4 ms·

Any discussion of whether "X is Y" like this is kind of pointless. More than that, it just devolves into sub-arguments. In this case, it will devolve into argui

by drcode 8y ago

Any discussion of whether "X is Y" like this is kind of pointless. More than that, it just devolves into sub-arguments. In this case, it will devolve into arguing whether an "investment" requires purchasing things with "intrinsic value", and furthermore whether the term "intrinsic value" has any sort of objective meaning at all, anyway. At the end of the day, if people prefer to call me a "gambler" or "speculator" or "investor" for owning Bitcoin, any of those terms are fine.

asfasgasg 8y ago
Most of the time, I agree with you. Especially with a lot of the pointless pedantry that people argue about on here. However, the question of whether X should be termed an investment or speculation can be quite important in people's lives. Marketing in general is really important, especially marketing around which many people base serious financial decisions. If the label you put on the box leads people to expect one thing, and what's in the box is something else, that's problematic. This is part of why the SEC cares so much about who various securities are marketed to. And since, so far, the SEC has not stopped in to stop BTC et al from being marketed to The Average Jane, it's important to unofficially call out unrealistic claims and misleading terminology.
- Jommi 8y ago
  I initially agreed with the parent comment, but you drive a good bargain as well with yours. Still, I think the actual problem is not that it needs to be defined, but that we are trying to define it in the scope of singular current definition, while we actually need to implement a new definition, possibly with the help of mixing current definitions.
  - asfasgasg 8y ago
    The whole reason I made my comment was going through a back and forth with myself about whether there was a case to be made here. I'm still not positive, so I hope I'm not driving that bargain harder than it deserves to be driven. I do 100% agree that the default stance on debating definitions should be that one ought not, and one ought instead be more specific. Maybe the real thing to take care of is that most investors are really innocent and we have to be very careful about what kinds of expectations we give them (if we care about ethics, at any rate).
themodelplumber 8y ago
When you set a boundary like that (X is a Y because of reasons Z1, Z2) you gain systematization leverage. You now have a technology or framework for which you can develop various tools and other informatic resources. So even if it doesn't necessarily matter what people call you, it may be worth your time to understand where and why they set boundaries and conditions for activities in which you are involved. This could save you a lot of energy that might have otherwise been wasted in repeating hard lessons. Even if you are less "don't reinvent the wheel" and more "NIH" and just want to learn in isolation, you could also gain some helpful tips on defining your own boundaries.
vertexFarm 8y ago
Our minds are largely associative computers. Virtually all human thought consists of comparing something to something else. It can be meaningless, but it can signify an important concept as well.
sshine 8y ago
I agree very much that the question 'Is buying crypto assets "Investing"?' is quite unclear. I would rather ask the questions 'Is buying crypto assets speculative?' (It depends on your intent and ideology.) or 'Is buying crypto assets risky?' (Yes. If you need to ask, your risk model is probably not very quantified.)

by drcode 8y ago

asfasgasg 8y ago

Most of the time, I agree with you. Especially with a lot of the pointless pedantry that people argue about on here. However, the question of whether X should be termed an investment or speculation can be quite important in people's lives. Marketing in general is really important, especially marketing around which many people base serious financial decisions. If the label you put on the box leads people to expect one thing, and what's in the box is something else, that's problematic. This is part of why the SEC cares so much about who various securities are marketed to. And since, so far, the SEC has not stopped in to stop BTC et al from being marketed to The Average Jane, it's important to unofficially call out unrealistic claims and misleading terminology.

Jommi 8y ago
I initially agreed with the parent comment, but you drive a good bargain as well with yours. Still, I think the actual problem is not that it needs to be defined, but that we are trying to define it in the scope of singular current definition, while we actually need to implement a new definition, possibly with the help of mixing current definitions.
- asfasgasg 8y ago
  The whole reason I made my comment was going through a back and forth with myself about whether there was a case to be made here. I'm still not positive, so I hope I'm not driving that bargain harder than it deserves to be driven. I do 100% agree that the default stance on debating definitions should be that one ought not, and one ought instead be more specific. Maybe the real thing to take care of is that most investors are really innocent and we have to be very careful about what kinds of expectations we give them (if we care about ethics, at any rate).

themodelplumber 8y ago

When you set a boundary like that (X is a Y because of reasons Z1, Z2) you gain systematization leverage. You now have a technology or framework for which you can develop various tools and other informatic resources. So even if it doesn't necessarily matter what people call you, it may be worth your time to understand where and why they set boundaries and conditions for activities in which you are involved. This could save you a lot of energy that might have otherwise been wasted in repeating hard lessons. Even if you are less "don't reinvent the wheel" and more "NIH" and just want to learn in isolation, you could also gain some helpful tips on defining your own boundaries.

vertexFarm 8y ago

Our minds are largely associative computers. Virtually all human thought consists of comparing something to something else. It can be meaningless, but it can signify an important concept as well.

sshine 8y ago

I agree very much that the question 'Is buying crypto assets "Investing"?' is quite unclear. I would rather ask the questions 'Is buying crypto assets speculative?' (It depends on your intent and ideology.) or 'Is buying crypto assets risky?' (Yes. If you need to ask, your risk model is probably not very quantified.)