BITCOIN

Thrugelmir

Zola. said:

So you're saying bitcoin is dead @Thrugelmir? 🤣

The fad is passing in terms of being an investment. 

mooneysaver

Doesn't generate value? What do you call building wind turbines in Gambia?

https://mobile.twitter.com/farzad23864527/status/1451430597944020994?lang=en-GB

I think some people in here got lost on the way to their boomer stocks threads 

Thrugelmir

mooneysaver said:

 What do you call building wind turbines in Gambia?

A good idea. My portfolio is stocked up with renewable investment. From battery storage, wind, solar, hydro, forestry, charging points etc etc. I don't need to buy a crypto currency to own a share of them though. Just adds an unneccesary layer of risk. 

mooneysaver

Ah so when you said "no value" you meant "too risky". Careful those goalposts are heavy, you might do yourself some damage if you keep shifting them around so much.

Aegis

Thrugelmir said:

mooneysaver said:

 What do you call building wind turbines in Gambia?

A good idea. My portfolio is stocked up with renewable investment. From battery storage, wind, solar, hydro, forestry, charging points etc etc. I don't need to buy a crypto currency to own a share of them though. Just adds an unneccesary layer of risk. 

It always baffles me when people claim that the "revolutionary" feature of crypto is that some of the projects do things like build renewable sites and jointly own them.  My portfolio also has plenty of renewable energy investments, and the collective way in which such sites are owned is via a company, so I own shares in that company.  Those shares are then valued depending on how much someone is willing to pay for a piece of the overall assets and income.  Anyone can buy or sell those shares pretty much instantly using an exchange, and some of the investment vehicles have been around for decades.  The difference is that a) my ownership of the shares confers a legal right to income and assets in the event of wind-up and b) the value of such shares is essentially based on the profitability of the underlying asset with various factors influencing whether there is a premium or discount to the net asset value of the underlying holdings.  This type of structure is an investment trust, and these have been going as an asset type for over a century.

Or, apparently, I could take ownership by buying an asset type where the price is determined almost exclusively by sentiment and influencers, with no real bearing on the actual value of the assets that are owned by the token as a whole.  On top of that, it's genuinely questionable in some cases whether owning a token actually grants ownership of anything under actual law.

I'll stick with investment trusts!

bugbyte_2

mooneysaver said:

Doesn't generate value? What do you call building wind turbines in Gambia?

https://mobile.twitter.com/farzad23864527/status/1451430597944020994?lang=en-GB

I think some people in here got lost on the way to their boomer stocks threads 

If my maths are correct, Safemoon is now worth 1.3% of what it was worth a year ago. Someone will come along in a minute to tell me this is actually a brilliant thing. Never say never, its logo is a rocket after all!, and looking at the tweet threads, Safemoonarmy do appear to have their very own hand gesture. That's not weird in any way.

Re: the wind turbines. Any further details such as where? when? who is financing it? who is going to own it? what % take is going to go towards burning tokens? Let me know when it actually happens please.

Zola.

https://twitter.com/nayibbukele/status/1526029996787216387?t=rUKCFa8ZOUCeGHQJpty0bw&s=19

Probably nothing. 

HCIMbtw

Frequentlyhere said:

That's just one element. The others, brilliantly outlined in this article, is that there are a whole host of reasons as to why the space isn't just flawed from an investing point of view, but carries with it a huge list of unpleasant side effects. So even people who are immune to the childishness replies etc, often also end up being very anti-crypto.
You can read the article, but things like ransomware, damage to the environment, use for drugs/illegal material, ruining lives through gambling. It goes on and on. Each has their own rebuttal by the advocates, but these are always fallacious or entirely misleading.

The drugs, crime, fraud, damage to environment arguments just seem so clearly FUD propaganda to me. 

Electricity use is not inherently an issue if the electricity production is renewable or would otherwise be wasted. I am not saying Crypto is perfect here (it is nascent and improving) but from a climate perspective our issue is that we have chopped down to many forests, polluted our oceans and extract and burn fossil fuels. 

Regarding the crime, drugs, illicit activity.. fiat currency, cash, USD.... underpin global crime, shell companies, offshore banking 

Sure people try to exploit opportunities in new systems, whole scam syndicates are set up to exploit vouchers for iTunes and Google store as well.. 

But one point I would really like to make on fraud and corruption. FIAT currencies are manipulated and controlled by states and central banks. In the west we benefit from relative stability and controls around corruption. Many developing nations do not have the same luxury. If inflation in your country is many dozens of % because of economic instability and corruption you can barely work and live. Assets like BTC resolve issues around trust and manipulation, for a growing number of people this is a far safer asset. We jsut don't see the manipulation of our own currency as much because it is more insidious. 

Every day more people realise it is the risk off asset. 

Zola.

https://twitter.com/WatcherGuru/status/1526343627668078592/photo/1

Thrugelmir

Bitcoin has suffered more 30% declines since it was launched in 2009. Than global markets in a 100 years. Stability no longer seems one of it's attributes.