8 ms·

Crypto is not a financial market. It's a gambling den. Unregulated one. Scammers use financial sounding mumbo-jumbo to lure destitute suckers with promises of i

by yashg 3y ago

Crypto is not a financial market. It's a gambling den. Unregulated one. Scammers use financial sounding mumbo-jumbo to lure destitute suckers with promises of infinite riches. Same old game. Wash trading with make believe shitcoins in magic internet tokens keeps the line going up so DCAing idiots keep providing exit liquidity to OGs to unload their magic tokens.

Datagenerator 3y ago
Market makers which are in the game of naked short selling and using Dark markets to route orders to is the real financial market?
- styren 3y ago
  Are you implying that they are not providing liquidity to "real financial markets"? In that case do you mind making your argument?
  - weard_beard 3y ago
    Providing liquidity by infinitely counterfeiting shares and routing them off exchange to prevent accurate price discovery is only “useful” to the cartel who sell options. If you’re implying that somehow grandma is being done a disservice because her pension fund can’t make the trades they want when they want then YOU need to explain how “liquidity” benefits anyone that matters.
    - styren 3y ago
      I didn't imply anything, I was asking for his reasoning since he didn't provide any. And I'm not sure how to respond to anyone that buckets people into those that do and those that don't matter. Your argument doesn't seem to be made in good faith. Such a weird attack and downvote just for asking for a clarification?
      - weard_beard 3y ago
        Providing Liquidity is a crime that harms everyone except market makers and economists. I’m pretty sure they don’t matter.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
elif 3y ago
You are conflating many low cap nonsense coins with actually revolutionary and valued ones. Gambling returns an expected -2% to -10% by design. If you pick virtually any 5 year interval for Ethereum or Bitcoin, you see >100% growth. In the current crash, they are up 128% and 187% respectively. Fiat currencies are not "gambling" even though they fluctuate in relative value and even mimic the -2% to -10% expected return of gambling far more appropriately than major cryptos.
- apnew 3y ago
  The argument that crypto is not gambling just because some coins reported >0% returns is rather weak. The first definition of Gambling I found; >> the act of playing for stakes in the hope of winning (including the payment of a price for a chance to win a prize).
  - elif 3y ago
    "some coins reported >0% returns" is weak I agree. Fortunately my point was that the main 2 "report >100% returns for every single 'player' who waited 5 years." using your gambling definition, I would say that "chance" to return a prize is not accurate as it is a "virtual if not outright certainty" historically speaking.
    - Eisenstein 3y ago
      > for every single 'player' who waited 5 years. For every player who bought coins and put them in a cold wallet and sat on them? Because otherwise the chances are pretty high that they got scammed, lost their coins in an exchange collapse, lost access to them, or, you know, traded them like every other person who deals with coins who didn't die or lose their wallet keys or forgot about it.
  - throwawayadvsec 3y ago
    i'm not a crypto supporter, but the same applies to the stock market, housing, or any business or investment
xk_id 3y ago
I remember when I didn’t know anything about crypto and I believed ppl like you proclaiming this kind of stuff. But i was curious so i looked at the “mumbo-jumbo” myself and turns out it’s actually just technical stuff and not even that difficult. I feel ppl like you act in very bad faith, but you also claim crypto isn’t even financial infrastructure, so perhaps you’re just clueless.
- foepys 3y ago
  > Just technical stuff There is nothing technical about the biggest "stable coins" not being able to produce a single audit of their financials. The only thing they were able to show were "attestations" of USD in a bank account and even that was done by some shady accounting firms.
  - thinkmassive 3y ago
    Are those stable coins actually cryptocurrencies?
    - pcthrowaway 3y ago
      Not sure why you were downvoted for what seems like an honest question. Stable coins and other tokens which are not native blockchain assets are referred to as cryptocurrencies (shiba inu is one such example of this which is not a stablecoin). Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, Avalanche, and a bunch more are also the native token of their blockchain. In other words, they're the primary mechanism for rewarding participants in the blockchain at the node/consensus level for their efforts, and they're also the currency used for getting transactions included into blocks on their blockchains (for paying the transaction fee, also called "gas" on many chains). Blockchains which have the capability of running user-submitted code are said to have "smart contracts", bits of code which execute when certain conditions are met during a transaction. Most chains with smart contract functionality also include standards for deploying what are referred to as "tokens" which are essentially smart contracts which provide a conforming interface for interacting with the token and tracking the balances of users on that blockchain. While all tokens provide the same basic interface, they can also have custom code which affects the behaviour. In the case of most stablecoins (the centralized ones), that means privileged parties who can do things like mint new tokens, or blocklist addresses from being able to transact those tokens. USDC for example, operates by allowing users to create an account with the issuer (Circle), deposit USD, and then have Circle "mint" new USDC tokens to your address. They also let users go the other way and redeem their USDC. However, not everyone who wants to hold USDC needs to mint it; they can also buy it on a centralized or decentralized exchange (decentralized exchanges also being governed by specialized smart contracts of various types). There are also "algorithmic stablecoins" which, in theory, don't have privileged issuers, and use various protocols to attempt to "peg" the price to the price of some stable asset / USD (these are complicated, have many different methods of operation, and are not really proven to be completely resilient at this point). UST/LUNA was the big one that exploded about a year ago, vaporizing several billion dollars over the course of a few days. So, "stablecoins" are a cryptocurrency, but not a native blockchain asset (unless there's a chain that primarily accounts in a stablecoin which I'm not aware of), and the primary stablecoins people hear about are also not decentralized.

by yashg 3y ago

Datagenerator 3y ago

Market makers which are in the game of naked short selling and using Dark markets to route orders to is the real financial market?

styren 3y ago
Are you implying that they are not providing liquidity to "real financial markets"? In that case do you mind making your argument?
- weard_beard 3y ago
  Providing liquidity by infinitely counterfeiting shares and routing them off exchange to prevent accurate price discovery is only “useful” to the cartel who sell options. If you’re implying that somehow grandma is being done a disservice because her pension fund can’t make the trades they want when they want then YOU need to explain how “liquidity” benefits anyone that matters.
  - styren 3y ago
    I didn't imply anything, I was asking for his reasoning since he didn't provide any. And I'm not sure how to respond to anyone that buckets people into those that do and those that don't matter. Your argument doesn't seem to be made in good faith. Such a weird attack and downvote just for asking for a clarification?
    - weard_beard 3y ago
      Providing Liquidity is a crime that harms everyone except market makers and economists. I’m pretty sure they don’t matter.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

elif 3y ago

You are conflating many low cap nonsense coins with actually revolutionary and valued ones. Gambling returns an expected -2% to -10% by design. If you pick virtually any 5 year interval for Ethereum or Bitcoin, you see >100% growth. In the current crash, they are up 128% and 187% respectively. Fiat currencies are not "gambling" even though they fluctuate in relative value and even mimic the -2% to -10% expected return of gambling far more appropriately than major cryptos.

apnew 3y ago
The argument that crypto is not gambling just because some coins reported >0% returns is rather weak. The first definition of Gambling I found; >> the act of playing for stakes in the hope of winning (including the payment of a price for a chance to win a prize).
- elif 3y ago
  "some coins reported >0% returns" is weak I agree. Fortunately my point was that the main 2 "report >100% returns for every single 'player' who waited 5 years." using your gambling definition, I would say that "chance" to return a prize is not accurate as it is a "virtual if not outright certainty" historically speaking.
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    > for every single 'player' who waited 5 years. For every player who bought coins and put them in a cold wallet and sat on them? Because otherwise the chances are pretty high that they got scammed, lost their coins in an exchange collapse, lost access to them, or, you know, traded them like every other person who deals with coins who didn't die or lose their wallet keys or forgot about it.
- throwawayadvsec 3y ago
  i'm not a crypto supporter, but the same applies to the stock market, housing, or any business or investment

xk_id 3y ago

I remember when I didn’t know anything about crypto and I believed ppl like you proclaiming this kind of stuff. But i was curious so i looked at the “mumbo-jumbo” myself and turns out it’s actually just technical stuff and not even that difficult. I feel ppl like you act in very bad faith, but you also claim crypto isn’t even financial infrastructure, so perhaps you’re just clueless.

foepys 3y ago
> Just technical stuff There is nothing technical about the biggest "stable coins" not being able to produce a single audit of their financials. The only thing they were able to show were "attestations" of USD in a bank account and even that was done by some shady accounting firms.
- thinkmassive 3y ago
  Are those stable coins actually cryptocurrencies?
  - pcthrowaway 3y ago
    Not sure why you were downvoted for what seems like an honest question. Stable coins and other tokens which are not native blockchain assets are referred to as cryptocurrencies (shiba inu is one such example of this which is not a stablecoin). Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, Avalanche, and a bunch more are also the native token of their blockchain. In other words, they're the primary mechanism for rewarding participants in the blockchain at the node/consensus level for their efforts, and they're also the currency used for getting transactions included into blocks on their blockchains (for paying the transaction fee, also called "gas" on many chains). Blockchains which have the capability of running user-submitted code are said to have "smart contracts", bits of code which execute when certain conditions are met during a transaction. Most chains with smart contract functionality also include standards for deploying what are referred to as "tokens" which are essentially smart contracts which provide a conforming interface for interacting with the token and tracking the balances of users on that blockchain. While all tokens provide the same basic interface, they can also have custom code which affects the behaviour. In the case of most stablecoins (the centralized ones), that means privileged parties who can do things like mint new tokens, or blocklist addresses from being able to transact those tokens. USDC for example, operates by allowing users to create an account with the issuer (Circle), deposit USD, and then have Circle "mint" new USDC tokens to your address. They also let users go the other way and redeem their USDC. However, not everyone who wants to hold USDC needs to mint it; they can also buy it on a centralized or decentralized exchange (decentralized exchanges also being governed by specialized smart contracts of various types). There are also "algorithmic stablecoins" which, in theory, don't have privileged issuers, and use various protocols to attempt to "peg" the price to the price of some stable asset / USD (these are complicated, have many different methods of operation, and are not really proven to be completely resilient at this point). UST/LUNA was the big one that exploded about a year ago, vaporizing several billion dollars over the course of a few days. So, "stablecoins" are a cryptocurrency, but not a native blockchain asset (unless there's a chain that primarily accounts in a stablecoin which I'm not aware of), and the primary stablecoins people hear about are also not decentralized.