5 ms·

> Any stocks, bond, commodity, currency, set of assets, all experience the same phenomenon: where none of daily or weekly the marketcap changes have anything to

> Any stocks, bond, commodity, currency, set of assets, all experience the same phenomenon: where none of daily or weekly the marketcap changes have anything to do with the equivalent amount of money changing hands. Stocks have two parts to the market cap values - the value of assets and revenue, and the speculative value of future asset/revenue values. Bonds have promises of their assigned values and dividend payouts. Commodities are useful. Currency is the closest, of course, but then it has the promises of some government - a government that can tax the income of their people, and enforce that taxation. Only cryptocurrency, among them, only has the value of what you hope to sell it for. In the moment, it's a consensus price, but the value only goes up based on speculation that it will go up enough for your individual purposes, or somehow that particular cryptocurrency will useful enough to hold value beyond speculation.

yieldcrv 4y ago
none of the daily or weekly marketcap changes have anything to do with the equivalent amount of money changing hands you have said nothing to the contrary
- saalweachter 4y ago
  The S&P 500 performs about a half a trillion dollars a year in stock buybacks, funded by corporate profits, in addition to their roughly half a trillion dollars a year in dividends, because people are happier when numbers go up.
  - yieldcrv 4y ago
    none of the daily or weekly marketcap changes have anything to do with the equivalent amount of money changing hands you also have said nothing to the contrary basically the commonality is that you two are attempting to have a conversation on differences valuation models, when this isn't a conversation on valuation models. everyone understands that this is thinly veiled copypasta for why you respect one asset class and don’t respect another asset class, some people love to read that stuff but this isn’t what this conversation is about. its a conversation on float and what float does and does not convey. the limitations of what float can convey is the same across all asset classes which is that the last traded price of a small portion of the supply is multiplied by the total supply, and this does not factor in how much could be sold at that price and does not factor in how the buyer and seller agreed upon that price or if there was any pricing projections or valuation metrics involved at all.
    - saalweachter 4y ago
      Someone spending 0.5 crypto-market-caps buying stock doesn't affect stock prices and market caps?
    - notahacker 4y ago
      > the limitations of what float can convey is the same across all asset classes which is that the last traded price of a small portion of the supply is multiplied by the total supply, and this does not factor in how much could be sold at that price and does not factor in how the buyer and seller agreed upon that price or if there was any pricing projections or valuation metrics involved at all. The limitations of what float can convey may be the same across all asset classes, but other asset classes do not suffer the limitation that there is no source of value except for the float. A corollary of this is that market caps of stocks, bonds or commodities may reflect valuation metrics other than Greater Fool Theory.
      - yieldcrv 4y ago
        > A corollary of this is that market caps of stocks, bonds or commodities may reflect valuation metrics other than Greater Fool Theory. That’s true for some crypto assets as well. So in a conversation about float you should stick to float.
        notahacker 4y ago
        > That’s true for some crypto assets as well. > So in a conversation about float you should stick to float. It is true that in some crypto assets value can be realised as claims to the sort of value the OP said they understood, like future revenues of a business (or "DAO"), instead of solely by finding buyers for the crypto. But it is not true for the typical "insular, self-contained" cryptocurrency they sought to contrast it with, in which the market cap can be realised solely by sufficiently deep-pocketed Greater Fools purchasing the float. In a conversation about the fundamental weirdness of assets whose value can only be realised by float, one probably should stick to assets whose value can only be realised by float.

yieldcrv 4y ago

none of the daily or weekly marketcap changes have anything to do with the equivalent amount of money changing hands you have said nothing to the contrary

saalweachter 4y ago
The S&P 500 performs about a half a trillion dollars a year in stock buybacks, funded by corporate profits, in addition to their roughly half a trillion dollars a year in dividends, because people are happier when numbers go up.
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  none of the daily or weekly marketcap changes have anything to do with the equivalent amount of money changing hands you also have said nothing to the contrary basically the commonality is that you two are attempting to have a conversation on differences valuation models, when this isn't a conversation on valuation models. everyone understands that this is thinly veiled copypasta for why you respect one asset class and don’t respect another asset class, some people love to read that stuff but this isn’t what this conversation is about. its a conversation on float and what float does and does not convey. the limitations of what float can convey is the same across all asset classes which is that the last traded price of a small portion of the supply is multiplied by the total supply, and this does not factor in how much could be sold at that price and does not factor in how the buyer and seller agreed upon that price or if there was any pricing projections or valuation metrics involved at all.
  - saalweachter 4y ago
    Someone spending 0.5 crypto-market-caps buying stock doesn't affect stock prices and market caps?
  - notahacker 4y ago
    > the limitations of what float can convey is the same across all asset classes which is that the last traded price of a small portion of the supply is multiplied by the total supply, and this does not factor in how much could be sold at that price and does not factor in how the buyer and seller agreed upon that price or if there was any pricing projections or valuation metrics involved at all. The limitations of what float can convey may be the same across all asset classes, but other asset classes do not suffer the limitation that there is no source of value except for the float. A corollary of this is that market caps of stocks, bonds or commodities may reflect valuation metrics other than Greater Fool Theory.
    - yieldcrv 4y ago
      > A corollary of this is that market caps of stocks, bonds or commodities may reflect valuation metrics other than Greater Fool Theory. That’s true for some crypto assets as well. So in a conversation about float you should stick to float.
      - notahacker 4y ago
        > That’s true for some crypto assets as well. > So in a conversation about float you should stick to float. It is true that in some crypto assets value can be realised as claims to the sort of value the OP said they understood, like future revenues of a business (or "DAO"), instead of solely by finding buyers for the crypto. But it is not true for the typical "insular, self-contained" cryptocurrency they sought to contrast it with, in which the market cap can be realised solely by sufficiently deep-pocketed Greater Fools purchasing the float. In a conversation about the fundamental weirdness of assets whose value can only be realised by float, one probably should stick to assets whose value can only be realised by float.