3 ms·

> I think it’s mostly jealousy and a feeling that they missed the boat, so they want to see it sink. If crypto and defi live up to their promise, no one is goi

> I think it’s mostly jealousy and a feeling that they missed the boat, so they want to see it sink. If crypto and defi live up to their promise, no one is going to "miss the boat". People at large will start getting paid in cryptocurrencies and they will start using them in transactions. If there are only a limited number of boats for this thing, that means it's a bubble and it's going to pop. Personally, I struggle to see any real uses for cryptocurrency that are not at odds with it being deflationary. So, paradoxically, for as long as it keeps going up, I don't trust it will hold its value. Once the curve flattens and adoption picks up, then sure, I'll consider it, but at that point it doesn't matter if you get in early or not.

sjtindell 5y ago
I commented this further down and am interested in your thoughts. One thing I’ve come to appreciate more when we talk about the “real value” being produced is that these are essentially just money games. Lots of established Wall Street firms play money games for a (very, very good) living. I’ve come to accept more that what people on Wall Street do is real. Games are real. I don’t personally buy into the “new world currency”, “real world use case, I’m gonna own my house on a blockchain” lines of thinking. The use case is still being fleshed out but in my opinion it’s much more likely to produce lots of Citadels than lots of Amazons or Googles if that makes sense. Whereas I think that HN believes it will just go away because it’s all a scam. For better or worse, there is huge pent up demand for money games. The average person doesn’t know it yet, but they want to own a swap on an option to buy a percent of the interest of a bond deal that they can then stake for percent ownership in an nft. It sounds insane to you and me right now. But I think they’re going to evolve to the use case of crypto, not the other way around.
- breuleux 5y ago
  I guess I can understand the idea of blockchains as a better way to play financial games. That's a valid use for which there is demand. Another use I can understand is hedging against political instability. Neither personally appeal to me, but I get it. Still, it seems to me that an awful lot of people are playing this game with scant knowledge of the rules or of what's involved, which is a bit like investing in Tesla without understanding what a car is. I also feel that a lot of the "value" that has been built up is predicated on the idea that Bitcoin (and/or other coins) will indeed become the new world currency. I have seen a few people saying this very thing (or close to it) in this post's comments. That's not to say they are wrong. However, if the outcome of defi is limited to playing financial games, there is a point where people will lose confidence in this "new world currency" forecast and the price of BTC will see a severe correction. And that's one thing that I find bothersome in this whole craze: the fact that many ideas in the crypto space have legitimate value does not imply that it is profitable to invest in any existing technology. The future CAN be defi at the same time that Bitcoin might crash to zero, if it happens to be the wrong horse. Worse yet, existing entrenched interests in cryto have a vested interest in making sure that the only technologies that succeed are those they have a stake in, so if Bitcoin succeeds, that may very well be at the expense of vastly superior technology. I think there is a very real risk that the success of Bitcoin will either prevent or significantly delay the emergence of good, efficient blockchain technology.
  - sjtindell 5y ago
    One of the most realistic takes in this thread, thanks for sharing. I strongly agree. I am severely disillusioned about the early promises of crypto that I espoused. I have settled more on your view, but I think we will cull out the garbage pets.com equivalents and in 10 more years we will see serious companies that are publicly listed developing large scale financial games. Whether they have any connection at all to existing tech (99% of which I think are not just bad but actively toxic scams) is tenuous at best.

sjtindell 5y ago

I commented this further down and am interested in your thoughts. One thing I’ve come to appreciate more when we talk about the “real value” being produced is that these are essentially just money games. Lots of established Wall Street firms play money games for a (very, very good) living. I’ve come to accept more that what people on Wall Street do is real. Games are real. I don’t personally buy into the “new world currency”, “real world use case, I’m gonna own my house on a blockchain” lines of thinking. The use case is still being fleshed out but in my opinion it’s much more likely to produce lots of Citadels than lots of Amazons or Googles if that makes sense. Whereas I think that HN believes it will just go away because it’s all a scam. For better or worse, there is huge pent up demand for money games. The average person doesn’t know it yet, but they want to own a swap on an option to buy a percent of the interest of a bond deal that they can then stake for percent ownership in an nft. It sounds insane to you and me right now. But I think they’re going to evolve to the use case of crypto, not the other way around.

breuleux 5y ago
I guess I can understand the idea of blockchains as a better way to play financial games. That's a valid use for which there is demand. Another use I can understand is hedging against political instability. Neither personally appeal to me, but I get it. Still, it seems to me that an awful lot of people are playing this game with scant knowledge of the rules or of what's involved, which is a bit like investing in Tesla without understanding what a car is. I also feel that a lot of the "value" that has been built up is predicated on the idea that Bitcoin (and/or other coins) will indeed become the new world currency. I have seen a few people saying this very thing (or close to it) in this post's comments. That's not to say they are wrong. However, if the outcome of defi is limited to playing financial games, there is a point where people will lose confidence in this "new world currency" forecast and the price of BTC will see a severe correction. And that's one thing that I find bothersome in this whole craze: the fact that many ideas in the crypto space have legitimate value does not imply that it is profitable to invest in any existing technology. The future CAN be defi at the same time that Bitcoin might crash to zero, if it happens to be the wrong horse. Worse yet, existing entrenched interests in cryto have a vested interest in making sure that the only technologies that succeed are those they have a stake in, so if Bitcoin succeeds, that may very well be at the expense of vastly superior technology. I think there is a very real risk that the success of Bitcoin will either prevent or significantly delay the emergence of good, efficient blockchain technology.
- sjtindell 5y ago
  One of the most realistic takes in this thread, thanks for sharing. I strongly agree. I am severely disillusioned about the early promises of crypto that I espoused. I have settled more on your view, but I think we will cull out the garbage pets.com equivalents and in 10 more years we will see serious companies that are publicly listed developing large scale financial games. Whether they have any connection at all to existing tech (99% of which I think are not just bad but actively toxic scams) is tenuous at best.