3 ms·

How does this enable new people to play? The rich can still gamble the most and come in early to earn the biggest rewards. The poor still take the highest risk

by dagmx 5y ago

How does this enable new people to play? The rich can still gamble the most and come in early to earn the biggest rewards. The poor still take the highest risk. As the poor buy more into it , the rich get richer as well. Maybe the poor get richer but how much money can they lock away? What stopped them from investing that money in the stock market before crypto was around? I fail to see how this creates a new economy. It's the same economy just wearing a new skin. The players are the same players. The winners are the same winners with the same luck of making it big or not to inspire others to get into the hype.

ethbr0 5y ago
Parent is referring to the accredited investor definition in the US [0] specifically ($1M+ in assets as one test), but more broadly to similar financial gatekeeping. I'm skeptical it's an overall social good to remove guard rails that prevent sophisticated sellers from fleecing unsophisticated buyers (say what you want about the SEC, but they do enforce some rules), but I agree the current scheme prevents all people from equally freely investing in all opportunities. [0] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/accreditedinvestor.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/accreditedinvestor.asp
- dagmx 5y ago
  Thanks for the link. I do agree that playing without guardrails is problematic.
iskander 5y ago
> How does this enable new people to play? The rich can still gamble the most and come in early to earn the biggest rewards. So far this stuff has circumvented the accredited investor regulations.
sjtindell 5y ago
You’re right, many of the biggest winners are ironically probably the same players. Probably lots of white, well educated, male, geeks. But the barrier to entry is way lower. Consider rules against “pattern day trading”. Sometimes to make more than 2 equity trades in a day, you need $25,000. To invest in anything besides bare equities, bonds, options, you need $1M+. This is US specific, but it’s common. Average people are literally not allowed to trade “exotic derivatives”. Cryptocurrency opens up the option of putting $100, $500 or $1000 (some tokens sell for fractions of fractions of a penny) into a range of games, derivatives, and other assets that you can trade 24/7, 365. You can create one yourself and make it available to everyone in less than 30 minutes, for free. You need a web browser and some money or credit (not much). Pay your taxes, and you’re good to go. The other options available to people are boring and take decades to pay off on average even if you do it right. But they provide the same thing - no one really cares what stock they own. They are speculating, playing money games. I think there is huge pent up demand for money games because it’s so hard to get into “traditional” finance. Even if you get in, there’s very few games available to you on Wall Street. And you’re right it is the same economy, just open to all, and with way more fun ideas like flash loans (impossible in traditional finance), no-loss lotteries, decentralized automated market maker exchanges, tokens you can stake for other tokens that represent the interest and the principle which can then be traded again, etc. Should it be allowed? Up for debate. I’m strongly against any rule that says “you’re too stupid, this is for your own good”.

by dagmx 5y ago

ethbr0 5y ago

Parent is referring to the accredited investor definition in the US [0] specifically ($1M+ in assets as one test), but more broadly to similar financial gatekeeping. I'm skeptical it's an overall social good to remove guard rails that prevent sophisticated sellers from fleecing unsophisticated buyers (say what you want about the SEC, but they do enforce some rules), but I agree the current scheme prevents all people from equally freely investing in all opportunities. [0] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/accreditedinvestor.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/accreditedinvestor.asp

dagmx 5y ago
Thanks for the link. I do agree that playing without guardrails is problematic.

iskander 5y ago

> How does this enable new people to play? The rich can still gamble the most and come in early to earn the biggest rewards. So far this stuff has circumvented the accredited investor regulations.

sjtindell 5y ago

You’re right, many of the biggest winners are ironically probably the same players. Probably lots of white, well educated, male, geeks. But the barrier to entry is way lower. Consider rules against “pattern day trading”. Sometimes to make more than 2 equity trades in a day, you need $25,000. To invest in anything besides bare equities, bonds, options, you need $1M+. This is US specific, but it’s common. Average people are literally not allowed to trade “exotic derivatives”. Cryptocurrency opens up the option of putting $100, $500 or $1000 (some tokens sell for fractions of fractions of a penny) into a range of games, derivatives, and other assets that you can trade 24/7, 365. You can create one yourself and make it available to everyone in less than 30 minutes, for free. You need a web browser and some money or credit (not much). Pay your taxes, and you’re good to go. The other options available to people are boring and take decades to pay off on average even if you do it right. But they provide the same thing - no one really cares what stock they own. They are speculating, playing money games. I think there is huge pent up demand for money games because it’s so hard to get into “traditional” finance. Even if you get in, there’s very few games available to you on Wall Street. And you’re right it is the same economy, just open to all, and with way more fun ideas like flash loans (impossible in traditional finance), no-loss lotteries, decentralized automated market maker exchanges, tokens you can stake for other tokens that represent the interest and the principle which can then be traded again, etc. Should it be allowed? Up for debate. I’m strongly against any rule that says “you’re too stupid, this is for your own good”.