3 ms·
>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 D
by Tenoke 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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).