5 ms·

A lot of weak arguments, but the author manages to even contradict himself: > This is strictly inferior than assets like stocks which either pay dividends from

by 323 5y ago

A lot of weak arguments, but the author manages to even contradict himself: > This is strictly inferior than assets like stocks which either pay dividends from their revenue, buy back their own stock, or have mergers and acquisition events > grow the pool of greater fools to buy the token so that early token holders can be paid out by later token holders According to him, it's ok for a company to buy back it's own stock, thus giving it value, but not ok if a later token holder buys crypto from you, which is exactly the same thing. > Zinc is a commodity because it’s a stable element at room temperature with 30 electrons and it’s shell configuration makes it useful in tools and conducting electricity, as a commodity it does not depend on a narrative or shared collective delusion to give rise to this utility. Author should open a Zinc price chart, and zoom in on 2005-2009, when Zinc prices quadrupled, and then crashed back to earth, together with other commodities in that commodity bubble. Totally not a collective delusion and financial speculation back then. https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/zinc https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/zinc Also, tulips and beanie babies, really? Are we still beating this dead horse?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
normalman 5y ago
I noticed an apparent contradiction, between these two statements. > There can be no separation of money and state, because the state is the only party that could issue money almost by definition. < Here, he attributes value, only if it is established via government backing of the asset, which is currency. > Securities are effectively a collective fiction, they’re a financial product that exists within a legal framework about a contract that gives buyers and sellers legal rights to cashflows of a common enterprise. < Here, he attributes fictional value or no intrinsic value, because the government establishes the use of the asset class, supposedly only by backing the asset, which is securities. In both cases, he treats whether or not the asset has value, as depending on government backing. In one case, he gives value to the asset, only because of government backing. In the latter case the asset is treated as being deprived of having any real value, because it's ability to be used as an asset, exists only by being government backed. Both of these claims are made by handling them as being true "by definition". When claims are made "by definition", there is no proof needed, or given. At least within these true "by definition" statements themselves, there is no proof given. So this begs the questions, "what, if anything, is the real value of the assets, and why?". If you take away the assumed worth or worthlessness of government backed assets, then those questions still need to be answered. There is another word for when something is treated as being true "by definition". That word is "assumption". Until he provides better reasons for his rejection of crypto assets, as having any real and lasting value, I will have to reject his view, at least as it is explained in this article. Not that this alone would flip me to crypto. The questions assumed to be answered, in this article, still need to be answered.
thehappypm 5y ago
A stock buyback is a good example of how a centralized entity can control value of a stock relative to some other entity. It’s not the only thing that gives it value, but it’s a tool for value control, like issuing new shares. Crypto lacks this mechanism.

by 323 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

normalman 5y ago

I noticed an apparent contradiction, between these two statements. > There can be no separation of money and state, because the state is the only party that could issue money almost by definition. < Here, he attributes value, only if it is established via government backing of the asset, which is currency. > Securities are effectively a collective fiction, they’re a financial product that exists within a legal framework about a contract that gives buyers and sellers legal rights to cashflows of a common enterprise. < Here, he attributes fictional value or no intrinsic value, because the government establishes the use of the asset class, supposedly only by backing the asset, which is securities. In both cases, he treats whether or not the asset has value, as depending on government backing. In one case, he gives value to the asset, only because of government backing. In the latter case the asset is treated as being deprived of having any real value, because it's ability to be used as an asset, exists only by being government backed. Both of these claims are made by handling them as being true "by definition". When claims are made "by definition", there is no proof needed, or given. At least within these true "by definition" statements themselves, there is no proof given. So this begs the questions, "what, if anything, is the real value of the assets, and why?". If you take away the assumed worth or worthlessness of government backed assets, then those questions still need to be answered. There is another word for when something is treated as being true "by definition". That word is "assumption". Until he provides better reasons for his rejection of crypto assets, as having any real and lasting value, I will have to reject his view, at least as it is explained in this article. Not that this alone would flip me to crypto. The questions assumed to be answered, in this article, still need to be answered.

thehappypm 5y ago

A stock buyback is a good example of how a centralized entity can control value of a stock relative to some other entity. It’s not the only thing that gives it value, but it’s a tool for value control, like issuing new shares. Crypto lacks this mechanism.