5 ms·

Oh yeah and assuming Warren Buffet et al can literally never be wrong is so much smarter. The world is not black and white.

metamet 9y ago
No, but ponzi schemes and Crypto are on the same spectrum in terms of traditional financial advisement. Only up until very recently did Crypto as a whole break away from it, and BitConnect just happens to have its foot in both.
- throwaway413 9y ago
  No they're not - they are separated by the fact that one's sole purpose is to commit fraud, while the other actually has to do - however much - with technical merit. The however much part exists in every other type of market..there is a subset of people that will always try to game the system of any system they exist within. This is nothing new. That subset can vary in size based on qualities of said market, yes, but the intent of the market is not solely to enable those people. Saying cryptocurrency only recently broke away from this is just a conclusion of your premise, which I disagree with entirely due to the existence of material like Bitcoin's whitepaper. To say they are on the same spectrum is just misleading.
  - metamet 9y ago
    You completely missed the part of my post where I said "in terms of traditional financial advisement".
    - throwaway413 9y ago
      Ok. Would you mind clarifying/elaborating on that?
      - metamet 9y ago
        Sure. It's basically the fact that the sentiment regarding crypto in the traditional world of financial advising has been equated to ponzi schemes. The value of the technology hadn't been validated or proven to point where holding BTC had any inherit value beyond what others who wanted the BTC were willing to pay for it. The market pressures weren't real. However, smart contracts and the adoption of the blockchain by technology's bigger players has provided some validation to what's happening. Regardless of the white papers, and how one individually assessed the thesis, it didn't have market adoption and it wasn't as if BTC was actually producing something. So investing in BTC (a virtual commodity in limited value) had no real business purpose. So crypto was in the same boat as ponzi schemes, until very recently. Now it's being taken seriously due to providing actual value. The only thing BTC is really good for right now is to act as an intermediary between it and alts--since you can buy BTC and ETH with fiat, then transfer those to alts. BTC isn't a valid currency for transactions for a variety of reasons. It is simply the backbone of the crypto economy at this point, and the grandfather of the technology--so there's some lure to it as a limited asset that, so long as someone wants it, someone can sell.

metamet 9y ago

No, but ponzi schemes and Crypto are on the same spectrum in terms of traditional financial advisement. Only up until very recently did Crypto as a whole break away from it, and BitConnect just happens to have its foot in both.

throwaway413 9y ago
No they're not - they are separated by the fact that one's sole purpose is to commit fraud, while the other actually has to do - however much - with technical merit. The however much part exists in every other type of market..there is a subset of people that will always try to game the system of any system they exist within. This is nothing new. That subset can vary in size based on qualities of said market, yes, but the intent of the market is not solely to enable those people. Saying cryptocurrency only recently broke away from this is just a conclusion of your premise, which I disagree with entirely due to the existence of material like Bitcoin's whitepaper. To say they are on the same spectrum is just misleading.
- metamet 9y ago
  You completely missed the part of my post where I said "in terms of traditional financial advisement".
  - throwaway413 9y ago
    Ok. Would you mind clarifying/elaborating on that?
    - metamet 9y ago
      Sure. It's basically the fact that the sentiment regarding crypto in the traditional world of financial advising has been equated to ponzi schemes. The value of the technology hadn't been validated or proven to point where holding BTC had any inherit value beyond what others who wanted the BTC were willing to pay for it. The market pressures weren't real. However, smart contracts and the adoption of the blockchain by technology's bigger players has provided some validation to what's happening. Regardless of the white papers, and how one individually assessed the thesis, it didn't have market adoption and it wasn't as if BTC was actually producing something. So investing in BTC (a virtual commodity in limited value) had no real business purpose. So crypto was in the same boat as ponzi schemes, until very recently. Now it's being taken seriously due to providing actual value. The only thing BTC is really good for right now is to act as an intermediary between it and alts--since you can buy BTC and ETH with fiat, then transfer those to alts. BTC isn't a valid currency for transactions for a variety of reasons. It is simply the backbone of the crypto economy at this point, and the grandfather of the technology--so there's some lure to it as a limited asset that, so long as someone wants it, someone can sell.