4 ms·

Crypto is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. This is because the poor is hoping to get rich quick. But the rich has all the inside information in a

Crypto is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. This is because the poor is hoping to get rich quick. But the rich has all the inside information in an unregulated environment as well as the ability to pump and dump. Occasionally, someone poor makes money and tells his friends about his new lambo - hoping to get others into the scam/ponzi.

ETH_start 4y ago
Regulations, i.e. centralized control via the SEC, doesn't help the poor. All of the massive returns since the SEC's entry into the crypto market in 2017 have been reserved for venture capital funds. Before 2017, ordinary people were able to participate in Ethereum's token crowdsale and subsequently get returns of 1000X. Narratives like yours are peddled to the poor to manufacture consent for anti-capitalist "consumer protection" laws that deprive them of investment options, so that insiders gain a competitive advantage over them.
- senttoschool 4y ago
  99% of projects that had ICOs before 2017 are dead. All investors were wiped out. Founders who raised money were free to use the money however they want, including for personal purchases, insider trading, etc. Guess who got wiped out the most? The uninformed poor people.
  - ETH_start 4y ago
    The market capitalization of projects that did token sales before 2017 is orders of magnitude greater than the amount invested in token sales before 2017, meaning investors in pre-2017 token sales are, in the aggregate, massively up. This is what venture capital investing is: you invest in 100 projects to hit one homerun. Here is a good paper showing that token sale investments were primarily small, and opening up the venture capital market to the broader public: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11408-020-00366-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11408-020-00366-0 You need to insist otherwise because thousands of regulator jobs, and dozens of venture capital funds, depend on it. The poor are just the propaganda fodder the insiders cynically use to gain a political mandate for their repression of the poor.
    - senttoschool 4y ago
      There's a massive difference between ICOs and VC investments. 1. VCs can fire the CEO/founder of the startup. You can't fire anyone and have zero control as an ICO investor. 2. VCs sit in the board of the startup and get to review performance and finances. ICOs were completely private from their investors. Token founder using $1m project money to buy a yacht? Nothing you can do nor would you know about it. 3. In the US, VCs are registered with the SEC in order to invest in startups. ICOs started by allowing anyone to invest, which preyed on the poor and uninformed. The market capitalization of projects that did token sales before 2017 is orders of magnitude greater than the amount invested in token sales before 2017, meaning investors in pre-2017 token sales are, in the aggregate, massively up. The few lucky ones who invested in Ethereum and held are massively up. The thousands of other projects scammed investors.
      - ETH_start 4y ago
        Massively more people invested in Ethereum than the type of scam projects that were most likely to belly flop. As the study I referenced states, the vast majority of token sale investments were small. This points to a market where people acted rationally, in risking only small amounts on speculative investments, and makes it more likely that a typical token sale investor would spread their investments across a large number of projects. It therefore stands to reason that there was significant overlap across token sale portfolios on larger and better known sales like Ethereum's. >>VCs can fire the CEO/founder of the startup. You can't fire anyone and have zero control as an ICO investor. Not every one can be a VC. Every one could invest in Bitcoin in 2009, and Ethereum in 2015. The code for these projects is open, with no permissioning on who can release a client or run one. Moreover any one can fork the chain. It's an entirely different governance mechanism than that of traditional shareholder controlled startups, and the experiment should not have been stifled by SEC regimentation, under the false call of "investor protection" made by those employed by regulatory agencies and venture capital funds who had a clear financial conflict of interest in benefiting from centralized control over investment activity.
    - pjc50 4y ago
      That link shows this handy graph: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11408-020-00366-0/figures/4 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11408-020-00366-0... Both median absolute return and median excess return are negative. Which of the pre-2017 tokens are you claiming is still up? And why are we choosing 2017? And where have these returns actually come from?
lupire 4y ago
The lambos are rented for the day to make the video for the scam pitch.
throwwawayyt 4y ago
"Occasionally, someone poor makes money and tells his friends about his new lambo - hoping to get others into the scam/ponzi." You missed the mainstream media's role
- pjc50 4y ago
  The mainstream media have been pretty late to crypto, but they have also been easily fooled or paid into writing crypto-positive stories.

ETH_start 4y ago

Regulations, i.e. centralized control via the SEC, doesn't help the poor. All of the massive returns since the SEC's entry into the crypto market in 2017 have been reserved for venture capital funds. Before 2017, ordinary people were able to participate in Ethereum's token crowdsale and subsequently get returns of 1000X. Narratives like yours are peddled to the poor to manufacture consent for anti-capitalist "consumer protection" laws that deprive them of investment options, so that insiders gain a competitive advantage over them.

senttoschool 4y ago
99% of projects that had ICOs before 2017 are dead. All investors were wiped out. Founders who raised money were free to use the money however they want, including for personal purchases, insider trading, etc. Guess who got wiped out the most? The uninformed poor people.
- ETH_start 4y ago
  The market capitalization of projects that did token sales before 2017 is orders of magnitude greater than the amount invested in token sales before 2017, meaning investors in pre-2017 token sales are, in the aggregate, massively up. This is what venture capital investing is: you invest in 100 projects to hit one homerun. Here is a good paper showing that token sale investments were primarily small, and opening up the venture capital market to the broader public: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11408-020-00366-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11408-020-00366-0 You need to insist otherwise because thousands of regulator jobs, and dozens of venture capital funds, depend on it. The poor are just the propaganda fodder the insiders cynically use to gain a political mandate for their repression of the poor.
  - senttoschool 4y ago
    There's a massive difference between ICOs and VC investments. 1. VCs can fire the CEO/founder of the startup. You can't fire anyone and have zero control as an ICO investor. 2. VCs sit in the board of the startup and get to review performance and finances. ICOs were completely private from their investors. Token founder using $1m project money to buy a yacht? Nothing you can do nor would you know about it. 3. In the US, VCs are registered with the SEC in order to invest in startups. ICOs started by allowing anyone to invest, which preyed on the poor and uninformed. The market capitalization of projects that did token sales before 2017 is orders of magnitude greater than the amount invested in token sales before 2017, meaning investors in pre-2017 token sales are, in the aggregate, massively up. The few lucky ones who invested in Ethereum and held are massively up. The thousands of other projects scammed investors.
    - ETH_start 4y ago
      Massively more people invested in Ethereum than the type of scam projects that were most likely to belly flop. As the study I referenced states, the vast majority of token sale investments were small. This points to a market where people acted rationally, in risking only small amounts on speculative investments, and makes it more likely that a typical token sale investor would spread their investments across a large number of projects. It therefore stands to reason that there was significant overlap across token sale portfolios on larger and better known sales like Ethereum's. >>VCs can fire the CEO/founder of the startup. You can't fire anyone and have zero control as an ICO investor. Not every one can be a VC. Every one could invest in Bitcoin in 2009, and Ethereum in 2015. The code for these projects is open, with no permissioning on who can release a client or run one. Moreover any one can fork the chain. It's an entirely different governance mechanism than that of traditional shareholder controlled startups, and the experiment should not have been stifled by SEC regimentation, under the false call of "investor protection" made by those employed by regulatory agencies and venture capital funds who had a clear financial conflict of interest in benefiting from centralized control over investment activity.
  - pjc50 4y ago
    That link shows this handy graph: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11408-020-00366-0/figures/4 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11408-020-00366-0... Both median absolute return and median excess return are negative. Which of the pre-2017 tokens are you claiming is still up? And why are we choosing 2017? And where have these returns actually come from?

lupire 4y ago

The lambos are rented for the day to make the video for the scam pitch.

throwwawayyt 4y ago

"Occasionally, someone poor makes money and tells his friends about his new lambo - hoping to get others into the scam/ponzi." You missed the mainstream media's role

pjc50 4y ago
The mainstream media have been pretty late to crypto, but they have also been easily fooled or paid into writing crypto-positive stories.