3 ms·

Crypto has actually made me had a phase-shift in my feelings towards capitalism in general. I think a healthy amount of inequality and competition need to exist

Crypto has actually made me had a phase-shift in my feelings towards capitalism in general. I think a healthy amount of inequality and competition need to exist for an innovative and inventive society. Crypto has taught me that it's really just human nature to want a get-rich-quick scheme and retire younger than 30 years old. The funny thing I find in all of this is that if someone purely believes crypto is the future, then exchange rates back to fiat currency wouldn't matter. This crash has taught me that all crypto people care about is the ratio to USD and that to me proves that people have faith in the Dollar.

lykr0n 9y ago
It's a libertarian free-market experiment. I think the fundamental problem of crypto is that it is finite and quickly centralizes. Which, is the exact opposite of what the initial goal was. Bitcoin Lightning further centralizes the ecosystem. Etherum fixed bitcoins problem, but the underlying idea of a finite resource, to me, dooms it to failure. If I horde my stash, eventually the value will sky rocket due to limited demand. See the GPU market, which I think is an ironic analogy. Until people start taking BTC/ETH through the chain, you have covert to FIAT somewhere, which renders the initial goal obsolete. I can't take ETH for my business because I pay my suppliers with USD. FIAT currency, using the greenback as an example, works because we have the Fed making sure the liquidity remains constant to ensure stable value. If I horde USD under my mattress, and I have enough to affect global liquidity, the Fed would release more greenbacks on to the market to make sure the economy keeps moving and the price doesn't fluxuate too much. I start to use my stash, the Fed will soak up some of it to reduce liquidity. Crypto, by its nature, doesn't have this. Crypto is trying to be the new Gold, but Gold doesn't have much place in our global economy any more. Nobody is conducting trades with a volatile mediums anymore. There is a reason that nobody* is on the gold standard. I don't know enough to say why. I think we might be able to revisit the idea of crypto in a couple of years as a viable currency in a couple of years, but we have to wait a long period of stability or some serious evolution. I have no faith in a currency that doesn't have some banking capabilities. The communist ideal is a society where inequality doesn't exist. A perfect social paradise, but as you point out, this is not in human nature. Most people will try and hold on to any power that they can get. I like to think that I'm not like this, but that would be naïve of me. We advance because we see that new car and want it.
- cwperkins 9y ago
  I agree that I may be bullish on long-long-term prospects. One of my gripes from the get-go was that even though Crypto was not intentionally exclusive as anyone anonymously anywhere in the world could create a Bitcoin wallet, it is intended for the more tech-savvy crowd. This excludes people like my parents and grand-parents who have used cash for a lifetime or plastic digital currency. I also believe a central monetary agency and a regulatory agency are vital to an economy to keep it from getting out-of-hand. The reason for my phase shift in thinking, is really applying the principal of greed I see here to other industries such as pharmaceuticals. I admit that I am not an expert in Pharmaceuticals, but I have to believe that these big pharma companies are altruistic and can only justify high prices by investing in high-risk, high-reward studies to find cures for ailments that are currently not treatable. I believe there exist good people in every industry, but the age-old notion of "one rotten apple spoils the whole barrow", remains more relevant than ever. Disclosure: I have formerly worked in Prime Brokerage Tech at Goldman Sachs and an HFT focused on the US Muni and Corporate Bond market. Currently in wine tech though ;)
  - lykr0n 9y ago
    That "F" stock I have? My parent's Pharmaceuticals company. I can give you a bit of insight into why the cost is so high. 1. Because they can. Other countries don't pay as much, so they can get away with increasing their margins in the US market because they can't elsewhere. 2. The R&D is a shitload. With research, they are making educated guesses at stabbing into the dark to find something that works in their lab sample. Once they find a promising lead, they dig into that. If it shows promise, they start to experiment on rats. If that works, they try it in humans (phase 1) to see if it kills or harms people. This is where they see if it actually works in a human. Then, once there is evidence that the drug doesn't kill a person, this dose has shown some results they get more people (phase 2). This shows that the drug is generally effective and what side-affects happen. Then, they give it to a large population (Phase 3). Sometimes the FDA will allow them to skip this step if Phase 2 was an overwhelming success. That process can cost millions, if not billions. People say that "this drug only costs $0.02 per pill to make, why are you charging $100?" Because they only have 7 to 11 years to recoup the R&D costs before Generics can move in produce the drug. The method of using Universities and Research Institutions helps mitigate some of the initial R&D, which is why you hear "Harvard Scientists discover cure for super-aids." In the lab, they have a drug that in their testing cures super-aids. The next step is for a drug company to buy it and let their R&D department go to work. And when you are in the trials phase, you have to convince humans humans to be test subjects, which means giving them money, doctors to run the tests, and pay for any healthcare costs that results in side-affects. That costs money. And then add in the costs of making sure literally EVER is documented, numbers add up, and every possible question can be answered. The FDA, for good reason, goes through everything with a fine toothed comb. If something doesn't add up, numbers change from document to another, or something minor was overlooked (like the drug was kept at 10C at Site 1 and 10.5C at Site 2), the FDA will come back and demand an answer. It's all red tape, but for good reason. It's the reason why everyone really freaked out when Trump was floating that crazy dude for the FDA. It's the last place you want lax oversight. AFAIK, most countries deffer to the FDA's recommendations on allowing drugs on the market due to it's strict oversight. 3. As I mentioned, there is only a limited period where they can make money before other manufacturers can start making the drug. Any sunken costs must be recouped by this point, which drives up the cost.
pattrn 9y ago
I'm not sure the crash proves that "crypto people" have faith in the dollar. That assumes that "crypto people" selling caused the crash, and not the general public or larger investment firms. Without knowing how you define a "crypto person," I'll go out on a limb and say that I might be one of them. I've held crypto for a long time (years), and have only sold a small amount (my initial investment). The fluctuation against the USD means little to me. For obvious reasons, the exchange rate means something to me, since I can't buy very many goods with Ethereum. I'm also not relying on crypto as a source of income, so the exchange rate doesn't matter much to me. I don't see crypto as a get rich quick scheme -- it's a fascinating technology with the potential to change the world. I want to be a part of that (just not too much of a part of it :D).

lykr0n 9y ago

It's a libertarian free-market experiment. I think the fundamental problem of crypto is that it is finite and quickly centralizes. Which, is the exact opposite of what the initial goal was. Bitcoin Lightning further centralizes the ecosystem. Etherum fixed bitcoins problem, but the underlying idea of a finite resource, to me, dooms it to failure. If I horde my stash, eventually the value will sky rocket due to limited demand. See the GPU market, which I think is an ironic analogy. Until people start taking BTC/ETH through the chain, you have covert to FIAT somewhere, which renders the initial goal obsolete. I can't take ETH for my business because I pay my suppliers with USD. FIAT currency, using the greenback as an example, works because we have the Fed making sure the liquidity remains constant to ensure stable value. If I horde USD under my mattress, and I have enough to affect global liquidity, the Fed would release more greenbacks on to the market to make sure the economy keeps moving and the price doesn't fluxuate too much. I start to use my stash, the Fed will soak up some of it to reduce liquidity. Crypto, by its nature, doesn't have this. Crypto is trying to be the new Gold, but Gold doesn't have much place in our global economy any more. Nobody is conducting trades with a volatile mediums anymore. There is a reason that nobody* is on the gold standard. I don't know enough to say why. I think we might be able to revisit the idea of crypto in a couple of years as a viable currency in a couple of years, but we have to wait a long period of stability or some serious evolution. I have no faith in a currency that doesn't have some banking capabilities. The communist ideal is a society where inequality doesn't exist. A perfect social paradise, but as you point out, this is not in human nature. Most people will try and hold on to any power that they can get. I like to think that I'm not like this, but that would be naïve of me. We advance because we see that new car and want it.

cwperkins 9y ago
I agree that I may be bullish on long-long-term prospects. One of my gripes from the get-go was that even though Crypto was not intentionally exclusive as anyone anonymously anywhere in the world could create a Bitcoin wallet, it is intended for the more tech-savvy crowd. This excludes people like my parents and grand-parents who have used cash for a lifetime or plastic digital currency. I also believe a central monetary agency and a regulatory agency are vital to an economy to keep it from getting out-of-hand. The reason for my phase shift in thinking, is really applying the principal of greed I see here to other industries such as pharmaceuticals. I admit that I am not an expert in Pharmaceuticals, but I have to believe that these big pharma companies are altruistic and can only justify high prices by investing in high-risk, high-reward studies to find cures for ailments that are currently not treatable. I believe there exist good people in every industry, but the age-old notion of "one rotten apple spoils the whole barrow", remains more relevant than ever. Disclosure: I have formerly worked in Prime Brokerage Tech at Goldman Sachs and an HFT focused on the US Muni and Corporate Bond market. Currently in wine tech though ;)
- lykr0n 9y ago
  That "F" stock I have? My parent's Pharmaceuticals company. I can give you a bit of insight into why the cost is so high. 1. Because they can. Other countries don't pay as much, so they can get away with increasing their margins in the US market because they can't elsewhere. 2. The R&D is a shitload. With research, they are making educated guesses at stabbing into the dark to find something that works in their lab sample. Once they find a promising lead, they dig into that. If it shows promise, they start to experiment on rats. If that works, they try it in humans (phase 1) to see if it kills or harms people. This is where they see if it actually works in a human. Then, once there is evidence that the drug doesn't kill a person, this dose has shown some results they get more people (phase 2). This shows that the drug is generally effective and what side-affects happen. Then, they give it to a large population (Phase 3). Sometimes the FDA will allow them to skip this step if Phase 2 was an overwhelming success. That process can cost millions, if not billions. People say that "this drug only costs $0.02 per pill to make, why are you charging $100?" Because they only have 7 to 11 years to recoup the R&D costs before Generics can move in produce the drug. The method of using Universities and Research Institutions helps mitigate some of the initial R&D, which is why you hear "Harvard Scientists discover cure for super-aids." In the lab, they have a drug that in their testing cures super-aids. The next step is for a drug company to buy it and let their R&D department go to work. And when you are in the trials phase, you have to convince humans humans to be test subjects, which means giving them money, doctors to run the tests, and pay for any healthcare costs that results in side-affects. That costs money. And then add in the costs of making sure literally EVER is documented, numbers add up, and every possible question can be answered. The FDA, for good reason, goes through everything with a fine toothed comb. If something doesn't add up, numbers change from document to another, or something minor was overlooked (like the drug was kept at 10C at Site 1 and 10.5C at Site 2), the FDA will come back and demand an answer. It's all red tape, but for good reason. It's the reason why everyone really freaked out when Trump was floating that crazy dude for the FDA. It's the last place you want lax oversight. AFAIK, most countries deffer to the FDA's recommendations on allowing drugs on the market due to it's strict oversight. 3. As I mentioned, there is only a limited period where they can make money before other manufacturers can start making the drug. Any sunken costs must be recouped by this point, which drives up the cost.

pattrn 9y ago

I'm not sure the crash proves that "crypto people" have faith in the dollar. That assumes that "crypto people" selling caused the crash, and not the general public or larger investment firms. Without knowing how you define a "crypto person," I'll go out on a limb and say that I might be one of them. I've held crypto for a long time (years), and have only sold a small amount (my initial investment). The fluctuation against the USD means little to me. For obvious reasons, the exchange rate means something to me, since I can't buy very many goods with Ethereum. I'm also not relying on crypto as a source of income, so the exchange rate doesn't matter much to me. I don't see crypto as a get rich quick scheme -- it's a fascinating technology with the potential to change the world. I want to be a part of that (just not too much of a part of it :D).