understanding that to ban it will mean that innovation moves off shore.
Fair enuff


And you arent savvy enough to use a $3/month vpn?
Actually, this very day Express VPN are looking for a $13 monthly renewal :oops: I don't think I'll bother, its BBC coverage is awful (fits and starts) but I digress. Of course, there is much worse activity on the internet than betting and I think such activity is kept very fringe, but like everything else illegal never completely eradicated. If bitcoin achieved escape velocity it would be a threat to monetary management (in yours and mine interests) so I agree with the implication (possibly unintended) of the commentator that it is doomed never to be allowed to get escape velocity.



Over the past month, it has achieved a trading volume of $770 billion. In terms of consumer transactions, sure its a drop in the ocean. That is but one use case. Secondly, as needs to be mentioned with you in every instance, because it can't do it today doesn't mean that it won't and isn't getting there (overall - in terms of a number of use cases).
The point of my particular comment was to take up the observation of the commentator that it could be stopped by the authorities if it ever looked like taking off.

AI has been a coming force for years and years. If we were to take your view with it, then it would have been killed off at birth
That sounds like Wolfie logic. Oh dear, maybe I am the outlier. There have in fact been over 7,000 innovations in crypto space. In general the authorities couldn't give a damn, let the nerds have their fun is the attitude, and also they are confident it is very unlikely to ever threaten mainstream monetary systems and if it ever did it can easily be effectively closed off. Libra is a different kettle of fish, this does give them concern, for the reasons you have explained.

The crypto community are a resilient lot indeed. Libra, to me, runs contrary to mainstream crypto orthodoxy but it is interesting that in an attempt to see the silver lining they all seem to herald Libra as a boost for the real deal which is bitcoin (or Ripple or Ethereum or Grandson of Bitcoin or anything you like from the over 7,000 true blood cryptos).
 
Last edited:

tecate

Frequent Poster
Messages
499
Yes, I just Googled this morning. I have to admit that one of my greatest confirmations that bitcoin is BOTHA has been the consensus of the vast majority of economic thinking. I would till be in the BOTHA camp if it shifted to 50/50 but if it swung the other way to the vast majority supporting it, I would have to rethink. Have you any sense were the spectrometer of mainstream economic thinking is today?
I know that there are economists on either side of that fence. Quantifying it is difficult. However, what's more difficult still is to figure out to what extent they understand the technology. As an example, Paul Krugman himself admitted whilst slating Bitcoin last year that he didn't know much about it and knew nothing about any other cryptocurrency project.
Secondly, if you are thinking about central bankers in terms of 'mainstream economic thinking' then you will be following that 'confirmation' until the bitter end - turkeys don't have a good view of Christmas. I'm not saying central banking is finished by the way - but I am saying that decentralised crypto runs outside of that system - and for that reason, they're never going to have a good feeling about it.

Actually, this very day Express VPN are looking for a $13 monthly renewal :oops: I don't think I'll bother, its BBC coverage is awful (fits and starts) but I digress.
Yer being robbed. I guess mine is an NSA approved service but it works fine for much less.

If bitcoin achieved escape velocity it would be a threat to monetary management (in yours and mine interests) so I agree with the implication (possibly unintended) of the commentator that it is doomed never to be allowed to get escape velocity.
Which of them said it was 'doomed'? McHenry said that it was 'unstoppable' - and that many attempts had been made to stop it in its tracks and had failed miserably.

The point of my particular comment was to take up the observation of the commentator that it could be stopped by the authorities if it ever looked like taking off.
My take on that is that they will not stop it. They understand that it brings with it innovation. They understand that its going offshore if they try and stymie it. They understand that attempts have been made to stymie it already and those attempts have failed.

That sounds like Wolfie logic. Oh dear, maybe I am the outlier. There have in fact been over 7,000 innovations in crypto space. In general the authorities couldn't give a damn, let the nerds have their fun is the attitude, and also they are confident it is very unlikely to ever threaten mainstream monetary systems and if it ever did it can easily be effectively closed off.
That's not what I heard. They realise that this is disrupting technology.

Libra is a different kettle of fish, this does give them concern, for the reasons you have explained.
Libra has the opportunity to springboard off of 2.4 billion users, a hat full of money and a federation of companies that are in a strong position to pimp it.

The crypto community are a resilient lot indeed. Libra, to me, runs contrary to mainstream crypto orthodoxy but it is interesting that in an attempt to see the silver lining they all seem to herald Libra as a boost for the real deal which is bitcoin
It's not just 'silver lining'. It's tangible. This week has brought discussion of Bitcoin and (actual) cryptocurrency front and centre - via The Donald, Treasury Secretary Stevie Munchkin's press conference, a full days hearing in the Senate and a full days hearing in Congress.

Libra was the catalyst and Libra was the actual subject for discussion - yet no discussion was had without consideration of Bitcoin/actual crypto. So - whilst anyone who has been involved with crypto doesn't see Libra as anything other than a sh1tcoin (another term that became part of House of Congress records), it's serving its purpose quite nicely. They can fail and it would still have been useful for actual crypto. They won't fail though - they'll get the go ahead in the end. Anyone who is onboarded and gets comfortable with Libra is just as likely to make the leap to actual crypto.
In the meantime, very few are laughing at crypto anymore.
 
Top