3 ms·

> 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

> 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
So you acknowledge the strawman argument of valuation, used to discredit the initial point about how marketcaps change when crypto is involved, and then we both agree that the strawman argument cant even be reliably used to discredit the initial point, but then you double down on the only times it can anyway? Just for the sake of a reply? Well good chat. I hope it is insightful to someone that passes by.
- notahacker 4y ago
  The only strawman argument of valuation was you dismissing the OP's perfectly sensible doubts about whether $1T of legal claim to business with actual physical capital and profit expectations was truly equivalent to $1T of cryptographic strings valued because number go up by pointing out technically, their market caps were both calculated in the same way, as if nobody should ever consider fundamentals or how much of the market cap of assets of the respective classes could be realised in a selloff (or indeed how much wash trading took place to completely fake market cap) But yes, your persistence in insisting the conversation should be about what you care about, and not about the original subject matter got me to acknowledge that some cryptoassets - which are unlike the high profile, high market cap unbacked cryptoassets the OP was talking about - imitate stocks and may generate future revenue streams from selling things other than tokens. Glad you enjoyed that bit. I do hope the insight passers by come away with isn't that DAOs and stocks have equally strong legal claims and rosy expectations and float is all that matters though.

yieldcrv 4y ago

So you acknowledge the strawman argument of valuation, used to discredit the initial point about how marketcaps change when crypto is involved, and then we both agree that the strawman argument cant even be reliably used to discredit the initial point, but then you double down on the only times it can anyway? Just for the sake of a reply? Well good chat. I hope it is insightful to someone that passes by.

notahacker 4y ago
The only strawman argument of valuation was you dismissing the OP's perfectly sensible doubts about whether $1T of legal claim to business with actual physical capital and profit expectations was truly equivalent to $1T of cryptographic strings valued because number go up by pointing out technically, their market caps were both calculated in the same way, as if nobody should ever consider fundamentals or how much of the market cap of assets of the respective classes could be realised in a selloff (or indeed how much wash trading took place to completely fake market cap) But yes, your persistence in insisting the conversation should be about what you care about, and not about the original subject matter got me to acknowledge that some cryptoassets - which are unlike the high profile, high market cap unbacked cryptoassets the OP was talking about - imitate stocks and may generate future revenue streams from selling things other than tokens. Glad you enjoyed that bit. I do hope the insight passers by come away with isn't that DAOs and stocks have equally strong legal claims and rosy expectations and float is all that matters though.