7 ms·

'I lost millions through cryptocurrency addiction'

user-the-name 5y ago
All profits anyone makes on cryptocurrencies comes out of the pockets of other "investors". A lot of them will be like this, addicted people who were lured in by dishonest promises. Cryptocurrency is a negative-sum game. There is an inflow of cash into the markets, and two outflows: Regular traders cashing out, and miners cashing out. The market caps, the supposed dollar value of your holdings, it is all imaginary. The only thing that is real is money being paid in, and money going out. And unless you sell and take your profits, that outflow is not going to you. It is going to someone else. And if you do, the money comes from somebody less fortunate. The only ethical thing is to not get involved.
- lend000 5y ago
  If someone is consistently profitable/market making/etc., then they are making the market less volatile than it would be if it consisted solely of retail gamblers like those described in the article. But the same can be said of popular stocks, which are actually more volatile than the most liquid cryptos nowadays (GME, AMC, etc.). The problem, to me, isn't that people are allowed to invest their money freely in digital markets (regardless of asset). The problem is that so much money has been injected into assets that people feel (correctly) that they are falling behind if they don't try to play the game. The hidden inflation tax really harms people who lack a high degree of financial literacy or who lack the discipline required to make balanced, long term investments (i.e. a vast majority of people). For most of human history, saving was the key to building upper middle class wealth. Now, good luck with that as M2 grows by 20+% in a year and CD's are paying record low interest rates.
  - lottin 5y ago
    An inflation rate of ~2% doesn't really harm anyone, especially not the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum. I think the problem is rather the fact that many people have unrealistic expectations. If the economy is growing at a rate of 1% annually, meaning the entire wealth produced in the country during a whole year grows by 1%, why do people think that their personal wealth should grow by 10%, 20%, 30% or more? It's not gonna happen.
    - lend000 5y ago
      SPX grows 8% a year (6% when adjusted for GDP growth), US real estate increases 3.8%, and bank interest rates pay FAR less than even "reported" CPI, which is a joke of a metric almost entirely weighted by oil prices, which are not determined by a free market [0]. And that's before the insane levels of money printing and spending we've seen this year, which show no signs of being undone, even as the country opens back up. Inflation isn't 2%. People like you lose a lot of relative wealth to the "smart money" by thinking that's true, and it isn't fair to have a system that exponentially benefits financially smarter investors (an inflationary environment). Barring an improbable windfall or significant income growth, a responsible, hardworking person can't meaningfully improve their financial situation by saving all their money in the bank, which is a sad reality. Asset inflation benefits the wealthy, while bear markets improve wealth inequality, and printing money and QE reduces the corrective measure to wealth inequality to instead reduce the short term pain [1]. Consumer inflation is a tossup. [0] https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/gasoline-prices-adjusted-for-inflation/ https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/gasoline-prices-adjust... [1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/#range:1989.3,2020.4;quarter:125;series:Net%20worth;demographic:networth;population:1;units:levels https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distr...
      - lottin 5y ago
        > Inflation isn't 2% Okay, then what is it? Obviously you have taken the trouble to measure inflation because you know it's not 2%. So tell us, what is the inflation rate? And show us your calculations please.
        lend000 5y ago
        Here's a good approximation [0]. Didn't mean to insult your intelligence. That's just consumer inflation, by the way. Asset inflation is a different beast that is better measured in terms of wealth inequality. I'd recommend you digest the links in my original post if you're interested in the topic. [0] https://www.lynalden.com/inflation/ https://www.lynalden.com/inflation/
- ArkanExplorer 5y ago
  The most ethical thing to do is to ban the formal exchange of cryptocurrencies. The same way that the USA bans online gambling. Cryptocurrencies are essentially distributed ponzi schemes (which are also illegal), with a side order of immense waste of electricity, waste of advanced manufactured goods, and enablement of ransomware. Its getting to the point now where we need to begin contacting our democratic representatives and requesting that they ban them, and submitting citizen's petitions and direct ballot actions.
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    Yes, absolutely. HN for some reason does not want to hear it, but this is the cold hard truth of the matter.
- vmception 5y ago
  That is reductive and doesn't make it negative sum. You identified the reasons of outflows and neglected to identify the reasons of inflows, or the magnitude of either. Any supply and demand system is negative sum by your standard. Remember to always ask “Did I just make a separate fictional higher standard for an asset class just because I don't like it?” If you create a criteria for crypto assets that no commodity, currency, equity, or property can meet, the question is why? Is it ignorance or intentional?
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    The only inflow is people sending money to exchanges, as the tokens being traded and created have zero intrinsic value. This is not the case commodities, currencies, equities or property. Those things have value outside of the market itself, while cryptocurrencies basically do not. They are in practice only used for trading.
    - karottenreibe 5y ago
      What is the intrinsic value of a currency outside of trading then?
      - user-the-name 5y ago
        Are you planning on trading the money in your bank account? If not, can you give it to me as it apparently has no value?
- Freestyler_3 5y ago
  Is normal stocks any different?
  - singularity2001 5y ago
    Yes, you invest money and (ideally/mostly) they produce wares worth more money. Positive sum.
    - drexlspivey 5y ago
      That's not what positive sum means. Both stocks and crypto are positive sum though. Whenever someone buys a stock someone else sells it, one's loss is the other's gain. That would make it zero sum but the company has the option to issue new shares, akin to the fed printing money or a new bitcoin being minted in a block, that makes both games positive sum.
      - user-the-name 5y ago
        The newly issued shares represent a share in the underlying value of the company, which has increased. For cryptocurrencies, there is no such underlying value.
        Freestyler_3 5y ago
        A company value is part speculation. If everyone sold their stock would the bottom price be high because of inflated value?
        user-the-name 5y ago
        Cryptocurrency value is entirely speculation.
  - lottin 5y ago
    Yes, it's different. Owning a stock is like owning a business. Unlike a coin, a business generates a profit. This means you don't have to sell the business to another investor in order to profit from it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- scatters 5y ago
  To be fair, cryptocurrencies do have genuine cash flows as well. People who need to launder money out of the criminal economy or out of oppressive economic regimes will be willing to pay a considerable cut to do so, and that money goes to "investors" as well as to miners.
- bonestamp2 5y ago
  > All profits anyone makes on cryptocurrencies comes out of the pockets of other "investors". That's not necessarily true. It's the same as the stock market. I could buy a stock or crypto token/coin for $1 and sell it for $2, while the person I bought it from paid less than $1 and the person who bought it from me sold it for more than $2. In other words, all three of us made money. There's also the possibility that the other two parties lost money. But there's nothing unethical about buying something for a price someone is willing to sell it for or selling at a price where someone else is willing to buy it. I mean, not unless you think capitalism as a whole is unethical.
  - lottin 5y ago
    > In other words, all three of us made money. Yes, the three of you made money, but you're forgetting about the fourth investor. The fourth investor won't make money until a fifth investor comes and buys the coin. And so on, and so on. The revenue received by each investor always comes from a subsequent investor. So the OP was right. This is not true of stocks, as stocks do generate income.
    - bonestamp2 5y ago
      > Yes, the three of you made money, but you're forgetting about the fourth investor. I didn't forget. That fourth investor is not part of my transaction. The point of my comment was that OP's claim that all crypto profits come from someone else's pocket is false. Just like non-dividend stocks, sometimes that's true, and sometimes it's not. As I stated, it's possible that my seller and buyer could lose money too. The same is true for stocks. > This is not true of stocks, as stocks do generate income. Yes, dividend stocks generate income for their investors, but not all stocks pay dividends. On that note, some crypto coins/tokens pay distributions and interest too (let's call them dividend crypto for simplicity). Are non-dividend stocks equal to non-dividend crypto? In both cases, profit can only be realized by the investor when the share/coin/token price goes up. Is that ok? I think any Capitalist should say yes. I'm not advocating for stocks or crypto, but there are some similarities that we have to acknowledge to avoid hypocrisy.
username_my1 5y ago
Day trading is gambling and futures / puts are worst regardless of the asset being traded.
- jimbob45 5y ago
  I agree but I don’t know how to stop it without just driving it underground.
- user-the-name 5y ago
  The difference is that crypto trading is entirely unregulated, and the markets are massively manipulated.
  - vmception 5y ago
    Leveraged swaps - the kind of “futures” used in the crypto markets - are known to regulators around the globe. The UK is fairly lax in this regard. But its nothing to do with crypto trading because this wasn't spot crypto trading. On manipulation, eh, yay volatility. Avoid leverage in volatile markets.
    - user-the-name 5y ago
      First, the exchanges aren't in the UK and do not follow any regulations. Second, even the exchanges are manipulating.
- cronix 5y ago
  Please explain how day trading is gambling but long term trading is not? It seems in both cases, you are gambling on the price going up.
  - dijit 5y ago
    I consider the major difference among them is that if you’re putting money into something long term then that’s more of an investment- Investments are gambles but they have more substance than a quick roll of the dice as your investment affects the outcome.
skystarman 5y ago
This is a gambling addiction, full stop. We don't need to invent new terms like "cryptocurrency addiction" it's just gambling!
- alphabet9000 5y ago
  It's a specific kind of gambling addiction, in the same way saying someone has a 'heroin addiction' could have just been described as a 'drug addiction'. If you say someone has a gambling addiction, the mental picture is probably someone going to a casino to gamble. A 'cryptocurrency addiction' changes the mental picture to someone sitting in front of their computer watching numbers go up and down. The word refines the mental image for someone else. But, I think it's normal to be skeptical though of new invented terms in general, since it can be used as propaganda to create fear or stigma about some very specific thing someone has an agenda of getting rid of. Cynical take: maybe someone trying to introduce the word cryptocurrency addiction has an interest in seeing the price go down, e.g. they're shorting it, etc. In the same way someone else might not want there to be stigma about crypto currencies, because they own some and want to see the price go up!
  - skystarman 5y ago
    I think you make a great point but not calling it what it is, "gambling", elides the risk inherent in investing in crypto. It's one of the most volatile assets anyone can invest in. The vast majority of people are investing in it are driven to it by hype alone. This is gambling. There is no other way to describe it more generally. People in media and elsewhere calling it "investing" hides the fact that the risk is not much better than betting on a few hands of blackjack. And hey betting relatively small amounts at a casino OR on crypto is totally fine, go for it! Betting more than you can afford to lose it's just insanity.
- agumonkey 5y ago
  one tiny aspect about cryptocurrencies that doesn't exist anymore on other assets: the hype the amount of guru groups with followers, neverending notifications of volatility, new ~revolutionary idea~ it can, and does, mess with people's mind a lot
member492 5y ago
Ok. So BBC, how many billions are lost every year among forex traders? But you could also easily put a story against that about someone who made billions with cryptocurrency. This is not journalism at all..
- 3grdlurker 5y ago
  How is the reportage of a true event not journalism at all?
  - bonestamp2 5y ago
    Agreed. That is literally what journalism was invented for... writing down what actually happened (so those who weren't there can be aware of what happened). It was originally invented by the greeks to keep the government accountable to the people by letting the citizens know what their government was doing. That's why the first thing even modern dictators do is try to frame the media as the enemy of the people.
vmception 5y ago
> He said: "The first time I took it, I lost it all in about 20 minutes one night. The market moved very rapidly and I liquidated everything. The “liquidated” terminology suggests he was doing leveraged swap trading. This has nothing to do with crypto, aside from even more fun volatility. Buying and holding crypto has no liquidation possibilities, and assets don’t drop to losing everything in 20 minutes. If it does you should buy the dip because its usually just a supply hack specific to that specific crypto.
- s5300 5y ago
  Yeah, you have to be exceptionally stupid and just unworthy of much money if you manage to liq your only capital all at once within 20 mins.
  - moralestapia 5y ago
    >unworthy of much money Money doesn't work like that.
    - vmception 5y ago
      but keeping it does
______- 5y ago
There's a chicken and egg problem with cryptocurrency. If I want crypto, I need to go to an exchange and trade some fiat for it, which would imply that cryptocurrency is inherently gold-backed like the USD. Then we have people claiming the USD is no longer backed by gold, and that the old concept of 'a dollar note is a receipt for a dollar of gold that you don't physically own'. Can someone please elaborate why I can't go to the federal reserve with a million bucks and trade it for gold?
- throwaway3699 5y ago
  USD is not backed by gold, mainly so the federal reserve can print money to control inflation. And, if necessary, indirectly tax the poor or financially illiterate by devaluing their savings.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
    Mild inflation generally aids the poor, as they have little to no savings and substantial debt. In the US the overwhelming majority of household's net worth is the equity in their home, which usually doesn't exceed the mortgage they still owe until rather late in life. A few people get lucky with hot real estate markets but to capture that you have to move into an undesirable cheaper area. Financial literacy is a different issue, but to be absolutely clear, the Fed is not in the business of exploiting the poor. That's a very cartoonish characterization.
    - vmception 5y ago
      I view the "inflation = stealth tax" to be hyperbole. Like, a comparison to something everyone hates for emphasis. But yes, inflation is not targeting any socioeconomic class, and its purpose is mainly to force people with a lot of money to not just park it somewhere and instead keep it moving in the economy. The bank's advertised rates sound like a cruel joke? Go invest it! That's the point, the central banks are playing a perpetual game of "inception" where they make all of your decisions to not put your money in a savings account to seem like your own original idea.
- 5y ago
patriksvensson 5y ago
"Jake lost millions of pounds trading cryptocurrencies. " Gambled it away. Not crypto's fault.
nathias 5y ago
I lost more than I will ever have.
h0nd 5y ago
I really wonder what kind of hospital treatment is given to people who suffer from gambling with cryptocurrencies specifically (as opposed to casino gamblers).

All profits anyone makes on cryptocurrencies comes out of the pockets of other "investors". A lot of them will be like this, addicted people who were lured in by dishonest promises. Cryptocurrency is a negative-sum game. There is an inflow of cash into the markets, and two outflows: Regular traders cashing out, and miners cashing out. The market caps, the supposed dollar value of your holdings, it is all imaginary. The only thing that is real is money being paid in, and money going out. And unless you sell and take your profits, that outflow is not going to you. It is going to someone else. And if you do, the money comes from somebody less fortunate. The only ethical thing is to not get involved.

lend000 5y ago
If someone is consistently profitable/market making/etc., then they are making the market less volatile than it would be if it consisted solely of retail gamblers like those described in the article. But the same can be said of popular stocks, which are actually more volatile than the most liquid cryptos nowadays (GME, AMC, etc.). The problem, to me, isn't that people are allowed to invest their money freely in digital markets (regardless of asset). The problem is that so much money has been injected into assets that people feel (correctly) that they are falling behind if they don't try to play the game. The hidden inflation tax really harms people who lack a high degree of financial literacy or who lack the discipline required to make balanced, long term investments (i.e. a vast majority of people). For most of human history, saving was the key to building upper middle class wealth. Now, good luck with that as M2 grows by 20+% in a year and CD's are paying record low interest rates.
- lottin 5y ago
  An inflation rate of ~2% doesn't really harm anyone, especially not the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum. I think the problem is rather the fact that many people have unrealistic expectations. If the economy is growing at a rate of 1% annually, meaning the entire wealth produced in the country during a whole year grows by 1%, why do people think that their personal wealth should grow by 10%, 20%, 30% or more? It's not gonna happen.
  - lend000 5y ago
    SPX grows 8% a year (6% when adjusted for GDP growth), US real estate increases 3.8%, and bank interest rates pay FAR less than even "reported" CPI, which is a joke of a metric almost entirely weighted by oil prices, which are not determined by a free market [0]. And that's before the insane levels of money printing and spending we've seen this year, which show no signs of being undone, even as the country opens back up. Inflation isn't 2%. People like you lose a lot of relative wealth to the "smart money" by thinking that's true, and it isn't fair to have a system that exponentially benefits financially smarter investors (an inflationary environment). Barring an improbable windfall or significant income growth, a responsible, hardworking person can't meaningfully improve their financial situation by saving all their money in the bank, which is a sad reality. Asset inflation benefits the wealthy, while bear markets improve wealth inequality, and printing money and QE reduces the corrective measure to wealth inequality to instead reduce the short term pain [1]. Consumer inflation is a tossup. [0] https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/gasoline-prices-adjusted-for-inflation/ https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/gasoline-prices-adjust... [1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/#range:1989.3,2020.4;quarter:125;series:Net%20worth;demographic:networth;population:1;units:levels https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distr...
    - lottin 5y ago
      > Inflation isn't 2% Okay, then what is it? Obviously you have taken the trouble to measure inflation because you know it's not 2%. So tell us, what is the inflation rate? And show us your calculations please.
      - lend000 5y ago
        Here's a good approximation [0]. Didn't mean to insult your intelligence. That's just consumer inflation, by the way. Asset inflation is a different beast that is better measured in terms of wealth inequality. I'd recommend you digest the links in my original post if you're interested in the topic. [0] https://www.lynalden.com/inflation/ https://www.lynalden.com/inflation/
ArkanExplorer 5y ago
The most ethical thing to do is to ban the formal exchange of cryptocurrencies. The same way that the USA bans online gambling. Cryptocurrencies are essentially distributed ponzi schemes (which are also illegal), with a side order of immense waste of electricity, waste of advanced manufactured goods, and enablement of ransomware. Its getting to the point now where we need to begin contacting our democratic representatives and requesting that they ban them, and submitting citizen's petitions and direct ballot actions.
- user-the-name 5y ago
  Yes, absolutely. HN for some reason does not want to hear it, but this is the cold hard truth of the matter.
vmception 5y ago
That is reductive and doesn't make it negative sum. You identified the reasons of outflows and neglected to identify the reasons of inflows, or the magnitude of either. Any supply and demand system is negative sum by your standard. Remember to always ask “Did I just make a separate fictional higher standard for an asset class just because I don't like it?” If you create a criteria for crypto assets that no commodity, currency, equity, or property can meet, the question is why? Is it ignorance or intentional?
- user-the-name 5y ago
  The only inflow is people sending money to exchanges, as the tokens being traded and created have zero intrinsic value. This is not the case commodities, currencies, equities or property. Those things have value outside of the market itself, while cryptocurrencies basically do not. They are in practice only used for trading.
  - karottenreibe 5y ago
    What is the intrinsic value of a currency outside of trading then?
    - user-the-name 5y ago
      Are you planning on trading the money in your bank account? If not, can you give it to me as it apparently has no value?
Freestyler_3 5y ago
Is normal stocks any different?
- singularity2001 5y ago
  Yes, you invest money and (ideally/mostly) they produce wares worth more money. Positive sum.
  - drexlspivey 5y ago
    That's not what positive sum means. Both stocks and crypto are positive sum though. Whenever someone buys a stock someone else sells it, one's loss is the other's gain. That would make it zero sum but the company has the option to issue new shares, akin to the fed printing money or a new bitcoin being minted in a block, that makes both games positive sum.
    - user-the-name 5y ago
      The newly issued shares represent a share in the underlying value of the company, which has increased. For cryptocurrencies, there is no such underlying value.
      - Freestyler_3 5y ago
        A company value is part speculation. If everyone sold their stock would the bottom price be high because of inflated value?
        user-the-name 5y ago
        Cryptocurrency value is entirely speculation.
- lottin 5y ago
  Yes, it's different. Owning a stock is like owning a business. Unlike a coin, a business generates a profit. This means you don't have to sell the business to another investor in order to profit from it.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
scatters 5y ago
To be fair, cryptocurrencies do have genuine cash flows as well. People who need to launder money out of the criminal economy or out of oppressive economic regimes will be willing to pay a considerable cut to do so, and that money goes to "investors" as well as to miners.
bonestamp2 5y ago
> All profits anyone makes on cryptocurrencies comes out of the pockets of other "investors". That's not necessarily true. It's the same as the stock market. I could buy a stock or crypto token/coin for $1 and sell it for $2, while the person I bought it from paid less than $1 and the person who bought it from me sold it for more than $2. In other words, all three of us made money. There's also the possibility that the other two parties lost money. But there's nothing unethical about buying something for a price someone is willing to sell it for or selling at a price where someone else is willing to buy it. I mean, not unless you think capitalism as a whole is unethical.
- lottin 5y ago
  > In other words, all three of us made money. Yes, the three of you made money, but you're forgetting about the fourth investor. The fourth investor won't make money until a fifth investor comes and buys the coin. And so on, and so on. The revenue received by each investor always comes from a subsequent investor. So the OP was right. This is not true of stocks, as stocks do generate income.
  - bonestamp2 5y ago
    > Yes, the three of you made money, but you're forgetting about the fourth investor. I didn't forget. That fourth investor is not part of my transaction. The point of my comment was that OP's claim that all crypto profits come from someone else's pocket is false. Just like non-dividend stocks, sometimes that's true, and sometimes it's not. As I stated, it's possible that my seller and buyer could lose money too. The same is true for stocks. > This is not true of stocks, as stocks do generate income. Yes, dividend stocks generate income for their investors, but not all stocks pay dividends. On that note, some crypto coins/tokens pay distributions and interest too (let's call them dividend crypto for simplicity). Are non-dividend stocks equal to non-dividend crypto? In both cases, profit can only be realized by the investor when the share/coin/token price goes up. Is that ok? I think any Capitalist should say yes. I'm not advocating for stocks or crypto, but there are some similarities that we have to acknowledge to avoid hypocrisy.

username_my1 5y ago

Day trading is gambling and futures / puts are worst regardless of the asset being traded.

jimbob45 5y ago
I agree but I don’t know how to stop it without just driving it underground.
user-the-name 5y ago
The difference is that crypto trading is entirely unregulated, and the markets are massively manipulated.
- vmception 5y ago
  Leveraged swaps - the kind of “futures” used in the crypto markets - are known to regulators around the globe. The UK is fairly lax in this regard. But its nothing to do with crypto trading because this wasn't spot crypto trading. On manipulation, eh, yay volatility. Avoid leverage in volatile markets.
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    First, the exchanges aren't in the UK and do not follow any regulations. Second, even the exchanges are manipulating.
cronix 5y ago
Please explain how day trading is gambling but long term trading is not? It seems in both cases, you are gambling on the price going up.
- dijit 5y ago
  I consider the major difference among them is that if you’re putting money into something long term then that’s more of an investment- Investments are gambles but they have more substance than a quick roll of the dice as your investment affects the outcome.

skystarman 5y ago

This is a gambling addiction, full stop. We don't need to invent new terms like "cryptocurrency addiction" it's just gambling!

alphabet9000 5y ago
It's a specific kind of gambling addiction, in the same way saying someone has a 'heroin addiction' could have just been described as a 'drug addiction'. If you say someone has a gambling addiction, the mental picture is probably someone going to a casino to gamble. A 'cryptocurrency addiction' changes the mental picture to someone sitting in front of their computer watching numbers go up and down. The word refines the mental image for someone else. But, I think it's normal to be skeptical though of new invented terms in general, since it can be used as propaganda to create fear or stigma about some very specific thing someone has an agenda of getting rid of. Cynical take: maybe someone trying to introduce the word cryptocurrency addiction has an interest in seeing the price go down, e.g. they're shorting it, etc. In the same way someone else might not want there to be stigma about crypto currencies, because they own some and want to see the price go up!
- skystarman 5y ago
  I think you make a great point but not calling it what it is, "gambling", elides the risk inherent in investing in crypto. It's one of the most volatile assets anyone can invest in. The vast majority of people are investing in it are driven to it by hype alone. This is gambling. There is no other way to describe it more generally. People in media and elsewhere calling it "investing" hides the fact that the risk is not much better than betting on a few hands of blackjack. And hey betting relatively small amounts at a casino OR on crypto is totally fine, go for it! Betting more than you can afford to lose it's just insanity.
agumonkey 5y ago
one tiny aspect about cryptocurrencies that doesn't exist anymore on other assets: the hype the amount of guru groups with followers, neverending notifications of volatility, new ~revolutionary idea~ it can, and does, mess with people's mind a lot

member492 5y ago

Ok. So BBC, how many billions are lost every year among forex traders? But you could also easily put a story against that about someone who made billions with cryptocurrency. This is not journalism at all..

3grdlurker 5y ago
How is the reportage of a true event not journalism at all?
- bonestamp2 5y ago
  Agreed. That is literally what journalism was invented for... writing down what actually happened (so those who weren't there can be aware of what happened). It was originally invented by the greeks to keep the government accountable to the people by letting the citizens know what their government was doing. That's why the first thing even modern dictators do is try to frame the media as the enemy of the people.

vmception 5y ago

> He said: "The first time I took it, I lost it all in about 20 minutes one night. The market moved very rapidly and I liquidated everything. The “liquidated” terminology suggests he was doing leveraged swap trading. This has nothing to do with crypto, aside from even more fun volatility. Buying and holding crypto has no liquidation possibilities, and assets don’t drop to losing everything in 20 minutes. If it does you should buy the dip because its usually just a supply hack specific to that specific crypto.

s5300 5y ago
Yeah, you have to be exceptionally stupid and just unworthy of much money if you manage to liq your only capital all at once within 20 mins.
- moralestapia 5y ago
  >unworthy of much money Money doesn't work like that.
  - vmception 5y ago
    but keeping it does

______- 5y ago

There's a chicken and egg problem with cryptocurrency. If I want crypto, I need to go to an exchange and trade some fiat for it, which would imply that cryptocurrency is inherently gold-backed like the USD. Then we have people claiming the USD is no longer backed by gold, and that the old concept of 'a dollar note is a receipt for a dollar of gold that you don't physically own'. Can someone please elaborate why I can't go to the federal reserve with a million bucks and trade it for gold?

throwaway3699 5y ago
USD is not backed by gold, mainly so the federal reserve can print money to control inflation. And, if necessary, indirectly tax the poor or financially illiterate by devaluing their savings.
- jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
  Mild inflation generally aids the poor, as they have little to no savings and substantial debt. In the US the overwhelming majority of household's net worth is the equity in their home, which usually doesn't exceed the mortgage they still owe until rather late in life. A few people get lucky with hot real estate markets but to capture that you have to move into an undesirable cheaper area. Financial literacy is a different issue, but to be absolutely clear, the Fed is not in the business of exploiting the poor. That's a very cartoonish characterization.
  - vmception 5y ago
    I view the "inflation = stealth tax" to be hyperbole. Like, a comparison to something everyone hates for emphasis. But yes, inflation is not targeting any socioeconomic class, and its purpose is mainly to force people with a lot of money to not just park it somewhere and instead keep it moving in the economy. The bank's advertised rates sound like a cruel joke? Go invest it! That's the point, the central banks are playing a perpetual game of "inception" where they make all of your decisions to not put your money in a savings account to seem like your own original idea.
5y ago

patriksvensson 5y ago

"Jake lost millions of pounds trading cryptocurrencies. " Gambled it away. Not crypto's fault.

nathias 5y ago

I lost more than I will ever have.

h0nd 5y ago

I really wonder what kind of hospital treatment is given to people who suffer from gambling with cryptocurrencies specifically (as opposed to casino gamblers).