4 ms·

I wasn't there when the first dot-com bubble happened but having read about it, all the recent developments seem to be vaguely similar to that time. Burgeoning

I wasn't there when the first dot-com bubble happened but having read about it, all the recent developments seem to be vaguely similar to that time. Burgeoning exchange prices with no solid fundamentals, inexperienced people launching their cryptocurrencies, everyone expecting to get rich quick and people trying to get on the bandwagon to avoid missing out. The last bit is crucial because that's what drives most bubbles: everyone wants a share of the next big thing. It seems the tech bubble that is being predicted for the last decade would manifest itself in a slightly different form. I doubt that the end-result would be anything different than a crash.

ACS_Solver 9y ago
In the dot-com bubble, there is a huge difference between the underlying technology and all the failing dot-coms. The bubble grew, and burst, because of the many companies that had little other than Internet buzzwords and got crazy valuations. Those went bust but the Internet as a whole only continued to grow and become increasingly important. With crypto currently, there is a similar pattern. I follow the Ethereum ecosystem closely, and there's an incredible amount of projects that just say they will do something with crypto and blockchain, and they get millions or tens of millions - and in the most ridiculous case, you have Golem with its 0.5 billion valuation. The projects that aren't outright scams still rarely have anything functional and worthwhile, just like the many dot-coms of the 90s. But the underlying technologies, the blockchain as a concept and the blockchain-as-VM the way it's being done with Ethereum and NEO, I think those are incredibly significant and not going away. And there are probably a few crypto projects around now that are going to end up being significant (just like the dot-com bubble also gave us Amazon and Google, it wasn't all failures). One such project I like is Sia. It's not too hyped up but it solves an interesting problem, and it actually works.
- nucatus 9y ago
  There is a term here that is misused. The world «currency» has nothing to do with this, otherwise very nice and genuine technical artifact. The people who coined the term definitely have no clue about economy and how currencies work. If those were called «crypto-highly-speculative-assets», that would have been a totally different story. But "Currency"?! That is way to off.
  - irln 9y ago
    It's a potential storehouse of value (currently) that could transition into a currency (medium of exchange) if adopted as such.
  - ACS_Solver 9y ago
    Genuine question: why is Bitcoin, for instance, not a currency? I understand it's obviously not a fiat currency, it's not backed by any state. Bitcoin is, though, in circulation, is convertible into numerous goods and services, or can be used to stockpile value. Bitcoin is extremely volatile but I don't think that precludes it from being a currency.
    - nucatus 9y ago
      In terms of currency, the bitcoin has the same attributes (all you have listed) like any other asset. The Apple stock, for instance, classifies for a currency in the same way the BTC does.
    - colorint 9y ago
      Obviously words are a matter of intersubjectivity; we can only understand them from their use, so anything can be money if enough people call it that. If you want to understand why cryptocurrency is not a financial asset, that's because it's not a liability of its issuer. And of course, cryptocurrency is not state money because you can't use it to pay taxes. It seems to me to be most like a sort of nonconsumable commodity, which is strange enough.
    - nucatus 9y ago
      Again, this can only work if a quite strong parallel economy develops, where everything is in BTC. Well, for that to exist, it needs to get to a comparable level of a real state economy, and this is pretty damn hard. That, in order for you to have a stable exchange rate when you need public services, like health services or to pay taxes. Otherwise, just having always to exchange your BTC in the de-facto currency so you can do your daily stuff, that is just not money. You can call it whatever else you want.
- tobltobs 9y ago
  During the dot-com bubble the underlying technology was the internet. Today we take this as granted, but for the most this was something new and mind blowing in the late 90's.
joeblau 9y ago
Amazon (1994), Google (1998), Yahoo (1995), PayPal (1998), Mozilla (1998) and tons of other companies that are well known powerhouses today were all birthed in that era. While I do agree that there are a bunch of socks.com (1997) token equivalents, some of these technologies will change the internet for decades to come. I just wish I knew which ones :).
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  I think a lot of the technologies and ideas are going to be important, but I don't think any of the current cryptocurrencies have long-term potential. You can't pivot a currency the way you can a corporation, and I think that will make a difference in how long cryptocurrencies last. If you really wanted to make a ton of money on cryptocurrencies, you'd develop the Google to ETH's Ask Jeeves. I don't have the time to actually make a client -- but there's definitely some low-hanging fruit in terms of improving the marketplace. Satoshi proposed a brilliant solution to a distributed trust problem -- and we'll likely use the kernel of that idea for a long while to come -- but that doesn't mean the first generation or two of implementations are going to be long-term survivors.
Freak_NL 9y ago
Heh. Flooz would be the perfect candidate for an ICO and a cryptocoin. I wonder if they could get Whoopy Goldberg to promote it again? (This is a joke.)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

ACS_Solver 9y ago

In the dot-com bubble, there is a huge difference between the underlying technology and all the failing dot-coms. The bubble grew, and burst, because of the many companies that had little other than Internet buzzwords and got crazy valuations. Those went bust but the Internet as a whole only continued to grow and become increasingly important. With crypto currently, there is a similar pattern. I follow the Ethereum ecosystem closely, and there's an incredible amount of projects that just say they will do something with crypto and blockchain, and they get millions or tens of millions - and in the most ridiculous case, you have Golem with its 0.5 billion valuation. The projects that aren't outright scams still rarely have anything functional and worthwhile, just like the many dot-coms of the 90s. But the underlying technologies, the blockchain as a concept and the blockchain-as-VM the way it's being done with Ethereum and NEO, I think those are incredibly significant and not going away. And there are probably a few crypto projects around now that are going to end up being significant (just like the dot-com bubble also gave us Amazon and Google, it wasn't all failures). One such project I like is Sia. It's not too hyped up but it solves an interesting problem, and it actually works.

nucatus 9y ago
There is a term here that is misused. The world «currency» has nothing to do with this, otherwise very nice and genuine technical artifact. The people who coined the term definitely have no clue about economy and how currencies work. If those were called «crypto-highly-speculative-assets», that would have been a totally different story. But "Currency"?! That is way to off.
- irln 9y ago
  It's a potential storehouse of value (currently) that could transition into a currency (medium of exchange) if adopted as such.
- ACS_Solver 9y ago
  Genuine question: why is Bitcoin, for instance, not a currency? I understand it's obviously not a fiat currency, it's not backed by any state. Bitcoin is, though, in circulation, is convertible into numerous goods and services, or can be used to stockpile value. Bitcoin is extremely volatile but I don't think that precludes it from being a currency.
  - nucatus 9y ago
    In terms of currency, the bitcoin has the same attributes (all you have listed) like any other asset. The Apple stock, for instance, classifies for a currency in the same way the BTC does.
  - colorint 9y ago
    Obviously words are a matter of intersubjectivity; we can only understand them from their use, so anything can be money if enough people call it that. If you want to understand why cryptocurrency is not a financial asset, that's because it's not a liability of its issuer. And of course, cryptocurrency is not state money because you can't use it to pay taxes. It seems to me to be most like a sort of nonconsumable commodity, which is strange enough.
  - nucatus 9y ago
    Again, this can only work if a quite strong parallel economy develops, where everything is in BTC. Well, for that to exist, it needs to get to a comparable level of a real state economy, and this is pretty damn hard. That, in order for you to have a stable exchange rate when you need public services, like health services or to pay taxes. Otherwise, just having always to exchange your BTC in the de-facto currency so you can do your daily stuff, that is just not money. You can call it whatever else you want.
tobltobs 9y ago
During the dot-com bubble the underlying technology was the internet. Today we take this as granted, but for the most this was something new and mind blowing in the late 90's.

joeblau 9y ago

Amazon (1994), Google (1998), Yahoo (1995), PayPal (1998), Mozilla (1998) and tons of other companies that are well known powerhouses today were all birthed in that era. While I do agree that there are a bunch of socks.com (1997) token equivalents, some of these technologies will change the internet for decades to come. I just wish I knew which ones :).

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
I think a lot of the technologies and ideas are going to be important, but I don't think any of the current cryptocurrencies have long-term potential. You can't pivot a currency the way you can a corporation, and I think that will make a difference in how long cryptocurrencies last. If you really wanted to make a ton of money on cryptocurrencies, you'd develop the Google to ETH's Ask Jeeves. I don't have the time to actually make a client -- but there's definitely some low-hanging fruit in terms of improving the marketplace. Satoshi proposed a brilliant solution to a distributed trust problem -- and we'll likely use the kernel of that idea for a long while to come -- but that doesn't mean the first generation or two of implementations are going to be long-term survivors.

Freak_NL 9y ago

Heh. Flooz would be the perfect candidate for an ICO and a cryptocoin. I wonder if they could get Whoopy Goldberg to promote it again? (This is a joke.)

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]