6 ms·

Surely all cryptocurrencies are memecoins. There's very little debt in these things, so that it isn't a source of value, and there are many popular systems, fro

Surely all cryptocurrencies are memecoins. There's very little debt in these things, so that it isn't a source of value, and there are many popular systems, from Bitcoin to Ethereum, so isn't any that can be said to be somehow special.

TrackerFF 2y ago
If Trump (or whoever) goes on social media to promote Bitcoin, it'll probably pump 5%-10%. And if it falls, it'll fall roughly back down to where it was. If he goes on to promote some unknown shitcoin, said coin could easily pump 1000%, and fall harder.
- BobbyJo 2y ago
  I don't get the point you're trying to make?
  - santoshalper 2y ago
    That legitimate stores of value are typically not that simple to manipulate.
    - hhh1111 2y ago
      [dead]
    - UncleEntity 2y ago
      Like real estate?
    - BobbyJo 2y ago
      You are equating legitimacy with liquidity, and the that isn't necessarily true. Liquidity is necessary, and a good marker, but not sufficient.
      - cwalv 2y ago
        > You are equating legitimacy with liquidity, and the that isn't necessarily true. How so? Liquidity is a measurement of how easy it is to trade, and if it's easy to trade there are many people/entities that believe it's "legitimate" currency, or they wouldn't trade for it
        BobbyJo 2y ago
        Parent said "store of value" not "currency". Liquidity is probably sufficient for a currency (depending on the features of the liquidity), but it is not sufficient for a store of value.
        cwalv 2y ago
        Fair enough; store of value additionally requires restricted supply so that the value isn't debased. But in the context of this thread, that just strengthens the argument that 'Bitcoin is different'.
        BobbyJo 2y ago
        It also requires a value proposition that doesn't depend on the current zeitgeist, among other things. Society changes, and stores of value need to exist outside that change, lest they be left behind with the norms and dogmas. This is where I personally think bitcoin fails.
        cwalv 2y ago
        > Society changes, and stores of value need to exist outside that change I completely agree. I don't think this is different from saying the store of value needs to stay liquid tho. Bitcoin is currently very illiquid compared to many things, but there's no reason to think it's liquidity will decrease, and based on trends and first principles of what makes something a good 'money', significant reason to believe liquidity will continue to increase
- UncleEntity 2y ago
  I don't even have a problem with some unwitting celebrity promoting this kind of stuff. They aren't subject matter experts and I imagine they have grifters targeting them all the time. What I do take issue with is this keeps happening because there's a lot of money to be made off transaction fees so nobody looks too hard into how fraudulent any of these memecoins are before allowing them on the trading platforms. Admittedly, I don't know how the trading system works so maybe the platforms taking a cut of the profits from the blatantly fraudulent activity are victims too? Crying all the way to the bank I suppose...
- dashundchen 2y ago
  He did a rugpull in a shitcoin right before his inauguration and likely pulled megaprofit out of some bag holders. https://www.reuters.com/markets/currencies/trumps-meme-coin-made-nearly-100-million-trading-fees-small-traders-lost-money-2025-02-03/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/currencies/trumps-meme-coin-... Any other administration this would have been a huge scandal but when we're in an avalanche of corruption I guess it can be missed.
  - marssaxman 2y ago
    I think the point was that it gave his supporters a quasi-legal way to donate money while skirting campaign finance regulation, making the trumpcoin itself not so much a unit of currency as a receipt - a proof of loyalty.
topranks 2y ago
Crypto adherents seem to have given up on any other narrative this time yeah. Scammers gonna scam. Suckers gonna lose (including the suckers who fancy themselves as scammers but don’t realise it’s a rigged game).
- EGreg 2y ago
  I am a “crypto adherent” who champions decentralized networks and byzantine-fault-tolerant protocols, and I have been using strongly pushing for the original narrative of trustless smart contracts cutting out the middleman. I think there are many use cases for it. Before you knock it, look at the following: https://intercoin.app/investors.pdf https://intercoin.app/investors.pdf https://intercoin.app/currencies.pdf https://intercoin.app/currencies.pdf Or if you want to see actual open source solutions, coded, see here: https://intercoin.org/applications https://intercoin.org/applications I know some people will knee-jerk downvote this. But actually look into the substance, first. TLDR: I have been speaking against “HODL” and zero-sum games just for “number go up” nonsense, and been building solutions for maximum utility.
  - XMPPwocky 2y ago
    I think your pitch would be significantly stronger if the resources you linked didn't largely revolve around "What if Snoop Dogg had his own currency?" I'm not ... completely unable to be persuaded that there are use cases for cryptocurrency. But "Ashton Kutcher should have Aston Kutchercoin, and develop some sort of referral-based pyramid-shaped scheme with it for his fans" is... what is that?
    - EGreg 2y ago
      That's... 1) A way to fill unsold seats at venues, and always have sold-out events 2) A way to reward his members for spreading his message and bringing more people 3) A way to turn his audience into an army of promoters 4) A way to be independent of banks, and accept global payments 5) A way to have a global online movement that becomes bigger than Ashton Kutcher himself... having subcommunities be empowered to get together and form their own meetups, see it happen around the world, if they get large then Ashton and his crew can come and do a rock concert there It's great for political campaigns and many movements as well. We did it for Yang's 2020 campaign for example, with "Yang Gangs", that was very early days in 2020
lmm 2y ago
The likes of Bitcoin or Ethereum aren't really "memes" in the modern sense, at least no more than any fiat currency is.
- impossiblefork 2y ago
  Ordinary currencies have value due to the enormous debt in it. If people fail to obtain units of the currency, they default on obligations that have much greater value than the value of the all the cash in the currency. Thus in an ordinary currency the incentive isn't to ignore it, or to sell, but to hoard it so that people can't obtain the money to pay their loans in order to create a crisis so that they can obtain a large fraction of the value of collateral. This is prevented by central banks. If you try to execute this corner, you will drive up prices, so they will start printing money. So Bitcoin and Ethereum, both remain memes. Fiat currencies have non-mem value due to the debt.
  - csomar 2y ago
    Most people don't realize that governments can't just "print" currencies and the few that do (ie: Turkey, Argentina, etc...) have chronic hyperinflation. The US went a bit loose with supply and it already came back biting and still to this day struggling with the higher interest. The government does constantly devalue the currency, though. It does it at an imperceptible pace to not scare the chickens and make business viable. But that's the most they can collect from this system. Anything more and they blow the whole monetary system away.
    - impossiblefork 2y ago
      Yes, but when demand for the currency leads to a prices increasing,such as from an attempted corner, then you do not destroy price stability because the person operating the corner is buying the cash with something. The money-printing used to break a corner can in principle be small and you can even have an inflation target of zero and still print money to break such corners. What I want to emphasize with this though, is the source of a currency's value. The collateral of the debt of the loans denominated in it and the social and economic consequences to individuals of defaulting on loans in it. That is the end-source of demand for a currency, and that guaranteed demand is so great that it makes attempting to corner the market in the currency make sense. If you cornered the market in bitcoin, there's no one who would have to buy even one. That shows how little bitcoin is worth, i.e. zero.
cwalv 2y ago
Bitcoin really is different. It's a commodity rather than a security, and proof of work consensus is essential for its use case.
- aoeusnth1 2y ago
  Dollars ultimately have value because the United States government collects taxes in dollars. Who demands Bitcoin, except speculators? It's value is entirely propped up by it's cultural expectation - meme value - with no tether to a real source of demand for BTC.
  - cwalv 2y ago
    Dollars are the currency Bitcoin is most commonly compared against, and for people who have easy access to USD it can be very hard to see how btc has utility. But if you compare to other things (e.g. commodities with a monetary premium, or fiat from a small country), it's much easier to comprehend. It is work to 'get' it tho. All the info is available; I can't make it easier to understand than many others out there already have.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    Anyone who needs to conduct transactions without having their name attached to it, and cannot meet personally to use cash. Online black market purchases, say. You're not wrong that like 99.9% of BTC value is from speculation, but it does have its valid use cases.
  - crimsoneer 2y ago
    It really isn't about taxes, and more about trust and collective faith. The USD isn't backed by cold economic calculation, it's... a big dream we all agree to keep dreaming. And that's mostly fine.
protocolture 2y ago
I have heard every reasoning for regular currency to have more value over cryptos since 16/17 when I started paying attention. Gold Standard, Government Protection, Debt, Government credit instruments. But everything I read about currency tells me that its largely always just agreed upon make believe. The case with the Real absolutely confirmed that for me.
- 7speter 2y ago
  Neither the rule of law nor following through on contracts and other obligations are imaginary
  - int_19h 2y ago
    And both equally apply to cryptocurrencies.
    - brookst 2y ago
      And now I have to clean coffee out of my keyboard. Thanks.
      - int_19h 2y ago
        It's literally true, though. Cryptocurrency itself doesn't suddenly render contracts unenforceable or the ability to use courts etc to resolve conflicts. What hinders it is anonymity of the other party, but that's something that cryptocurrency merely enables; whether to engage with anonymous parties or not is still a choice. It does not preclude you from, say, suing Coinbase if they owe you some BTC. And, conversely, if you try to pay with cash to some shady people in a parking lot, there's not much good you're going to get out of courts if they defraud you.
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    Well... they both are. Just like currency. All of those were imaginary since they were invented. People have create physical representations for currency in particular, but that doesn't change the fact that it's only a group of people agreeing on something that only exist on their heads. Equally imaginary things are "corporations", "governments", "military"... If you push hard enough, even "person" fits that, but this one is deeply entrenched in people's minds.
crimsoneer 2y ago
I mean, if you have 1 mil usd + of eth or bitcoin, you have a pretty decent pile of cash that is vaguely stable (not massively different to gold), and that government cannot touch or (if you do a good job) even know about. From a personal perspective, that absolutely has value. From a public perspective, is the existence of that a good thing? Whole different kettle of fish (and then you're back on the whole "is end to end encryption bad" argument).

TrackerFF 2y ago

If Trump (or whoever) goes on social media to promote Bitcoin, it'll probably pump 5%-10%. And if it falls, it'll fall roughly back down to where it was. If he goes on to promote some unknown shitcoin, said coin could easily pump 1000%, and fall harder.

BobbyJo 2y ago
I don't get the point you're trying to make?
- santoshalper 2y ago
  That legitimate stores of value are typically not that simple to manipulate.
  - hhh1111 2y ago
    [dead]
  - UncleEntity 2y ago
    Like real estate?
  - BobbyJo 2y ago
    You are equating legitimacy with liquidity, and the that isn't necessarily true. Liquidity is necessary, and a good marker, but not sufficient.
    - cwalv 2y ago
      > You are equating legitimacy with liquidity, and the that isn't necessarily true. How so? Liquidity is a measurement of how easy it is to trade, and if it's easy to trade there are many people/entities that believe it's "legitimate" currency, or they wouldn't trade for it
      - BobbyJo 2y ago
        Parent said "store of value" not "currency". Liquidity is probably sufficient for a currency (depending on the features of the liquidity), but it is not sufficient for a store of value.
        cwalv 2y ago
        Fair enough; store of value additionally requires restricted supply so that the value isn't debased. But in the context of this thread, that just strengthens the argument that 'Bitcoin is different'.
        BobbyJo 2y ago
        It also requires a value proposition that doesn't depend on the current zeitgeist, among other things. Society changes, and stores of value need to exist outside that change, lest they be left behind with the norms and dogmas. This is where I personally think bitcoin fails.
        cwalv 2y ago
        > Society changes, and stores of value need to exist outside that change I completely agree. I don't think this is different from saying the store of value needs to stay liquid tho. Bitcoin is currently very illiquid compared to many things, but there's no reason to think it's liquidity will decrease, and based on trends and first principles of what makes something a good 'money', significant reason to believe liquidity will continue to increase
UncleEntity 2y ago
I don't even have a problem with some unwitting celebrity promoting this kind of stuff. They aren't subject matter experts and I imagine they have grifters targeting them all the time. What I do take issue with is this keeps happening because there's a lot of money to be made off transaction fees so nobody looks too hard into how fraudulent any of these memecoins are before allowing them on the trading platforms. Admittedly, I don't know how the trading system works so maybe the platforms taking a cut of the profits from the blatantly fraudulent activity are victims too? Crying all the way to the bank I suppose...
dashundchen 2y ago
He did a rugpull in a shitcoin right before his inauguration and likely pulled megaprofit out of some bag holders. https://www.reuters.com/markets/currencies/trumps-meme-coin-made-nearly-100-million-trading-fees-small-traders-lost-money-2025-02-03/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/currencies/trumps-meme-coin-... Any other administration this would have been a huge scandal but when we're in an avalanche of corruption I guess it can be missed.
- marssaxman 2y ago
  I think the point was that it gave his supporters a quasi-legal way to donate money while skirting campaign finance regulation, making the trumpcoin itself not so much a unit of currency as a receipt - a proof of loyalty.

topranks 2y ago

Crypto adherents seem to have given up on any other narrative this time yeah. Scammers gonna scam. Suckers gonna lose (including the suckers who fancy themselves as scammers but don’t realise it’s a rigged game).

EGreg 2y ago
I am a “crypto adherent” who champions decentralized networks and byzantine-fault-tolerant protocols, and I have been using strongly pushing for the original narrative of trustless smart contracts cutting out the middleman. I think there are many use cases for it. Before you knock it, look at the following: https://intercoin.app/investors.pdf https://intercoin.app/investors.pdf https://intercoin.app/currencies.pdf https://intercoin.app/currencies.pdf Or if you want to see actual open source solutions, coded, see here: https://intercoin.org/applications https://intercoin.org/applications I know some people will knee-jerk downvote this. But actually look into the substance, first. TLDR: I have been speaking against “HODL” and zero-sum games just for “number go up” nonsense, and been building solutions for maximum utility.
- XMPPwocky 2y ago
  I think your pitch would be significantly stronger if the resources you linked didn't largely revolve around "What if Snoop Dogg had his own currency?" I'm not ... completely unable to be persuaded that there are use cases for cryptocurrency. But "Ashton Kutcher should have Aston Kutchercoin, and develop some sort of referral-based pyramid-shaped scheme with it for his fans" is... what is that?
  - EGreg 2y ago
    That's... 1) A way to fill unsold seats at venues, and always have sold-out events 2) A way to reward his members for spreading his message and bringing more people 3) A way to turn his audience into an army of promoters 4) A way to be independent of banks, and accept global payments 5) A way to have a global online movement that becomes bigger than Ashton Kutcher himself... having subcommunities be empowered to get together and form their own meetups, see it happen around the world, if they get large then Ashton and his crew can come and do a rock concert there It's great for political campaigns and many movements as well. We did it for Yang's 2020 campaign for example, with "Yang Gangs", that was very early days in 2020

lmm 2y ago

The likes of Bitcoin or Ethereum aren't really "memes" in the modern sense, at least no more than any fiat currency is.

impossiblefork 2y ago
Ordinary currencies have value due to the enormous debt in it. If people fail to obtain units of the currency, they default on obligations that have much greater value than the value of the all the cash in the currency. Thus in an ordinary currency the incentive isn't to ignore it, or to sell, but to hoard it so that people can't obtain the money to pay their loans in order to create a crisis so that they can obtain a large fraction of the value of collateral. This is prevented by central banks. If you try to execute this corner, you will drive up prices, so they will start printing money. So Bitcoin and Ethereum, both remain memes. Fiat currencies have non-mem value due to the debt.
- csomar 2y ago
  Most people don't realize that governments can't just "print" currencies and the few that do (ie: Turkey, Argentina, etc...) have chronic hyperinflation. The US went a bit loose with supply and it already came back biting and still to this day struggling with the higher interest. The government does constantly devalue the currency, though. It does it at an imperceptible pace to not scare the chickens and make business viable. But that's the most they can collect from this system. Anything more and they blow the whole monetary system away.
  - impossiblefork 2y ago
    Yes, but when demand for the currency leads to a prices increasing,such as from an attempted corner, then you do not destroy price stability because the person operating the corner is buying the cash with something. The money-printing used to break a corner can in principle be small and you can even have an inflation target of zero and still print money to break such corners. What I want to emphasize with this though, is the source of a currency's value. The collateral of the debt of the loans denominated in it and the social and economic consequences to individuals of defaulting on loans in it. That is the end-source of demand for a currency, and that guaranteed demand is so great that it makes attempting to corner the market in the currency make sense. If you cornered the market in bitcoin, there's no one who would have to buy even one. That shows how little bitcoin is worth, i.e. zero.

cwalv 2y ago

Bitcoin really is different. It's a commodity rather than a security, and proof of work consensus is essential for its use case.

aoeusnth1 2y ago
Dollars ultimately have value because the United States government collects taxes in dollars. Who demands Bitcoin, except speculators? It's value is entirely propped up by it's cultural expectation - meme value - with no tether to a real source of demand for BTC.
- cwalv 2y ago
  Dollars are the currency Bitcoin is most commonly compared against, and for people who have easy access to USD it can be very hard to see how btc has utility. But if you compare to other things (e.g. commodities with a monetary premium, or fiat from a small country), it's much easier to comprehend. It is work to 'get' it tho. All the info is available; I can't make it easier to understand than many others out there already have.
- int_19h 2y ago
  Anyone who needs to conduct transactions without having their name attached to it, and cannot meet personally to use cash. Online black market purchases, say. You're not wrong that like 99.9% of BTC value is from speculation, but it does have its valid use cases.
- crimsoneer 2y ago
  It really isn't about taxes, and more about trust and collective faith. The USD isn't backed by cold economic calculation, it's... a big dream we all agree to keep dreaming. And that's mostly fine.

protocolture 2y ago

I have heard every reasoning for regular currency to have more value over cryptos since 16/17 when I started paying attention. Gold Standard, Government Protection, Debt, Government credit instruments. But everything I read about currency tells me that its largely always just agreed upon make believe. The case with the Real absolutely confirmed that for me.

7speter 2y ago
Neither the rule of law nor following through on contracts and other obligations are imaginary
- int_19h 2y ago
  And both equally apply to cryptocurrencies.
  - brookst 2y ago
    And now I have to clean coffee out of my keyboard. Thanks.
    - int_19h 2y ago
      It's literally true, though. Cryptocurrency itself doesn't suddenly render contracts unenforceable or the ability to use courts etc to resolve conflicts. What hinders it is anonymity of the other party, but that's something that cryptocurrency merely enables; whether to engage with anonymous parties or not is still a choice. It does not preclude you from, say, suing Coinbase if they owe you some BTC. And, conversely, if you try to pay with cash to some shady people in a parking lot, there's not much good you're going to get out of courts if they defraud you.
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  Well... they both are. Just like currency. All of those were imaginary since they were invented. People have create physical representations for currency in particular, but that doesn't change the fact that it's only a group of people agreeing on something that only exist on their heads. Equally imaginary things are "corporations", "governments", "military"... If you push hard enough, even "person" fits that, but this one is deeply entrenched in people's minds.

crimsoneer 2y ago

I mean, if you have 1 mil usd + of eth or bitcoin, you have a pretty decent pile of cash that is vaguely stable (not massively different to gold), and that government cannot touch or (if you do a good job) even know about. From a personal perspective, that absolutely has value. From a public perspective, is the existence of that a good thing? Whole different kettle of fish (and then you're back on the whole "is end to end encryption bad" argument).