5 ms·

This is an excelent regulatory option. The creation of money substitutes in the crypto space is not something a state wants to encourage, and is very detrimenta

This is an excelent regulatory option. The creation of money substitutes in the crypto space is not something a state wants to encourage, and is very detrimental to financial stability. The basic tools of the central bank - regulating reserves and interest rates in response to economic conditions - cease to function. These private money substitutes should be firewalled from the traditional financial system, nobody's pension should be invested in speculative crypto assets. The long term value of crypto should then result from the actual wealth they generate intrinsically (for example, ease of trade, enabling fast innovative transactions that fiat can't) - as opposed to broad "adoption" by the conventional financial industry, who would just use the space to circumvent existing regulations. Traditional finance can, in time, adopt tools and systems from the crypto space (for example, distributed ledgers, "blockchains") if they are technically robust, without the associated speculative mania.

everfree 4y ago
> Traditional finance can, in time, adopt tools and systems from the crypto space (for example, distributed ledgers, "blockchains") if they are technically robust, without the associated speculative mania. New technologies and speculative mania naturally come hand in hand, no? Crypto seems to be following the same adoption curve that all flashy new technologies have followed. https://i.imgur.com/uhYF1OW.png https://i.imgur.com/uhYF1OW.png There's the trigger, the peak of inflated expectations, the trough of disillusionment, the slope of enlightenment, then the plateau of productivity.
- manholio 4y ago
  The problem with crypto is that instead of speculating on the premise of the actual inovative technology, the speculation is centered around the close money substitute that the technology enabled. Investors bet on crypto-assets themselves, freshly printed private coins, as if they are going to have substantial market dominance in the future to the detriment of state-issued fiat money. That is completely unsound. It's as if investors in the tech stocks would bet that a single company with an innovative trading solution would come to replace a substantial part / all of the stock market.
  - everfree 4y ago
    > It's as if investors in the tech stocks would bet that a single company with an innovative trading solution would come to replace a substantial part / all of the stock market. But there was a single company with an innovative trading solution, and it did come to replace effectively all existing stock market settlement, at least in the US. It's the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation, and it was founded in the 70s.
    - manholio 4y ago
      It replaced the trading mechanism of existing stocks with its own. It didn't replace the traded stocks with it's own stock or stocks it controlled, which is what crypto is trying. Perhaps the example was not clear.
      - everfree 4y ago
        > It didn't replace the traded stocks with it's own stock I guess I still don't fully understand what you're implying, but I am interested. If we go back to your original comment: > The problem with crypto is that instead of speculating on the premise of the actual inovative technology, the speculation is centered around the close money substitute that the technology enabled. I would argue that an investment in e.g. Ether is speculation on the promise of (an implementation of) the technology, rather than a "money substitute". The chain is designed such that as it charges usage fees, that value accrues to holders of the native token, ETH. It behaves not unlike a (hopefully) profitable autonomous company of some sort.
        manholio 4y ago
        > charges usage fees, that value accrues to holders of the native token, ETH The trouble with that is that if the fees are negligible compared to the economic activity that is mediated (as crypto bulls claim), then you need to lock a massive amount of capital in the collective float of the currency. For example, the M2 money stock velocity of the US Dollar is historically in the 1-3 range, so that each dollar either in electronic or hard currency form changes hands a few times in a year. So for Ether to generate even something like a meager 3% yield to beat inflation you need to charge on the order of 1%-3% for each transaction, which is orders of magnitude over what is expected or competitive. It follows then that the vast majority of the holders of Ethereum, and the backers of the scheme themselves especially, do not expect to earn from the fees, rather they speculate on the token itself, they hold it because it will appreciate in the future. They are betting ether will replace, say, dollars in mediating transactions and hope to gain value by depreciating the dollar. To be very precise, I'm not saying that Ether can't move much faster and accrue larger fees (as it in fact did recently), but that the preference of the vast majority of non-speculators is to hold on to currency and near money substitutes for periods much larger than it would allow holders of ether to earn trading fees commensurate to the risk of holding ether. So the flurry of recent activity (and the willingness to pay large fees) must be of a speculative nature, unsustainable on the long run.

everfree 4y ago

> Traditional finance can, in time, adopt tools and systems from the crypto space (for example, distributed ledgers, "blockchains") if they are technically robust, without the associated speculative mania. New technologies and speculative mania naturally come hand in hand, no? Crypto seems to be following the same adoption curve that all flashy new technologies have followed. https://i.imgur.com/uhYF1OW.png https://i.imgur.com/uhYF1OW.png There's the trigger, the peak of inflated expectations, the trough of disillusionment, the slope of enlightenment, then the plateau of productivity.

manholio 4y ago
The problem with crypto is that instead of speculating on the premise of the actual inovative technology, the speculation is centered around the close money substitute that the technology enabled. Investors bet on crypto-assets themselves, freshly printed private coins, as if they are going to have substantial market dominance in the future to the detriment of state-issued fiat money. That is completely unsound. It's as if investors in the tech stocks would bet that a single company with an innovative trading solution would come to replace a substantial part / all of the stock market.
- everfree 4y ago
  > It's as if investors in the tech stocks would bet that a single company with an innovative trading solution would come to replace a substantial part / all of the stock market. But there was a single company with an innovative trading solution, and it did come to replace effectively all existing stock market settlement, at least in the US. It's the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation, and it was founded in the 70s.
  - manholio 4y ago
    It replaced the trading mechanism of existing stocks with its own. It didn't replace the traded stocks with it's own stock or stocks it controlled, which is what crypto is trying. Perhaps the example was not clear.
    - everfree 4y ago
      > It didn't replace the traded stocks with it's own stock I guess I still don't fully understand what you're implying, but I am interested. If we go back to your original comment: > The problem with crypto is that instead of speculating on the premise of the actual inovative technology, the speculation is centered around the close money substitute that the technology enabled. I would argue that an investment in e.g. Ether is speculation on the promise of (an implementation of) the technology, rather than a "money substitute". The chain is designed such that as it charges usage fees, that value accrues to holders of the native token, ETH. It behaves not unlike a (hopefully) profitable autonomous company of some sort.
      - manholio 4y ago
        > charges usage fees, that value accrues to holders of the native token, ETH The trouble with that is that if the fees are negligible compared to the economic activity that is mediated (as crypto bulls claim), then you need to lock a massive amount of capital in the collective float of the currency. For example, the M2 money stock velocity of the US Dollar is historically in the 1-3 range, so that each dollar either in electronic or hard currency form changes hands a few times in a year. So for Ether to generate even something like a meager 3% yield to beat inflation you need to charge on the order of 1%-3% for each transaction, which is orders of magnitude over what is expected or competitive. It follows then that the vast majority of the holders of Ethereum, and the backers of the scheme themselves especially, do not expect to earn from the fees, rather they speculate on the token itself, they hold it because it will appreciate in the future. They are betting ether will replace, say, dollars in mediating transactions and hope to gain value by depreciating the dollar. To be very precise, I'm not saying that Ether can't move much faster and accrue larger fees (as it in fact did recently), but that the preference of the vast majority of non-speculators is to hold on to currency and near money substitutes for periods much larger than it would allow holders of ether to earn trading fees commensurate to the risk of holding ether. So the flurry of recent activity (and the willingness to pay large fees) must be of a speculative nature, unsustainable on the long run.