4 ms·

I mean, what I'm about is really the same, just the other way round. Countries usually erase zeroes after hyperinflation adds them, cryptocoins can just add ext

by wruza 2y ago

I mean, what I'm about is really the same, just the other way round. Countries usually erase zeroes after hyperinflation adds them, cryptocoins can just add extra zeroes due to deflation. No change in value, just higher granularity. The rest left me puzzled, can you elaborate? Why should the money holder do anything productive? Why getting richer and richer becomes something bad when we go crypto?

notahacker 2y ago
> Why should the money holder do anything productive? Why getting richer and richer becomes something bad when we go crypto? This question works better the other way round. Why should people that do all the work and take all the investment risks to make the riches get continually decreasing returns on their efforts whilst the people that sit and HODL get continually increasing returns on doing nothing?
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  Because people are willing to pay more. Why should I make money because my house is worth more than it was? Because people are willing to pay more. There's no more "should" required than that.
  - notahacker 2y ago
    Um... if the only legal tender around was an asset with fixed supply, people holding it wouldn't be willing to pay more, (or invest it in making more stuff) that's the whole point.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      But you see my point, right? I'm challenging the question of "why should someone buy that thing for more than the seller paid for it?" The answer is: because the new buyer is willing to pay that for it.
wqaatwt 2y ago
> Why getting richer and richer becomes something bad when we go crypto? Is that sarcasm? It discourages any type of economic activity. Why would someone invest into or try to start a business when you can become richer by just sitting on your money pile with no risk. Artificially constricting the supply of money in a non static economy is a bad idea. Like the gold standard just much worse.
- loophole27 2y ago
  Because starting a business might still lead to higher returns for you than hoping that your money will be worth more. One thing i’ve always wondered: If something like Bitcoin was the only currency, then it would be like a direct mapping of 21 Million Bitcoin <-> all global economic activity and goods and services. In that case, shouldn’t its price be relatively stable, and might actually even go down sometimes? Like in big natural disasters increasing the cost of certain goods? I’m not a crypto zealot, but I’m not a big believer in the idea that the economy needs to be stimulated and I need to be forced to spend my money before it loses its value. I just want to buy what I need or really want. And in the hypothetical case of having a mapping of “all economic activity” <-> “21M payment units”, then the relative stability of this money might still make investments more lucrative than just hoping for my money to be worth slightly more tomorrow. In this hypothetical scenario it would be more like “my money is worth 1000 eggs today, next month it might be 1001 (if others grow the economy) or 999 (if something unforeseen happens halfway across the globe). So if an investment looks like it might yield the value of 1100 eggs there would still be people to take the risk of investing, no?
  - wqaatwt 2y ago
    > might still It might. It would be significantly less likely. Basic economics. Unless you don’t think that most people are at least marginally rational.. > In that case, shouldn’t its price be relatively stable, and might actually even go down sometimes That’s true only if there is no economic growth. Gold standard had a similar problem.
- wruza 2y ago
  Any type of economic activity in USD involves paying rent or huge surplus to those who hoarded real estate (which doesn’t go away any soon). I don’t see the big difference here. Doesn’t mean it’s a good thing, but let’s at least apply the arguments symmetrically. Why would someone invest into or try to start a business when you can become richer by just sitting on your _property_ pile with no risk. Yeah, I guess.

by wruza 2y ago

notahacker 2y ago

> Why should the money holder do anything productive? Why getting richer and richer becomes something bad when we go crypto? This question works better the other way round. Why should people that do all the work and take all the investment risks to make the riches get continually decreasing returns on their efforts whilst the people that sit and HODL get continually increasing returns on doing nothing?

robertlagrant 2y ago
Because people are willing to pay more. Why should I make money because my house is worth more than it was? Because people are willing to pay more. There's no more "should" required than that.
- notahacker 2y ago
  Um... if the only legal tender around was an asset with fixed supply, people holding it wouldn't be willing to pay more, (or invest it in making more stuff) that's the whole point.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    But you see my point, right? I'm challenging the question of "why should someone buy that thing for more than the seller paid for it?" The answer is: because the new buyer is willing to pay that for it.

wqaatwt 2y ago

> Why getting richer and richer becomes something bad when we go crypto? Is that sarcasm? It discourages any type of economic activity. Why would someone invest into or try to start a business when you can become richer by just sitting on your money pile with no risk. Artificially constricting the supply of money in a non static economy is a bad idea. Like the gold standard just much worse.

loophole27 2y ago
Because starting a business might still lead to higher returns for you than hoping that your money will be worth more. One thing i’ve always wondered: If something like Bitcoin was the only currency, then it would be like a direct mapping of 21 Million Bitcoin <-> all global economic activity and goods and services. In that case, shouldn’t its price be relatively stable, and might actually even go down sometimes? Like in big natural disasters increasing the cost of certain goods? I’m not a crypto zealot, but I’m not a big believer in the idea that the economy needs to be stimulated and I need to be forced to spend my money before it loses its value. I just want to buy what I need or really want. And in the hypothetical case of having a mapping of “all economic activity” <-> “21M payment units”, then the relative stability of this money might still make investments more lucrative than just hoping for my money to be worth slightly more tomorrow. In this hypothetical scenario it would be more like “my money is worth 1000 eggs today, next month it might be 1001 (if others grow the economy) or 999 (if something unforeseen happens halfway across the globe). So if an investment looks like it might yield the value of 1100 eggs there would still be people to take the risk of investing, no?
- wqaatwt 2y ago
  > might still It might. It would be significantly less likely. Basic economics. Unless you don’t think that most people are at least marginally rational.. > In that case, shouldn’t its price be relatively stable, and might actually even go down sometimes That’s true only if there is no economic growth. Gold standard had a similar problem.
wruza 2y ago
Any type of economic activity in USD involves paying rent or huge surplus to those who hoarded real estate (which doesn’t go away any soon). I don’t see the big difference here. Doesn’t mean it’s a good thing, but let’s at least apply the arguments symmetrically. Why would someone invest into or try to start a business when you can become richer by just sitting on your _property_ pile with no risk. Yeah, I guess.