34 ms·

> The commonality with the Ponzi Scheme is that returns are solely based on others continued investment and that the value collapses if they stop doing this con

by awb 5y ago

> The commonality with the Ponzi Scheme is that returns are solely based on others continued investment and that the value collapses if they stop doing this continuously. You could say that about lots of investments: * art * non-voting stock shares * coins/stamps * etc. Anything with limited/finite supply can increase in value provided there is demand. Who’s to say that someone’s enjoyment of a piece of modern art is somehow more real or valuable than someone’s enjoyment of holding Bitcoin? Bitcoin also has some utility as a transaction medium. The debate is wether or not it’s a smart investment, but as far as investments go it’s characteristics are not unlike many other forms that have provided sustained returns for decades, centuries or more.

arcticbull 5y ago
> * non-voting stock shares No. Share value isn't determined by voting rights alone. It's determined by your ownership stake in a productive enterprise. You own a share of assets and future cash flows whether you vote or not. At some point every business will make a distribution - either share buybacks, dividends or at dissolution. Your share entitles you to a fraction of that. Shares have value regardless of whether someone else will buy them from you. It may be less than you paid, but that's not the same thing. > Art, coins stamps. These are much closer to NFTs than they are crypto. Each is unique. Due to their uniqueness there isn't a party constantly extracting value from your existing unique items (as miners do, by constantly producing more Bitcoin and selling it to pay their electric bills). > Bitcoin also has some utility as a transaction medium. It really doesn't.
- deweller 5y ago
  >> Bitcoin also has some utility as a transaction medium. > It really doesn't. It is pretty difficult to support an argument that Bitcoin has zero value as a transaction medium.
  - sascha_sl 5y ago
    No really. The one use, buying things on black markets, is much better served by Monero.
    - awb 5y ago
      Saying you prefer Monero does not invalidate the fact that Bitcoin transactions are a regular occurrence.
- awb 5y ago
  > At some point every business will make a distribution Except for bankruptcy. Plus, I can’t remember an instance of common share holders receiving a non-dividend distribution. Some stocks don’t pay dividends and common share holders are at the back of the line in any liquidation event. If it’s not pure speculation it’s certainly in the ballpark.

by awb 5y ago

arcticbull 5y ago

> * non-voting stock shares No. Share value isn't determined by voting rights alone. It's determined by your ownership stake in a productive enterprise. You own a share of assets and future cash flows whether you vote or not. At some point every business will make a distribution - either share buybacks, dividends or at dissolution. Your share entitles you to a fraction of that. Shares have value regardless of whether someone else will buy them from you. It may be less than you paid, but that's not the same thing. > Art, coins stamps. These are much closer to NFTs than they are crypto. Each is unique. Due to their uniqueness there isn't a party constantly extracting value from your existing unique items (as miners do, by constantly producing more Bitcoin and selling it to pay their electric bills). > Bitcoin also has some utility as a transaction medium. It really doesn't.

deweller 5y ago
>> Bitcoin also has some utility as a transaction medium. > It really doesn't. It is pretty difficult to support an argument that Bitcoin has zero value as a transaction medium.
- sascha_sl 5y ago
  No really. The one use, buying things on black markets, is much better served by Monero.
  - awb 5y ago
    Saying you prefer Monero does not invalidate the fact that Bitcoin transactions are a regular occurrence.
awb 5y ago
> At some point every business will make a distribution Except for bankruptcy. Plus, I can’t remember an instance of common share holders receiving a non-dividend distribution. Some stocks don’t pay dividends and common share holders are at the back of the line in any liquidation event. If it’s not pure speculation it’s certainly in the ballpark.