3 ms·

It's a transfer of wealth from those with surplus capital, who are looking to expend that capital on entertainment, to those on the brink of starvation, so yes

It's a transfer of wealth from those with surplus capital, who are looking to expend that capital on entertainment, to those on the brink of starvation, so yes it's a good thing. And no, if the transfer is done for entertainment purposes, as many game asset purchases are, it's not a "ponzi" scheme. >>Gains are illusory in aggregate. Gains might not be illusionary, given they are giving rise to new stores of wealth which can have economic utility. See the essay on the rise of physical collectibles 30 some thousand years ago.

arcticbull 5y ago
> It's a transfer of wealth from those with surplus capital, who are looking to expend that capital on entertainment, to those on the brink of starvation, so yes it's a good thing. I mean, you can make the same exact argument about any exploitation of poor people for entertainment purposes. Your description maps perfectly to Bumfights. I think most would agree that your description alone does not make an intrinsically good system, let alone a moral one. > And no, if the transfer is done for entertainment purposes, as many game asset purchases are, it's not a "ponzi" scheme. The rich folks are buying in to make a gain, not entertain themselves. They are 100% of liquidity. The system is unproductive and yields nothing of external economic value but purports an increased value over time via 'number go up' all while operators slowly bleed capital out of the system. This is a Ponzi scheme. Ask yourself, would it work if money weren't involved in any way? > Gains might not be illusionary, given they are giving rise to new stores of wealth which can have economic utility. Charles Ponzi and Bernie Madoff were just ahead of their time, apparently. Given sufficient mental gymnastics, they too could have been captains of industry. Bernie after all gave rise to a new store of value! Shares of Bernard L Madoff Investment Securities LLC with meaningful economic utility! You could even lend them to others to earn a yield via a brokerage, I suspect! Alas, time makes fools of us all.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  >>I mean, you can make the same exact argument about any exploitation of poor people for entertainment purposes Paying poor people, who are grateful for the opportunity to feed their family, is not exploitiation. People heeding your admonishments against 'exploitation' would lead to more suffering, and no party being better off. It's pure politicization of interactions, at the expense of actual real life humans. >>The rich folks are buying in to make a gain, not entertain themselves It's a game, with a competitive element, so obviously some proportion are playing for entertainment. >>Charles Ponzi and Bernie Madoff were just ahead of their time, apparently. Given sufficient mental gymnastics, they too could have been captains of industry. Your hyperbolic comparison, between a game with digital assets, and actual ponzi schemes, is immature. And arguing that digital assets, which become far more durable forms of property when NFTized on blockchains, can find economic utility as a store of value, is a completely reasonable argument, and your extreme reaction to this, full of snark and hyperbole, suggests your stance on this is far too motivated by emotion and bias to assess it.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    > Paying poor people, who are grateful for the opportunity to feed their family, is not exploitiation. People heeding your admonishments against 'exploitation' would lead to more suffering, and no party being better off. It's pure politicization of interactions, at the expense of actual real life humans. I mean it depends on what you’re paying them to do and how much you’re paying them. Axie “players” now make on average less than minimum wage in the Philippines and continued earnings depends on more people buying into the ponzi. > Your hyperbolic comparison, between a game with digital assets, and actual ponzi schemes, is immature. The economics are clear and you haven’t really disputed them except by invoking the intangible magic of the blockchain and digital assets.
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      >>Axie “players” now make on average less than minimum wage in the Philippines and continued earnings depends on more people buying into the ponzi. The minimum wage in the PH is zero, with millions unemployed, and many more than normal, due to lockdown restrictions. Axie saved many lives, and if you were to put aside your agenda, and objectively study this, you'd find out how many people in the Philippines who were on the brink are grateful for the lifeline Axie provided them. >>The economics are clear and you haven’t really disputed them except by invoking the intangible magic of the blockchain and digital assets. Collectibles don't suddenly become "ponzi schemes" (!) when they become digital or are issued on blockchains. Your analogy is absurd, but I suppose that's ok, given the abundance of hyperbole on the pro-blockchain side.

arcticbull 5y ago

> It's a transfer of wealth from those with surplus capital, who are looking to expend that capital on entertainment, to those on the brink of starvation, so yes it's a good thing. I mean, you can make the same exact argument about any exploitation of poor people for entertainment purposes. Your description maps perfectly to Bumfights. I think most would agree that your description alone does not make an intrinsically good system, let alone a moral one. > And no, if the transfer is done for entertainment purposes, as many game asset purchases are, it's not a "ponzi" scheme. The rich folks are buying in to make a gain, not entertain themselves. They are 100% of liquidity. The system is unproductive and yields nothing of external economic value but purports an increased value over time via 'number go up' all while operators slowly bleed capital out of the system. This is a Ponzi scheme. Ask yourself, would it work if money weren't involved in any way? > Gains might not be illusionary, given they are giving rise to new stores of wealth which can have economic utility. Charles Ponzi and Bernie Madoff were just ahead of their time, apparently. Given sufficient mental gymnastics, they too could have been captains of industry. Bernie after all gave rise to a new store of value! Shares of Bernard L Madoff Investment Securities LLC with meaningful economic utility! You could even lend them to others to earn a yield via a brokerage, I suspect! Alas, time makes fools of us all.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>I mean, you can make the same exact argument about any exploitation of poor people for entertainment purposes Paying poor people, who are grateful for the opportunity to feed their family, is not exploitiation. People heeding your admonishments against 'exploitation' would lead to more suffering, and no party being better off. It's pure politicization of interactions, at the expense of actual real life humans. >>The rich folks are buying in to make a gain, not entertain themselves It's a game, with a competitive element, so obviously some proportion are playing for entertainment. >>Charles Ponzi and Bernie Madoff were just ahead of their time, apparently. Given sufficient mental gymnastics, they too could have been captains of industry. Your hyperbolic comparison, between a game with digital assets, and actual ponzi schemes, is immature. And arguing that digital assets, which become far more durable forms of property when NFTized on blockchains, can find economic utility as a store of value, is a completely reasonable argument, and your extreme reaction to this, full of snark and hyperbole, suggests your stance on this is far too motivated by emotion and bias to assess it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- arcticbull 5y ago
  > Paying poor people, who are grateful for the opportunity to feed their family, is not exploitiation. People heeding your admonishments against 'exploitation' would lead to more suffering, and no party being better off. It's pure politicization of interactions, at the expense of actual real life humans. I mean it depends on what you’re paying them to do and how much you’re paying them. Axie “players” now make on average less than minimum wage in the Philippines and continued earnings depends on more people buying into the ponzi. > Your hyperbolic comparison, between a game with digital assets, and actual ponzi schemes, is immature. The economics are clear and you haven’t really disputed them except by invoking the intangible magic of the blockchain and digital assets.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    >>Axie “players” now make on average less than minimum wage in the Philippines and continued earnings depends on more people buying into the ponzi. The minimum wage in the PH is zero, with millions unemployed, and many more than normal, due to lockdown restrictions. Axie saved many lives, and if you were to put aside your agenda, and objectively study this, you'd find out how many people in the Philippines who were on the brink are grateful for the lifeline Axie provided them. >>The economics are clear and you haven’t really disputed them except by invoking the intangible magic of the blockchain and digital assets. Collectibles don't suddenly become "ponzi schemes" (!) when they become digital or are issued on blockchains. Your analogy is absurd, but I suppose that's ok, given the abundance of hyperbole on the pro-blockchain side.