60 ms·

I'll bite the bullet and assume that you're asking a legitimate question in good faith: 1) Imagine I have 100 USD and 100 EUR and I want to provide liquidity t

I'll bite the bullet and assume that you're asking a legitimate question in good faith: 1) Imagine I have 100 USD and 100 EUR and I want to provide liquidity to a USD-EUR pair to get a cut of exchange fees. Which automated market maker do I need to contact in the space of "conventional financial technologies" to do so? 2) Imagine I have 1 BTC and I want to lend it (in a secure way) to get some return (in BTC). Who should I contact in the space of "conventional financial technologies" to do so? 3) Imagine I want to borrow 100 USD using BTC as collateral. Who should I contact in the space of "conventional financial technologies" to do so? Do you consider any of the previously-mentioned use-cases to constitute crime and/or speculation? If yes, why?

Marazan 5y ago
Two of your 3 problems solved by Bitcoin only exist because you have Bitcoin.
- dkshdkjshdk 5y ago
  Yes... and? Are people that have Bitcoin not allowed to do useful things with what they have? Does it bother you that there are actual legitimate use-cases for these things (as you seemingly admit, by not including my first example in your comment)? Someone asked for an example, and I provided a few... perhaps you don't see value in the examples I gave, but there are people out there who do.
  - Marazan 5y ago
    To the question "What problem does Bitcoin solve" the answer "Without Bitcoin I would not be able to transact in Bitcoin" is not valid.
    - dkshdkjshdk 5y ago
      Was that even the question to begin with? Here is the comment I replied to, originally [0]. Try to find the word "Bitcoin" there. And, again, thanks for continuing to support my point, by failing to address the fact that the first example I gave had nothing to do with BTC. Have a nice day. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27769442 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27769442
      - skohan 5y ago
        Yes that was essentially the original question to begin with. You can make a pedantic distinction between "Bitcoin" and "blockchain", but your comments make it clear you are arguing in bad faith here.
        dkshdkjshdk 5y ago
        I'm arguing in bad faith, according to you, even though I individually and respectfully tried to address every point you asked/made. Yet, you are the one doing unbased accusations of fraud ("stablecoins are essentially fraud"), and still haven't replied to the question I made 4 or 5 times already: What if I choose to get my returns in some asset that is pegged to USD (e.g. DAI, USDC), am I still speculating on the value of BTC? I guess my question is inconvenient. I'm done here, but I do hope you have a nice day. And, don't worry, I won't bite your bait ever again.
        skohan 5y ago
        > I individually and respectfully tried to address every point you asked/made. Oh come on, look at your comment above mine in this thread. You're splitting hairs and trying to find minute flaws in the arguments against you instead of actually arguing the points. It certainly makes it look like you cannot defend your actual arguments. > Yet, you are the one doing unbased accusations of fraud ("stablecoins are essentially fraud") I never said all stablecoins, but some certainly look like they are. > I'm done here, but I do hope you have a nice day. And, don't worry, I won't bite your bait ever again. Oh I'm not worried!
        dkshdkjshdk 5y ago
        > Oh come on, look at your comment above mine in this thread. Was that comment addressed at you? Please point out an actual example of me engaging in bad-faith argumentation with you. This is what you said, right? That I was engaging in bad-faith argumentation with you (not a third-party: you). > You're splitting hairs and trying to find minute flaws in the arguments against you instead of actually arguing the points. Uh... finding flaws in other people's arguments is how rational people argue. If you have a flaw in your argument, it's not a good argument. Again, please point out a situation in which I'm needlessly splitting hairs with you and avoiding a question you asked. > I never said all stablecoins, but some certainly look like they are. Ah! So now that you figured out how bad your argument is, you decide to move the goalposts. You say "stablecoins are essentially fraud", and I'm supposed to interpret that as "some stablecoins are essentially fraud", rather than "all stablecoins are essentially fraud"? Sigh. If you're not arguing in bad faith, it sure seems like you're going out of your way to make it seem like you are. I keep forgetting how I'm not supposed to feed the trolls... ah, well...
skohan 5y ago
I would agree that case 1 constitutes a potentially interesting use of block-chain. 2 and 3 assume the value of BTC, which I would not take as a given.
- dkshdkjshdk 5y ago
  Regarding point 2, what's wrong with assuming that 1 BTC is worth 1 BTC now and forever? If I'm not trading asset A for asset B, then it's hardly "speculation". If it makes it any better, I can lend BTC and ask to get returns in USDC (which should be worth as much as 1 USD, if you trust Coinbase). Am I still speculating? Regarding point 3, where is the speculation, exactly? If, at any point, the BTC I left as collateral goes below a certain level of collateralization (let's say 200% of the value of the borrowed asset), I'll just get liquidated: whoever lent me the USD will get their USD back, and I will lose my collateral (or a part of it, at least), if I fail to keep the value of my collateral over the threshold. I think perhaps we have a very different idea of what "speculation" is supposed to be... Either way, I guess you accept that there are use-cases that are otherwise not being provided by more traditional tech/institutions. Good.
  - skohan 5y ago
    > what's wrong with assuming that 1 BTC is worth 1 BTC now and forever? Because if 1 BTC = 0 USD, and has no real-world utility outside of speculation, there is no compelling reason to try to acquire more BTC.
    - dkshdkjshdk 5y ago
      > Because if 1 BTC = 0 USD... A big assumption here. I can also hypothesize that 1 USD = 0 EUR, at some point in the future, and, thus, holding or buying USD is pure speculation and there is no compelling reason to try to acquire more USD. Under this logic, I shouldn't ever buy or hold anything (forex, stocks, etc.), lest its market value goes to zero. Also, thanks for ignoring the rest of my point: What if I choose to get my returns in some asset that is pegged to USD (e.g. DAI, USDC), am I still speculating on the value of BTC?
RandomLensman 5y ago
1) Granted, but also EURUSD pricing does not work like any AMM (i.e. not formulaic exchange rates). So right now this does not work from both sides (no place to do and no method to do it). And no, it will not change to formulaic unless you have insane amount so liquidity in (but even then, central banks could just steam roll over you) 2) Lending can be regulated, so might or might not be ok for you to lend - not a lawyer. What about KYC/AML etc.? 3) Aren't there specialized prime brokers that do that? (maybe Genesis?)
- dkshdkjshdk 5y ago
  > 1) Granted, but also EURUSD pricing does not work like any AMM [...] Exactly. So, if I want to put liquidity in EURUSD market, I have no choice but to actively manage it, since traditional financial institutions won't do it for me. That was my point... to bring up examples of use-cases that are not covered by traditional financial institutions. > 2) Lending can be regulated, so might or might not be ok for you to lend - not a lawyer. What about KYC/AML etc.? Sure, lending is regulated. But then the problem mostly lies with AAVE (for example), not me (they are the one lending my assets, after all, and the ones possibly subjected to KYC laws), I would assume. My point is... even if you are willing to go through KYC, and have nothing to hide (e.g. you got your crypto-assets, or whatever you want to call them, legitimately, and file your taxes correctly), there simply is no traditional financial institution that has a "BTC savings account", for example. > 3) Aren't there specialized prime brokers that do that? (maybe Genesis?) Probably. But then the argument that "there is no actual use-case for blockchain outside of crime and speculation" kinda breaks down. If you consider Genesis to be part of "traditional finance", then it's clear that "traditional finance" sees value in these things (it's not just vapor). If you consider Genesis to not be part of "traditional finance", then you're just confirming what I implied: there isn't anyone in "traditional finance" providing such services.
  - RandomLensman 5y ago
    On EURUSD, you could look at currency funds (not strictly the same, but as close as it gets) Depending on which country you are in, things like bitcoin savings accounts are starting to emerge. Also funds might be able to invest. And yes, traditional finance is starting to see value in providing services for these things (and has so for a while) - not strictly the same as seeing value in the underlyings, but separate point

Marazan 5y ago

Two of your 3 problems solved by Bitcoin only exist because you have Bitcoin.

dkshdkjshdk 5y ago
Yes... and? Are people that have Bitcoin not allowed to do useful things with what they have? Does it bother you that there are actual legitimate use-cases for these things (as you seemingly admit, by not including my first example in your comment)? Someone asked for an example, and I provided a few... perhaps you don't see value in the examples I gave, but there are people out there who do.
- Marazan 5y ago
  To the question "What problem does Bitcoin solve" the answer "Without Bitcoin I would not be able to transact in Bitcoin" is not valid.
  - dkshdkjshdk 5y ago
    Was that even the question to begin with? Here is the comment I replied to, originally [0]. Try to find the word "Bitcoin" there. And, again, thanks for continuing to support my point, by failing to address the fact that the first example I gave had nothing to do with BTC. Have a nice day. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27769442 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27769442
    - skohan 5y ago
      Yes that was essentially the original question to begin with. You can make a pedantic distinction between "Bitcoin" and "blockchain", but your comments make it clear you are arguing in bad faith here.
      - dkshdkjshdk 5y ago
        I'm arguing in bad faith, according to you, even though I individually and respectfully tried to address every point you asked/made. Yet, you are the one doing unbased accusations of fraud ("stablecoins are essentially fraud"), and still haven't replied to the question I made 4 or 5 times already: What if I choose to get my returns in some asset that is pegged to USD (e.g. DAI, USDC), am I still speculating on the value of BTC? I guess my question is inconvenient. I'm done here, but I do hope you have a nice day. And, don't worry, I won't bite your bait ever again.
        skohan 5y ago
        > I individually and respectfully tried to address every point you asked/made. Oh come on, look at your comment above mine in this thread. You're splitting hairs and trying to find minute flaws in the arguments against you instead of actually arguing the points. It certainly makes it look like you cannot defend your actual arguments. > Yet, you are the one doing unbased accusations of fraud ("stablecoins are essentially fraud") I never said all stablecoins, but some certainly look like they are. > I'm done here, but I do hope you have a nice day. And, don't worry, I won't bite your bait ever again. Oh I'm not worried!
        dkshdkjshdk 5y ago
        > Oh come on, look at your comment above mine in this thread. Was that comment addressed at you? Please point out an actual example of me engaging in bad-faith argumentation with you. This is what you said, right? That I was engaging in bad-faith argumentation with you (not a third-party: you). > You're splitting hairs and trying to find minute flaws in the arguments against you instead of actually arguing the points. Uh... finding flaws in other people's arguments is how rational people argue. If you have a flaw in your argument, it's not a good argument. Again, please point out a situation in which I'm needlessly splitting hairs with you and avoiding a question you asked. > I never said all stablecoins, but some certainly look like they are. Ah! So now that you figured out how bad your argument is, you decide to move the goalposts. You say "stablecoins are essentially fraud", and I'm supposed to interpret that as "some stablecoins are essentially fraud", rather than "all stablecoins are essentially fraud"? Sigh. If you're not arguing in bad faith, it sure seems like you're going out of your way to make it seem like you are. I keep forgetting how I'm not supposed to feed the trolls... ah, well...

skohan 5y ago

I would agree that case 1 constitutes a potentially interesting use of block-chain. 2 and 3 assume the value of BTC, which I would not take as a given.

dkshdkjshdk 5y ago
Regarding point 2, what's wrong with assuming that 1 BTC is worth 1 BTC now and forever? If I'm not trading asset A for asset B, then it's hardly "speculation". If it makes it any better, I can lend BTC and ask to get returns in USDC (which should be worth as much as 1 USD, if you trust Coinbase). Am I still speculating? Regarding point 3, where is the speculation, exactly? If, at any point, the BTC I left as collateral goes below a certain level of collateralization (let's say 200% of the value of the borrowed asset), I'll just get liquidated: whoever lent me the USD will get their USD back, and I will lose my collateral (or a part of it, at least), if I fail to keep the value of my collateral over the threshold. I think perhaps we have a very different idea of what "speculation" is supposed to be... Either way, I guess you accept that there are use-cases that are otherwise not being provided by more traditional tech/institutions. Good.
- skohan 5y ago
  > what's wrong with assuming that 1 BTC is worth 1 BTC now and forever? Because if 1 BTC = 0 USD, and has no real-world utility outside of speculation, there is no compelling reason to try to acquire more BTC.
  - dkshdkjshdk 5y ago
    > Because if 1 BTC = 0 USD... A big assumption here. I can also hypothesize that 1 USD = 0 EUR, at some point in the future, and, thus, holding or buying USD is pure speculation and there is no compelling reason to try to acquire more USD. Under this logic, I shouldn't ever buy or hold anything (forex, stocks, etc.), lest its market value goes to zero. Also, thanks for ignoring the rest of my point: What if I choose to get my returns in some asset that is pegged to USD (e.g. DAI, USDC), am I still speculating on the value of BTC?

RandomLensman 5y ago

1) Granted, but also EURUSD pricing does not work like any AMM (i.e. not formulaic exchange rates). So right now this does not work from both sides (no place to do and no method to do it). And no, it will not change to formulaic unless you have insane amount so liquidity in (but even then, central banks could just steam roll over you) 2) Lending can be regulated, so might or might not be ok for you to lend - not a lawyer. What about KYC/AML etc.? 3) Aren't there specialized prime brokers that do that? (maybe Genesis?)

dkshdkjshdk 5y ago
> 1) Granted, but also EURUSD pricing does not work like any AMM [...] Exactly. So, if I want to put liquidity in EURUSD market, I have no choice but to actively manage it, since traditional financial institutions won't do it for me. That was my point... to bring up examples of use-cases that are not covered by traditional financial institutions. > 2) Lending can be regulated, so might or might not be ok for you to lend - not a lawyer. What about KYC/AML etc.? Sure, lending is regulated. But then the problem mostly lies with AAVE (for example), not me (they are the one lending my assets, after all, and the ones possibly subjected to KYC laws), I would assume. My point is... even if you are willing to go through KYC, and have nothing to hide (e.g. you got your crypto-assets, or whatever you want to call them, legitimately, and file your taxes correctly), there simply is no traditional financial institution that has a "BTC savings account", for example. > 3) Aren't there specialized prime brokers that do that? (maybe Genesis?) Probably. But then the argument that "there is no actual use-case for blockchain outside of crime and speculation" kinda breaks down. If you consider Genesis to be part of "traditional finance", then it's clear that "traditional finance" sees value in these things (it's not just vapor). If you consider Genesis to not be part of "traditional finance", then you're just confirming what I implied: there isn't anyone in "traditional finance" providing such services.
- RandomLensman 5y ago
  On EURUSD, you could look at currency funds (not strictly the same, but as close as it gets) Depending on which country you are in, things like bitcoin savings accounts are starting to emerge. Also funds might be able to invest. And yes, traditional finance is starting to see value in providing services for these things (and has so for a while) - not strictly the same as seeing value in the underlyings, but separate point