4 ms·

I recently used this analogy to describe why I’m bearish on crypto. When Netscape Navigator was released, it was clear and obvious this was the future (and if

I recently used this analogy to describe why I’m bearish on crypto. When Netscape Navigator was released, it was clear and obvious this was the future (and if anything, underpromised based on where we are today). Within 4years of Navigators release, I was making my fulltime living building websites. The iPhone was another immediate “this is obviously the future” technology. 13 years into Bitcoin, it’s still not obvious.

fxleach 5y ago
That's because browsers and phones do not disrupt the whole banking system and the way we think about money. There is a tremendous amount of push-back on cryptocurrencies coming from very influential places that stand a lot to lose.
- thisisbrians 5y ago
  Exactly. The concept of money is a shared belief ("fiction") that we all basically agree on. Bitcoin and crypto in general are shaking the foundations of these beliefs. I'm not even taking sides, just acknowledging that the cognitive dissonance is very, very real, and a barrier to the adoption of any paradigm-shifting technology.
alwillis 5y ago
13 years into Bitcoin, it’s still not obvious. It's pretty damn obvious once you objectively look at the shit show the fiat currency system has become. It should be pretty obvious that people who work all of their lives can't retire with the money they've saved because their money loses (according to CPI) 2% per year. Instead they have to risk their savings in the stock market or some other investment--remember savings, money markets, CDs return less than 1% interest; negative interest once you include inflation. "Bitcoin is the Great Definancialization"—https://unchained-capital.com/blog/bitcoin-is-the-great-definancialization/ https://unchained-capital.com/blog/bitcoin-is-the-great-defi...
- jfengel 5y ago
  It just means that they can't retire solely on the money they get for having money in the first place. With 2% inflation and a 1% money market, you're losing a net of 1% per year. If you were handed a million bucks at 25 and sat on it until 65, you'd still have an inflation-adjusted value of $669k. That's not the difference between retirement and non-retirement. It's the difference between a luxurious retirement and a less-luxurious retirement, or a retirement at 70 rather than 65. That money will continue to deflate, and if you live for another 40 years, it becomes a mere half-million at the end. That would give you $11k a year to live on -- not great, but again, you're talking about four decades of no work. That's a lot to ask. That's not fun, of course, but it's not supposed to be fun. "I was handed a million dollars and therefore deserve to have it exponentially accumulate value for no work or risk" is fun, but it's not a fundamental right. If you put earn more money than you need and stick it in the bank, you can retire. Inflation means that you need a little more money, which you can get either by working longer, or using your money to improve the economy as a whole by investment. More risk means bigger rewards. Zero risk means a net loss, as punishment for keeping your money out of circulation. The point is that exponential growth is powerful, but even exponents of multiples of 10 don't do all that much when the base rate is 1%. It's only the difference between retirement and non-retirement for a relatively small sliver. The real problem with non-retirement is that many people can't put away anything. They live hand-to-mouth for their entire careers, with every incoming dollar accounted for. For them, inflation isn't an issue because they have $0. Worrying about inflation is a great privilege for those who have cash and would prefer it to become more cash for free, with no effort or risk. Instead, the economy demands they take risks rather than sitting on their money -- with the goal of some of it ending up in the form of jobs for those who don't have that cash sitting around.

fxleach 5y ago

That's because browsers and phones do not disrupt the whole banking system and the way we think about money. There is a tremendous amount of push-back on cryptocurrencies coming from very influential places that stand a lot to lose.

thisisbrians 5y ago
Exactly. The concept of money is a shared belief ("fiction") that we all basically agree on. Bitcoin and crypto in general are shaking the foundations of these beliefs. I'm not even taking sides, just acknowledging that the cognitive dissonance is very, very real, and a barrier to the adoption of any paradigm-shifting technology.

alwillis 5y ago

13 years into Bitcoin, it’s still not obvious. It's pretty damn obvious once you objectively look at the shit show the fiat currency system has become. It should be pretty obvious that people who work all of their lives can't retire with the money they've saved because their money loses (according to CPI) 2% per year. Instead they have to risk their savings in the stock market or some other investment--remember savings, money markets, CDs return less than 1% interest; negative interest once you include inflation. "Bitcoin is the Great Definancialization"—https://unchained-capital.com/blog/bitcoin-is-the-great-definancialization/ https://unchained-capital.com/blog/bitcoin-is-the-great-defi...

jfengel 5y ago
It just means that they can't retire solely on the money they get for having money in the first place. With 2% inflation and a 1% money market, you're losing a net of 1% per year. If you were handed a million bucks at 25 and sat on it until 65, you'd still have an inflation-adjusted value of $669k. That's not the difference between retirement and non-retirement. It's the difference between a luxurious retirement and a less-luxurious retirement, or a retirement at 70 rather than 65. That money will continue to deflate, and if you live for another 40 years, it becomes a mere half-million at the end. That would give you $11k a year to live on -- not great, but again, you're talking about four decades of no work. That's a lot to ask. That's not fun, of course, but it's not supposed to be fun. "I was handed a million dollars and therefore deserve to have it exponentially accumulate value for no work or risk" is fun, but it's not a fundamental right. If you put earn more money than you need and stick it in the bank, you can retire. Inflation means that you need a little more money, which you can get either by working longer, or using your money to improve the economy as a whole by investment. More risk means bigger rewards. Zero risk means a net loss, as punishment for keeping your money out of circulation. The point is that exponential growth is powerful, but even exponents of multiples of 10 don't do all that much when the base rate is 1%. It's only the difference between retirement and non-retirement for a relatively small sliver. The real problem with non-retirement is that many people can't put away anything. They live hand-to-mouth for their entire careers, with every incoming dollar accounted for. For them, inflation isn't an issue because they have $0. Worrying about inflation is a great privilege for those who have cash and would prefer it to become more cash for free, with no effort or risk. Instead, the economy demands they take risks rather than sitting on their money -- with the goal of some of it ending up in the form of jobs for those who don't have that cash sitting around.