5 ms·

It's the same as any other crypto coin; a negative-sum game, where investors (as a whole) are guaranteed to lose. https://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/bitcoin/201

It's the same as any other crypto coin; a negative-sum game, where investors (as a whole) are guaranteed to lose. https://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/bitcoin/2018-07-18-0148-vaneck-solidx-etf-comments.pdf https://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/bitcoin/2018-07-18-0148-va...

vmception 5y ago
Many cryptos, including SHIB, have revenue, which is the crux of that authors argument against bitcoin 3 years ago People saw the criticism and created something else actually due to market forces Its like wow there are so many good criticisms and you pick that one immediately after I gave you newer information that supersedes the main point of your old information?
johanneskanybal 5y ago
Don't want to be grouped with some shiba fanatic but lots of misunderstandings in that paper (although always nice to hear arguments from both sides to avoid becoming a fanatic). The biggest root misunderstanding in the paper is comparing bitcoin to shares of a company instead of say usd. There's also a ton of final consumer use cases nowadays and don't really buy the negative sum game either, would be fun if he used the same logic on shares here for comparison but no surprise he doesn't.
- rmbyrro 5y ago
  Exactly. Problem is Bitcoin was meant to be a currency. But it still cannot feasibly be a currency, so in practice people see it as an investment vehicle, which it's not supposed to be
  - johanneskanybal 5y ago
    Store of value proposition has never been stronger though which is the driving force behind this speculative wave. Simply the idea has never been more sound and that's trivially easy to understand to most.
- vmception 5y ago
  > Don't want to be grouped with some shiba fanatic > But I mean we would be having the same conversation if this was a $100mm marketcap coin, instead of a $36bn marketcap coin, but the criticism would be less true apparently pointing out the limitations of a low-hanging fruit criticism makes one a fanatic with no discussion on the common enterprise generating revenue, just the association with the meme brand. zero discussion on whether the observer caught or missed all of the alpha, zero discussion on whether there was any conflict or any interest in the underlying asset, zero verification of whether the aforementioned exchange product created actually had the $500mm in assets and growing or daily trade volume even though people - including a Brazilian University's professor in a comment to a US securities regulator - have been trying to compare crypto assets to equities or a commodity supported by cashflow for an entire decade. the irony being that without the token nobody would have noticed this 4 month old exchange generating $30mm-$490mm daily volume existed - earning fees no matter what the nature of the volume is - but the existence of the token and accessible branding prompts otherwise intelligent people to shut their mind off to any discussion about it, not even considering to even look at the product. just call the person that did look, or at least someone else that would look, a fanatic. probably hyperbole, as they feel the need to blend in to elevate their own opinion without similar exclusion, but frustrating none the less. and doubling down makes me look like a fanatic, well played, ser historians: this is the state of crypto discussions in 2021, just want a couple people now, and more people in the future, to see that.

vmception 5y ago

Many cryptos, including SHIB, have revenue, which is the crux of that authors argument against bitcoin 3 years ago People saw the criticism and created something else actually due to market forces Its like wow there are so many good criticisms and you pick that one immediately after I gave you newer information that supersedes the main point of your old information?

johanneskanybal 5y ago

Don't want to be grouped with some shiba fanatic but lots of misunderstandings in that paper (although always nice to hear arguments from both sides to avoid becoming a fanatic). The biggest root misunderstanding in the paper is comparing bitcoin to shares of a company instead of say usd. There's also a ton of final consumer use cases nowadays and don't really buy the negative sum game either, would be fun if he used the same logic on shares here for comparison but no surprise he doesn't.

rmbyrro 5y ago
Exactly. Problem is Bitcoin was meant to be a currency. But it still cannot feasibly be a currency, so in practice people see it as an investment vehicle, which it's not supposed to be
- johanneskanybal 5y ago
  Store of value proposition has never been stronger though which is the driving force behind this speculative wave. Simply the idea has never been more sound and that's trivially easy to understand to most.
vmception 5y ago
> Don't want to be grouped with some shiba fanatic > But I mean we would be having the same conversation if this was a $100mm marketcap coin, instead of a $36bn marketcap coin, but the criticism would be less true apparently pointing out the limitations of a low-hanging fruit criticism makes one a fanatic with no discussion on the common enterprise generating revenue, just the association with the meme brand. zero discussion on whether the observer caught or missed all of the alpha, zero discussion on whether there was any conflict or any interest in the underlying asset, zero verification of whether the aforementioned exchange product created actually had the $500mm in assets and growing or daily trade volume even though people - including a Brazilian University's professor in a comment to a US securities regulator - have been trying to compare crypto assets to equities or a commodity supported by cashflow for an entire decade. the irony being that without the token nobody would have noticed this 4 month old exchange generating $30mm-$490mm daily volume existed - earning fees no matter what the nature of the volume is - but the existence of the token and accessible branding prompts otherwise intelligent people to shut their mind off to any discussion about it, not even considering to even look at the product. just call the person that did look, or at least someone else that would look, a fanatic. probably hyperbole, as they feel the need to blend in to elevate their own opinion without similar exclusion, but frustrating none the less. and doubling down makes me look like a fanatic, well played, ser historians: this is the state of crypto discussions in 2021, just want a couple people now, and more people in the future, to see that.