BITCOIN

User232002

RogerIrvine said:

"In my experience, there are incredibly biased reporting standards around anything to do with Bitcoin."  :

That made me chuckle. Its zealots are postulating the overthrow of fiat currency. 

The BBC recently put out an article talking about how Bitcoin has 'crashed' from 70k to 40k, despite the fact that under 2 years ago it was trading under 4k. Even on this thread, someone recently pointed out that Bitcoin is not yet at 100k, as if that is somehow a 'win.' 

And its zealots have birthed a two trillion dollar asset class all whilst most people have been laughing at them playing with magic internet money, called it 'rat poison' or mentioned something to do with tulips or boiling the oceans. 

RogerIrvine said:

The point being, for Bitcoin to replace USD, it has to keep rising in value exponentially. But whereas USD is backed, in principle, by the land value of Central Park, or Wyoming, Bitcoin is essentially of no value and can keep growing only by appealing to an ever widening base of users. Hence 40,000 crypto adverts on London Underground between April and September last year. 

Really no idea why you think the USD is backed by the land value of the USA. Completely false, but a novel argument for sure. 

RogerIrvine said:

Dubai just signed a deal with the largest crypto exchange to co-operate. 

What does that even mean?

Probably favourable tax regulation to encourage them to move their offices, jobs, talent and ultimately revenue in to the UAE. I also believe sovereign wealth funds will disclose purchases of BTC within the next 2 years, and if you're going to do that it makes sense that your counterparty also has a healthy stake in the future of your country. Its still probably slightly too underdeveloped to allocate capital to at the minute, but its getting there.

RogerIrvine said:

Let me put the credibility issue another way  - What is wrong with the existing money supply strategy?

Amazing question. I can't believe nobody has asked or commented on this before now in this thread.

Scottex99

RogerIrvine said:

Let me put the credibility issue another way  - What is wrong with the existing money supply strategy?

Amazing question. I can't believe nobody has asked or commented on this before now in this thread.

Hahaha, no more internet for me today

RogerIrvine

 The front of every dollar bill states that it is a Federal Reserve Note and "this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." It is signed by the Secretary of the Treasury. On the front and the back (in case you are still in doubt) it states "The United States Of America." Of course its currency is underwritten by its land value. And all its other tangible assets. Including its 7th Fleet. You can't build an aircraft carrier out of Bitcoins. Or tax-avoiders.

Even if there were an economic argument for using Bitcoins instead of currency, politics always wins out against economics.  

Since you have answered the point so many times, darren, you should have honed your answers: Why is the Fed's existing policy not sustainable in your opinion?

Scottex99

Money printer go brrrrrrr, inflation goes to 7% and you’re…. Surprised?

User232002

RogerIrvine said:

 The front of every dollar bill states that it is a Federal Reserve Note and "this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." It is signed by the Secretary of the Treasury. On the front and the back (in case you are still in doubt) it states "The United States Of America." Of course its currency is underwritten by its land value. And all its other tangible assets. Including its 7th Fleet. You can't build an aircraft carrier out of Bitcoins. Or tax-avoiders.

Sir, the idea that a country's currency is backed by its land value is just preposterous. You're closer on the 7th fleet, but nobody is suggesting that Aircraft carriers are built out of Bitcoins so no idea what your point is there. Aircraft carriers are terrible in modern warfare by the way.

RogerIrvine said:

Even if there were an economic argument for using Bitcoins instead of currency, politics always wins out against economics.  

Amazingly, you've managed to ask and answer your question in the same post.

RogerIrvine said:

Since you have answered the point so many times, darren, you should have honed your answers: Why is the Fed's existing policy not sustainable in your opinion?

Its probably better to ask why you believe that printing tens of billions every month for over a decade is actually sustainable... But you're also someone who doesn't understand how a $1T monetary asset can purchase anything costing more than $1T, so I'm not sure we can give your opinion on the matter much credence unfortunately.

RogerIrvine

Scottex99 said:

Money printer go brrrrrrr, inflation goes to 7% and you’re…. Surprised?

Not surprised inflation has gone to 7% but I am surprised that anyone would suggest expanding the money supply was the sole cause. QE started in 2008. Inflation took off after the pandemic affected the supply chain and labour market. 

Nothing wrong with being partial, of course, but does it go a bit further with some of you guys? Are you actually working as brokers for crypto?

User232002

RogerIrvine said:

Nothing wrong with being partial, of course, but does it go a bit further with some of you guys? Are you actually working as brokers for crypto?

Nobody reading MSE is moving the needle on a $1T asset.

On the issue of talent moving where it is treated well, Arkansas currently offering $10k in BTC for moving there if you are a remote tech worker: https://findingnwa.com/incentive/ 

Best bit on their page:

"Why are you offering cryptocurrency to relocate to [...] Arkansas?

Whilst we have had overwhelming interest in the initial incentive program, we're continuing to seek out in demand talent in the STEAM and blockchain professions. We believe this incentive will allow us to narrow in on the most sought after talent across the country and beyond."

Scottex99

RogerIrvine said:

Scottex99 said:

Money printer go brrrrrrr, inflation goes to 7% and you’re…. Surprised?

Not surprised inflation has gone to 7% but I am surprised that anyone would suggest expanding the money supply was the sole cause. QE started in 2008. Inflation took off after the pandemic affected the supply chain and labour market. 

Nothing wrong with being partial, of course, but does it go a bit further with some of you guys? Are you actually working as brokers for crypto?

Been due for a long time. You can't just print your way out of any economic trouble and bail out failed institutions without eventually having to pay the piper.

I do work for a crypto firm actually but we already trade 100m+ monthly. So as Darren has already said, I'm not on here to convince you to somehow pump my bags by buying £500 of BTC

RogerIrvine

Very true, darren232002, your influence is marginal but that was not the question. You, Scottex, Zola..do you work in this cryptocurrency business you promote so fervently on here?

Aegis

Scottex99 said:

Money printer go brrrrrrr, inflation goes to 7% and you’re…. Surprised?

Inflation is really difficult to control, unless you want the government to directly control prices of often-used goods and services.  That said, there was still inflation under the gold standard, where printing wasn't possible.  Example chart here:

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/52cdc300e4b012a81d31c03d/1481748292199-ZIAA4V2B7PHQVD4E4HDJ/image-asset.png?format=500w