4 ms·

Despite my cynical tone, I don’t see inequality as a primary outcome of commerce, either; I do see the increased exchange of goods that the crypto economy bring

by ppqqrr 4y ago

Despite my cynical tone, I don’t see inequality as a primary outcome of commerce, either; I do see the increased exchange of goods that the crypto economy brings as a general positive. But it’s almost always been the case that the more commerce happens, the more extreme the gap between the rich and the poor becomes; arguably it’s not always a bad thing, as long as everyone’s getting a piece of the pie. I’m just speculating on why there’s big money rolling into crypto, and there will continue to be.

selimthegrim 4y ago
I question your assumption about the velocity of money belonging to rich people. Barring flash trading, if they’re not hoarding it and collecting interest, they’re spending it on real goods or investing? Isn’t that more along the lines of what seibelj said? Aren’t the rich mode likely to sit and let it collect interest?
- ppqqrr 4y ago
  Sure, they like to have “their money do the work,” but they still have to find (or grow) a system where large capitals can sit and collect interests.
seibelj 4y ago
There is big money coming into crypto because it is rebuilding the financial system with software protocols, assembled into building blocks, and each block is tokenized like a stock. It’s like being able to invest in TCP at the dawn of the internet. You can say this is a bad idea, illegal, and so on, but fundamentally this is what’s happening and the reason why VCs are investing. The surest way to get rich in the world without using a gun or getting into a position of political power and stealing, is to create something people want to use voluntarily. If I create a new widget and convince 10 million people to give me $10, I have $100 million of revenue. Let’s say my expenses are in total 75%. I’ve now made $25 million. This is certainly a princely sum of money, but I made 10 million people’s lives better! Or else they wouldn’t have voluntarily given me money. Certain people would say, “You have $25 million when 99% of so little! This is unfair! You should give (some large percentage) of it back to society for the politicians to decide how to disperse. And this is where I fundamentally disagree. The person who convinces enough people to give them that much money is rare. They have a unique ability to spot market needs, assemble people to work cooperatively, and work towards a goal of delivering widgets that meet the desires of society. I want to let them keep as much of their money as possible because they are highly likely to reinvest it properly, vs. the politicians which have a 99% chance of failure / theft.
- ppqqrr 4y ago
  As I’ve said, I express no judgement as to whether any of this is morally objectionable, or good/bad for society in general. You’re arguing with yourself at this point.
  - seibelj 4y ago
    There are other people here who will read our comment thread and I am hopeful my arguments may encourage people to think differently whether or not you will.

by ppqqrr 4y ago

selimthegrim 4y ago

I question your assumption about the velocity of money belonging to rich people. Barring flash trading, if they’re not hoarding it and collecting interest, they’re spending it on real goods or investing? Isn’t that more along the lines of what seibelj said? Aren’t the rich mode likely to sit and let it collect interest?

ppqqrr 4y ago
Sure, they like to have “their money do the work,” but they still have to find (or grow) a system where large capitals can sit and collect interests.

seibelj 4y ago

There is big money coming into crypto because it is rebuilding the financial system with software protocols, assembled into building blocks, and each block is tokenized like a stock. It’s like being able to invest in TCP at the dawn of the internet. You can say this is a bad idea, illegal, and so on, but fundamentally this is what’s happening and the reason why VCs are investing. The surest way to get rich in the world without using a gun or getting into a position of political power and stealing, is to create something people want to use voluntarily. If I create a new widget and convince 10 million people to give me $10, I have $100 million of revenue. Let’s say my expenses are in total 75%. I’ve now made $25 million. This is certainly a princely sum of money, but I made 10 million people’s lives better! Or else they wouldn’t have voluntarily given me money. Certain people would say, “You have $25 million when 99% of so little! This is unfair! You should give (some large percentage) of it back to society for the politicians to decide how to disperse. And this is where I fundamentally disagree. The person who convinces enough people to give them that much money is rare. They have a unique ability to spot market needs, assemble people to work cooperatively, and work towards a goal of delivering widgets that meet the desires of society. I want to let them keep as much of their money as possible because they are highly likely to reinvest it properly, vs. the politicians which have a 99% chance of failure / theft.

ppqqrr 4y ago
As I’ve said, I express no judgement as to whether any of this is morally objectionable, or good/bad for society in general. You’re arguing with yourself at this point.
- seibelj 4y ago
  There are other people here who will read our comment thread and I am hopeful my arguments may encourage people to think differently whether or not you will.