4 ms·

> A Ponzi Scheme is where the sum of all investor's reported account values exceed the total value of assets held by the institution. Which is exactly what Tet

by _xnmw 5y ago

> A Ponzi Scheme is where the sum of all investor's reported account values exceed the total value of assets held by the institution. Which is exactly what Tether, other stablecoins, and a lot of shady centralized exchanges did. They report account values in USD, coin market caps in USD, total on-chain trading volumes in USD, where are there is often no USD to be found anywhere, just lots of digital play-money being thrown around. It's a completely false report of account values, so while Bitcoin itself might not fit the strict definition of a Ponzi, many of the enterprises operating in the ecosystem do. [1] Anyone Seen Tether’s Billions? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-10-07/crypto-mystery-where-s-the-69-billion-backing-the-stablecoin-tether https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-10-07/crypto-my...

andrewla 5y ago
Sure; you want to accuse Tether of being a Ponzi Scheme? I think it fits the plain definition to some degree. The points that have to be dealt with are: 1. How much tether is held by Tether itself (and thus is a self-cancelling asset) vs. how much is held by outsiders (and does Bitfinex count as an outsider?) 2. What is the fair-market valuation of Tether-held assets. A bank may have non-cash assets (like outstanding loans); that does not make it fraudulent unless the valuations are fraudulent, and does not necessarily make it insolvent. Regardless this doesn't make Bitcoin into a Ponzi. To even connect it to Bitcoin, the question is to what degree fraudulently issued tether affects the market for other cryptocurrencies? Madoff, for example, was a Ponzi that "operated in the ecosystem" of traditional finance, but that does not taint the stock market by definition. I continue to feel that stablecoins are far more dangerous than floating cryptocurrencies because they are piggybacking off of the legal status of sovereign currencies but are not under their supervision, so like S&L or LTCM they are a shadow banking system that imposes two-way risks on finance systems. But this doesn't really affect my thinking around floating cryptocurrencies in any significant way.
- PikachuEXE 5y ago
  I think for "stablecoins are far more dangerous" you mean stablecoins backed by same amount of currency/fiat/asset? For example UST stablecoin from Terra maintains the price in another way.

by _xnmw 5y ago

andrewla 5y ago

Sure; you want to accuse Tether of being a Ponzi Scheme? I think it fits the plain definition to some degree. The points that have to be dealt with are: 1. How much tether is held by Tether itself (and thus is a self-cancelling asset) vs. how much is held by outsiders (and does Bitfinex count as an outsider?) 2. What is the fair-market valuation of Tether-held assets. A bank may have non-cash assets (like outstanding loans); that does not make it fraudulent unless the valuations are fraudulent, and does not necessarily make it insolvent. Regardless this doesn't make Bitcoin into a Ponzi. To even connect it to Bitcoin, the question is to what degree fraudulently issued tether affects the market for other cryptocurrencies? Madoff, for example, was a Ponzi that "operated in the ecosystem" of traditional finance, but that does not taint the stock market by definition. I continue to feel that stablecoins are far more dangerous than floating cryptocurrencies because they are piggybacking off of the legal status of sovereign currencies but are not under their supervision, so like S&L or LTCM they are a shadow banking system that imposes two-way risks on finance systems. But this doesn't really affect my thinking around floating cryptocurrencies in any significant way.

PikachuEXE 5y ago
I think for "stablecoins are far more dangerous" you mean stablecoins backed by same amount of currency/fiat/asset? For example UST stablecoin from Terra maintains the price in another way.