4 ms·

Let’s go back to tulips IMO. At least they didn’t destroy the environment. Most crypto claims to be deflationary, but as a class of currency the inflation has

Let’s go back to tulips IMO. At least they didn’t destroy the environment. Most crypto claims to be deflationary, but as a class of currency the inflation has been massive. Everyone has their own money printer. They’re all printing money and trading amongst themselves for higher and higher values. Then, everyone once in a while someone pays real money for some of the Monopoly money. That person is basically the donkey at the poker table. There’s not enough liquidity for all the donkeys to get their money back let alone for all the “innovators” to cash out. It’s just a variation of a Ponzi scheme.

jl2718 6y ago
If you learn why the tulip bubble happened, you may understand what is happening today.
bitxbitxbitcoin 6y ago
Arguably, Dogecoin isn’t destroying the environment because it doesn’t have its own miners.
Tenoke 6y ago
>Let’s go back to tulips IMO. What happened with tulips wasn't quite as simple as people think. >At least they didn’t destroy the environment. Not a fan of Doge, but they piggyback on LTC mining to a large extent so probably less of an effect. Plenty of other crypto doesn't do PoW at all. Really the environmental impact is becoming more and more just Bitcoin's problem not crypto in general. >Most crypto claims to be deflationary Doge isn't, it's famously quite inflationary. >There’s not enough liquidity for all the donkeys to get their money back let alone for all the “innovators” to cash out. Yes, it's important for people to understand liquidity in relation to market cap, but this isn't just an issue for crypto. You can't sell all of a stock without the price crashing either.
- shmapf 6y ago
  > You can't sell all of a stock without the price crashing either. Genuine question, are you sure about that? Assuming the stock is valued correctly, its value is equivalent to its future earnings, adjusted for time and uncertainty. Others who sell might bring the price down, but the real worth of the asset hasn't fundamentally changed, has it? Contrast that with crypto, where the real value isn't grounded in anything except for supply/demand and it is worth only what others will pay.
  - Tenoke 6y ago
    >Genuine question, are you sure about that? Yes, I've participated (in a minor role) twice in a big sell-off of a publicly traded stock and both times we ended up inqavertently lowering the price early on(of course, there are always other factors).
doggosphere 6y ago
- The term is called "pump and dump". It happens with stocks regularly; analyst/fund manager goes on CNBC and hypes up the next big thing, sells shortly after. - The last people to cash out are called bag holders. - There is a difference between good assets (AAPL, Bitcoin) and bad assets (NKLA, Doge), however the market is free to speculate in between. - Regulation is required to ensure that markets are fair. - The kids pumping Doge will probably lose their money sooner or later. Or maybe Doge just becomes a permanent thing. Who knows.
- sumedh 6y ago
  > There is a difference between good assets (AAPL, Bitcoin) Wasnt Bitcoin considered a bad asset in the past?
  - doggosphere 6y ago
    I suppose its relative. We can ask around if ____ is a good asset, and we'll get different answers. Monetary goods / store of value assets are especially open to interpretation. Is a $100m painting worth really worth $100m? Is gold really worth $2k/oz? Shrug.
    - donmcronald 5y ago
      Bitcoin’s market cap is listed as $1T. Apple is 2T. Would you rather own all the Bitcoin in the world or 50% of Apple?

jl2718 6y ago

If you learn why the tulip bubble happened, you may understand what is happening today.

bitxbitxbitcoin 6y ago

Arguably, Dogecoin isn’t destroying the environment because it doesn’t have its own miners.

Tenoke 6y ago

>Let’s go back to tulips IMO. What happened with tulips wasn't quite as simple as people think. >At least they didn’t destroy the environment. Not a fan of Doge, but they piggyback on LTC mining to a large extent so probably less of an effect. Plenty of other crypto doesn't do PoW at all. Really the environmental impact is becoming more and more just Bitcoin's problem not crypto in general. >Most crypto claims to be deflationary Doge isn't, it's famously quite inflationary. >There’s not enough liquidity for all the donkeys to get their money back let alone for all the “innovators” to cash out. Yes, it's important for people to understand liquidity in relation to market cap, but this isn't just an issue for crypto. You can't sell all of a stock without the price crashing either.

shmapf 6y ago
> You can't sell all of a stock without the price crashing either. Genuine question, are you sure about that? Assuming the stock is valued correctly, its value is equivalent to its future earnings, adjusted for time and uncertainty. Others who sell might bring the price down, but the real worth of the asset hasn't fundamentally changed, has it? Contrast that with crypto, where the real value isn't grounded in anything except for supply/demand and it is worth only what others will pay.
- Tenoke 6y ago
  >Genuine question, are you sure about that? Yes, I've participated (in a minor role) twice in a big sell-off of a publicly traded stock and both times we ended up inqavertently lowering the price early on(of course, there are always other factors).

doggosphere 6y ago

- The term is called "pump and dump". It happens with stocks regularly; analyst/fund manager goes on CNBC and hypes up the next big thing, sells shortly after. - The last people to cash out are called bag holders. - There is a difference between good assets (AAPL, Bitcoin) and bad assets (NKLA, Doge), however the market is free to speculate in between. - Regulation is required to ensure that markets are fair. - The kids pumping Doge will probably lose their money sooner or later. Or maybe Doge just becomes a permanent thing. Who knows.

sumedh 6y ago
> There is a difference between good assets (AAPL, Bitcoin) Wasnt Bitcoin considered a bad asset in the past?
- doggosphere 6y ago
  I suppose its relative. We can ask around if ____ is a good asset, and we'll get different answers. Monetary goods / store of value assets are especially open to interpretation. Is a $100m painting worth really worth $100m? Is gold really worth $2k/oz? Shrug.
  - donmcronald 5y ago
    Bitcoin’s market cap is listed as $1T. Apple is 2T. Would you rather own all the Bitcoin in the world or 50% of Apple?