4 ms·

Crypto will never be worthless! People mistakenly believe that the two option you have are valuable or zero. Instead it is a scale from positive to negative va

Crypto will never be worthless! People mistakenly believe that the two option you have are valuable or zero. Instead it is a scale from positive to negative value. For example a legislation to have bitcoin "pay for" the environment damage could lead to it having a negative value. Working with and spending effort on a coin that goes to zero is a loss of productivity and opportunity of not doing something useful. Again the real cost is non-zero.

bornfreddy 4y ago
> For example a legislation to have bitcoin "pay for" the environment damage could lead to it having a negative value. I'll bite. So basically, owner would have to pay more than they would get to sell their Bitcoin? I'm sure nobody would do that, so the price is effectively capped at zero and can't go lower.
WXLCKNO 4y ago
> For example a legislation to have bitcoin "pay for" the environment damage could lead to it having a negative value. Lol this is beyond absurd.
- archontes 4y ago
  It's a perfectly sensible statement. Bitcoin provides value in the form of moving money from A to B, which is a service people are happy to pay some amount for, and (arguably) being a store of value. Bitcoin's value, derived from its utility, is quantifiable, most easily by comparison to other items that provide the same utility. Bitcoin has a cost, as well. The undercover economist might tell you that it fails to charge for an externality, namely its climate impact. It's entirely possible that, were that exernality priced in, the cost to operate bitcoin might exceed the value it provides relative to other providers, which would give it net negative value.
  - ProjectArcturis 4y ago
    In which case it would stop transacting and the value would be zero.
    - archontes 4y ago
      Correct. In the case that it stops transacting, the value of bitcoin as a system would be zero. In the case where the costs are larger than the value produced, but are not paid by the bitcoin system (external, you might say), then it would still have net negative value, but continue to operate.
    - astrange 4y ago
      The value wouldn't be zero, the transaction rate would head to zero. The value would be stuck at whatever it last traded at, so it'd become very volatile.

bornfreddy 4y ago

> For example a legislation to have bitcoin "pay for" the environment damage could lead to it having a negative value. I'll bite. So basically, owner would have to pay more than they would get to sell their Bitcoin? I'm sure nobody would do that, so the price is effectively capped at zero and can't go lower.

WXLCKNO 4y ago

> For example a legislation to have bitcoin "pay for" the environment damage could lead to it having a negative value. Lol this is beyond absurd.

archontes 4y ago
It's a perfectly sensible statement. Bitcoin provides value in the form of moving money from A to B, which is a service people are happy to pay some amount for, and (arguably) being a store of value. Bitcoin's value, derived from its utility, is quantifiable, most easily by comparison to other items that provide the same utility. Bitcoin has a cost, as well. The undercover economist might tell you that it fails to charge for an externality, namely its climate impact. It's entirely possible that, were that exernality priced in, the cost to operate bitcoin might exceed the value it provides relative to other providers, which would give it net negative value.
- ProjectArcturis 4y ago
  In which case it would stop transacting and the value would be zero.
  - archontes 4y ago
    Correct. In the case that it stops transacting, the value of bitcoin as a system would be zero. In the case where the costs are larger than the value produced, but are not paid by the bitcoin system (external, you might say), then it would still have net negative value, but continue to operate.
  - astrange 4y ago
    The value wouldn't be zero, the transaction rate would head to zero. The value would be stuck at whatever it last traded at, so it'd become very volatile.