10 ms·

I bought ETH when it was $7 back in 2017 and participated in literally every single investment I could until about 2019, resulting in 7 figure returns. I would

by buf 4y ago

I bought ETH when it was $7 back in 2017 and participated in literally every single investment I could until about 2019, resulting in 7 figure returns. I wouldn't touch the stuff now. The ability for regular people to invest in crypto back then made the ponzi-like architecture of it worth the risk. Now the VCs are trying to push their agendas, and it's blatantly obvious it's vapor.

agentdrtran 4y ago
Investing in ponzi schemes early is better than later, yeah.
iamnotarobotman 4y ago
Any receipts?
pembrook 4y ago
Wait...what? You’re complaining about VCs pushing vapor while simultaneously admitting you participated in pumping “ponzi-like” schemes on regular people? You do realize those 7 figure returns you made were a direct wealth transfer from later-stage victims of the ponzi to you? I’m astonished you’re claiming moral superiority over VCs while sitting on wealth you took from thousands of poor people in places like Vietnam, India, Brazil, Nigeria, etc. (whom were all later stage investors in these crypto schemes).
- tim333 4y ago
  >7 figure returns you made were a direct wealth transfer from later-stage victims of the ponzi to you? That would be true if there is no value in what was sold but taking ETH that he bought for $7, in 2019 when he sold it was about $250 and is now about $1500 so people buying ETH then would have done just fine. Ponzi schemes are cons that collapse, not open source assets that go up for years and years.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  Not sure about Ether, but there are plenty of people that 'bought in' to the Bitcoin idea and mined some coins early on without 'taking wealth from others'. VCs are in there for entirely different reasons, and 'later stage investors' are always at risk of having their hair cut if what they invest in isn't worth what they paid for it, after all, they too were trying to take money from later day suckers. I never paid a cent for any bitcoin, but I did pay about $100 to my electricity company to mine some just for the heck of it (and ended up giving it all away).
  - smallpipe 4y ago
    > mined some coins early on without 'taking wealth from others' And how exactly did these mined coins become USD ?
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      They never did. They left me as coins and I got exactly $0 in return. It's called a gift.
      - headsoup 4y ago
        You still would have given that same gift when Bitcoin was over $50K?
        jacquesm 4y ago
        Yes, that's exactly what I did. And as for virtue signalling, (see sibling comment) I really don't care what you or others think about that.
        aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
        So we're all on the same page: You gave away multiple BTC @ > $50kUSD/ea?
        aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
- davidguetta 4y ago
  Early investors were excited by the technology, not the promise of quick gains and speculation, like VC nowadays.. that probably where his "superiori moral", provided he meant it that way which I doubt, are. A lot of people think crypto are plain useless but that is just wrong in practice. They are de facto actual "currency", which is already a lot especially for people in third world countries whose national currencies have gone down relatively to the dollar (venezuela, lebanon, turkey). Any of these people have been better off investing in crypto than in their local banks. It's diversification.
  - buf 4y ago
    Yes, this. I had to difficult time replying to pembrook because their reply was so venomous that I felt out of breath by just how far off the mark pembrook was to how it was for me in 2017. Crypto in 2017 really felt like the beginning of something big and amazing, like we were going to change the world's currency, solve reputation, etc. Me personally, I've been weathered by the constant fraud. I still 'believe' in it, like I did in 2017, but I don't invest in it.
    - prepend 4y ago
      Seemed like vapor in 2017 to me. I felt bad like it was scamming people who were dumb out of their money. Once I looked at how the prices rose and the at didn’t support the Eth use case, I thought the architecture was stupid or at worst built purposely to have unnecessary scarcity to drive prices up.
  - headsoup 4y ago
    You mean had been better off, for a little while.
  - dboreham 4y ago
    Unrelated, but: love your music.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - 4y ago
- lfkdev 4y ago
  Are you trying to say that ehtereum is a ponzi scheme? Do you think Bitcoin is also one? Don't get me wrong, there are alot of scams in the Crypto szene (like in any scene with a lot of money and not much regulation) but there are also legit, interesting projects. And to be clear; Ethereum is of course not a ponzi-scheme.
  - headsoup 4y ago
    Do you think Bitcoin reaching ~$70K was purely legitimate?
    - alchemist1e9 4y ago
      It’s an interesting question that for me I can’t give an answer because it has be thinking what does “legitimate” mean in the context of a market. What would make a market melt up illegitimate? Traditionally I was taught that pump and dump and painting the tape are illegitimate market behaviors. Otherwise is a mania illegitimate or isn’t it just a natural market phenomenon?
  - kumarvvr 4y ago
    Blockchain is a technology. Crypto curriencies, I will consider them ponzi schemes as long as they are marketed as investments If they are marketed as temporary, volatile, risky currencies, then sure, they are not a scam. The whole crypto industry reeks of sensationalism and trapping gullible idiots who are fed dreams of "returns".
  - bnralt 4y ago
    They're speculative assets bubbles (hence the enormous price swings). People refer to them as Ponzi schemes because a speculative asset bubble is similar, though the two aren't technically the same thing. But neither are good for the economy, with everyone making money by leaving someone worse off. If you invest in a company you can be investing in a productive asset that will produce more than you put in. You get a cut, but society does as well, and everyone is better off. With crypto, you're getting your money from the person you offload the crypto to. You're richer, they're poorer. They can try to offload it to someone else, but eventually someone will be left holding the bag. Things that can't go on forever, won't. Even in the highly unlikely best case scenario where these assets stabilize at high prices, you're expanding the monetary base and getting your money by inflicting price inflation on the rest of society (the amount of products isn't increased, but the amount of currency trying to get those products will be).
garyrob 4y ago
Like most other new technologies, crypto is going through a hype-and-bust cycle, but greatly exaggerated because of the possibility of crazy ponzi-like speculation, and for people who know nothing about what it really is to get highly involved financially, seeming to make wild profits before the inevitable popping of the speculative bubble. Most new technologies don't have remotely the same degree of opportunities for utter craziness. BUT... that does not mean that the technology is fundamentally BS. It just means that it happens to be extraordinarily susceptible to the kinds of abuses we are seeing. This year, Ethereum will become Proof-of-Stake based, and "Layer 2" solutions will be emerging which greatly reduce transactions costs, and sharding will be emerging that will GREATLY reduce transaction costs. It's a real technology with a real future. And to transact with Eth you'll need to own Eth, providing non-ponzi motivation to buy, and it will be a deflationary currency (i.e. there will be less of it over time rather than more). IFF the tech is successful, its price may still go up by a LOT. I don't know that it will be successful, but I've been following its development closely and I think this is a very competent team making good decisions. I'm bullish on Ethereum long-term. Once it's converted to PoS, it will have by far the largest market cap of any PoS chain, and the security of a PoS chain is ultimately based on its market cap (and how decentralized it is, something the Ethereum world is very aware of). So, it should be the most secure PoS chain, as well as having at least as much high-quality technical development going on as any other when you include the Layer 2 teams. But it will take a few years for many of the practical potentialities to start to be manifested in the real world. It needs Layer 2 and sharding before it will happen. In between now and then, the price of Eth is anyone's guess. I don't think anything, in particular, should be read into any short-term price trends. Instead, the question should be whether the fundamental technology is moving forward toward its goals, and whether another technology emerges in the meantime that has the same potential benefits but somehow does them better.

by buf 4y ago

agentdrtran 4y ago

Investing in ponzi schemes early is better than later, yeah.

iamnotarobotman 4y ago

Any receipts?

pembrook 4y ago

Wait...what? You’re complaining about VCs pushing vapor while simultaneously admitting you participated in pumping “ponzi-like” schemes on regular people? You do realize those 7 figure returns you made were a direct wealth transfer from later-stage victims of the ponzi to you? I’m astonished you’re claiming moral superiority over VCs while sitting on wealth you took from thousands of poor people in places like Vietnam, India, Brazil, Nigeria, etc. (whom were all later stage investors in these crypto schemes).

tim333 4y ago
>7 figure returns you made were a direct wealth transfer from later-stage victims of the ponzi to you? That would be true if there is no value in what was sold but taking ETH that he bought for $7, in 2019 when he sold it was about $250 and is now about $1500 so people buying ETH then would have done just fine. Ponzi schemes are cons that collapse, not open source assets that go up for years and years.
jacquesm 4y ago
Not sure about Ether, but there are plenty of people that 'bought in' to the Bitcoin idea and mined some coins early on without 'taking wealth from others'. VCs are in there for entirely different reasons, and 'later stage investors' are always at risk of having their hair cut if what they invest in isn't worth what they paid for it, after all, they too were trying to take money from later day suckers. I never paid a cent for any bitcoin, but I did pay about $100 to my electricity company to mine some just for the heck of it (and ended up giving it all away).
- smallpipe 4y ago
  > mined some coins early on without 'taking wealth from others' And how exactly did these mined coins become USD ?
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    They never did. They left me as coins and I got exactly $0 in return. It's called a gift.
    - headsoup 4y ago
      You still would have given that same gift when Bitcoin was over $50K?
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        Yes, that's exactly what I did. And as for virtue signalling, (see sibling comment) I really don't care what you or others think about that.
        aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
        So we're all on the same page: You gave away multiple BTC @ > $50kUSD/ea?
      - aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
davidguetta 4y ago
Early investors were excited by the technology, not the promise of quick gains and speculation, like VC nowadays.. that probably where his "superiori moral", provided he meant it that way which I doubt, are. A lot of people think crypto are plain useless but that is just wrong in practice. They are de facto actual "currency", which is already a lot especially for people in third world countries whose national currencies have gone down relatively to the dollar (venezuela, lebanon, turkey). Any of these people have been better off investing in crypto than in their local banks. It's diversification.
- buf 4y ago
  Yes, this. I had to difficult time replying to pembrook because their reply was so venomous that I felt out of breath by just how far off the mark pembrook was to how it was for me in 2017. Crypto in 2017 really felt like the beginning of something big and amazing, like we were going to change the world's currency, solve reputation, etc. Me personally, I've been weathered by the constant fraud. I still 'believe' in it, like I did in 2017, but I don't invest in it.
  - prepend 4y ago
    Seemed like vapor in 2017 to me. I felt bad like it was scamming people who were dumb out of their money. Once I looked at how the prices rose and the at didn’t support the Eth use case, I thought the architecture was stupid or at worst built purposely to have unnecessary scarcity to drive prices up.
- headsoup 4y ago
  You mean had been better off, for a little while.
- dboreham 4y ago
  Unrelated, but: love your music.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- 4y ago
lfkdev 4y ago
Are you trying to say that ehtereum is a ponzi scheme? Do you think Bitcoin is also one? Don't get me wrong, there are alot of scams in the Crypto szene (like in any scene with a lot of money and not much regulation) but there are also legit, interesting projects. And to be clear; Ethereum is of course not a ponzi-scheme.
- headsoup 4y ago
  Do you think Bitcoin reaching ~$70K was purely legitimate?
  - alchemist1e9 4y ago
    It’s an interesting question that for me I can’t give an answer because it has be thinking what does “legitimate” mean in the context of a market. What would make a market melt up illegitimate? Traditionally I was taught that pump and dump and painting the tape are illegitimate market behaviors. Otherwise is a mania illegitimate or isn’t it just a natural market phenomenon?
- kumarvvr 4y ago
  Blockchain is a technology. Crypto curriencies, I will consider them ponzi schemes as long as they are marketed as investments If they are marketed as temporary, volatile, risky currencies, then sure, they are not a scam. The whole crypto industry reeks of sensationalism and trapping gullible idiots who are fed dreams of "returns".
- bnralt 4y ago
  They're speculative assets bubbles (hence the enormous price swings). People refer to them as Ponzi schemes because a speculative asset bubble is similar, though the two aren't technically the same thing. But neither are good for the economy, with everyone making money by leaving someone worse off. If you invest in a company you can be investing in a productive asset that will produce more than you put in. You get a cut, but society does as well, and everyone is better off. With crypto, you're getting your money from the person you offload the crypto to. You're richer, they're poorer. They can try to offload it to someone else, but eventually someone will be left holding the bag. Things that can't go on forever, won't. Even in the highly unlikely best case scenario where these assets stabilize at high prices, you're expanding the monetary base and getting your money by inflicting price inflation on the rest of society (the amount of products isn't increased, but the amount of currency trying to get those products will be).

garyrob 4y ago

Like most other new technologies, crypto is going through a hype-and-bust cycle, but greatly exaggerated because of the possibility of crazy ponzi-like speculation, and for people who know nothing about what it really is to get highly involved financially, seeming to make wild profits before the inevitable popping of the speculative bubble. Most new technologies don't have remotely the same degree of opportunities for utter craziness. BUT... that does not mean that the technology is fundamentally BS. It just means that it happens to be extraordinarily susceptible to the kinds of abuses we are seeing. This year, Ethereum will become Proof-of-Stake based, and "Layer 2" solutions will be emerging which greatly reduce transactions costs, and sharding will be emerging that will GREATLY reduce transaction costs. It's a real technology with a real future. And to transact with Eth you'll need to own Eth, providing non-ponzi motivation to buy, and it will be a deflationary currency (i.e. there will be less of it over time rather than more). IFF the tech is successful, its price may still go up by a LOT. I don't know that it will be successful, but I've been following its development closely and I think this is a very competent team making good decisions. I'm bullish on Ethereum long-term. Once it's converted to PoS, it will have by far the largest market cap of any PoS chain, and the security of a PoS chain is ultimately based on its market cap (and how decentralized it is, something the Ethereum world is very aware of). So, it should be the most secure PoS chain, as well as having at least as much high-quality technical development going on as any other when you include the Layer 2 teams. But it will take a few years for many of the practical potentialities to start to be manifested in the real world. It needs Layer 2 and sharding before it will happen. In between now and then, the price of Eth is anyone's guess. I don't think anything, in particular, should be read into any short-term price trends. Instead, the question should be whether the fundamental technology is moving forward toward its goals, and whether another technology emerges in the meantime that has the same potential benefits but somehow does them better.