@Ownerofawheatiehorde said:
In my opinion, the great days of crypto is over. There may be some excitement in the industry, but nothing compared to what it used to be
Just like 1950D nickels.
Now you tell me?
72 years later and now I find out I'm lugging virtually worthless metal.
@pmh1nic said:
I’m not questioning blockchain technology. I’m questioning the idea that major governments are going to accept an avenue of commerce they can’t control and that was one of the major selling points of crypto as a currency. They government will let you plan in a small space that doesn’t threaten their control over the larger economy. The ideal of some global, decentralized currency outside of the control and ability to monitor and tax is a fairytale. There will be a digital currency but it will not be one outside of government control.
To clarify, by control do you mean the ability to control its supply? Pre-1913 I don't believe this would be an issue but I agree the current spending tradition (Post 1913) of the Congress necessitates the ability to increase the supply on a whim. However, I have argued several times in this thread that BTC is far easier to monitor and tax than US Dollars and no one has challenged that. Why do people keep using this argument, or am I missing something?
The investment side of crypto and the volatility that accompanied it works against it being a currency and calls into why is it an asset. It’s only an asset because someone believes there will be a global adoption of crypto (one of the numerous coins) and that someone will be willing to pay more for that hope a year from now so they can reap a profit. In one sense that’s the same as gold (hope for a higher price tomorrow) with one major exception. Gold has been trusted as a medium of exchange for thousands of years. It also has some practical applications and as an ornament. You can’t wear a Bitcoin necklace. The perceived value of a Bitcoin has dropped from $60K to 16K in a year. That tells me a lot of the folks that invested are still very unsure of it as an investment and long term store of wealth.
How US-centric of you! You still choose to ignore the utility of crypto in countries without robust financial services. I encourage you to make a trip to SE Asia and you will see crypto has been adopted much more than you see in the US. But regardless, aside from ubiquity and adoption, Bitcoin is no different than US Dollars in that both rely on faith and utility and for their value. If you look at Bitcoin myopically through the lens of recent events you think it's dead or dying (as probably is the US Dollar), but if you really followed the sector you would see the investment and development and advances in the space.
I get it, crypto is new so there is no history and trust. Nothing can compare to gold and silver in this respect. But that doesn't mean there can't or won't be an innovation in money. If anyone thinks we'll be schlepping around paper notes and coins and checks 100 years from now I would say they are denying evolution and technology.
The obsession about the recent decline in price conveniently ignores the increases in price that we've seen and the recoveries that have occurred after previous "winters." I don't deny that the price is fairly volatile, but it isn't fair to focus only on the recent decline and ignore that massive gains that anyone who's owned it more than a few years still has.
I don't know why there is resistance to calling this a currency. It meets every definition, we've been over this. I'll concede Bitcoin wouldn't work well for a Central Bank, so if that's what you're referring to, I agree. But as far as using it in commerce it's just getting going in the US and a lot more prevalent outside the US.
@pmh1nic said:
I’m not questioning blockchain technology. I’m questioning the idea that major governments are going to accept an avenue of commerce they can’t control and that was one of the major selling points of crypto as a currency. They government will let you plan in a small space that doesn’t threaten their control over the larger economy. The ideal of some global, decentralized currency outside of the control and ability to monitor and tax is a fairytale. There will be a digital currency but it will not be one outside of government control.
To clarify, by control do you mean the ability to control its supply? Pre-1913 I don't believe this would be an issue but I agree the current spending tradition (Post 1913) of the Congress necessitates the ability to increase the supply on a whim. However, I have argued several times in this thread that BTC is far easier to monitor and tax than US Dollars and no one has challenged that. Why do people keep using this argument, or am I missing something?
The investment side of crypto and the volatility that accompanied it works against it being a currency and calls into why is it an asset. It’s only an asset because someone believes there will be a global adoption of crypto (one of the numerous coins) and that someone will be willing to pay more for that hope a year from now so they can reap a profit. In one sense that’s the same as gold (hope for a higher price tomorrow) with one major exception. Gold has been trusted as a medium of exchange for thousands of years. It also has some practical applications and as an ornament. You can’t wear a Bitcoin necklace. The perceived value of a Bitcoin has dropped from $60K to 16K in a year. That tells me a lot of the folks that invested are still very unsure of it as an investment and long term store of wealth.
How US-centric of you! You still choose to ignore the utility of crypto in countries without robust financial services. I encourage you to make a trip to SE Asia and you will see crypto has been adopted much more than you see in the US. But regardless, aside from ubiquity and adoption, Bitcoin is no different than US Dollars in that both rely on faith and utility and for their value. If you look at Bitcoin myopically through the lens of recent events you think it's dead or dying (as probably is the US Dollar), but if you really followed the sector you would see the investment and development and advances in the space.
I get it, crypto is new so there is no history and trust. Nothing can compare to gold and silver in this respect. But that doesn't mean there can't or won't be an innovation in money. If anyone thinks we'll be schlepping around paper notes and coins and checks 100 years from now I would say they are denying evolution and technology.
The obsession about the recent decline in price conveniently ignores the increases in price that we've seen and the recoveries that have occurred after previous "winters." I don't deny that the price is fairly volatile, but it isn't fair to focus only on the recent decline and ignore that massive gains that anyone who's owned it more than a few years still has.
I don't know why there is resistance to calling this a currency. It meets every definition, we've been over this. I'll concede Bitcoin wouldn't work well for a Central Bank, so if that's what you're referring to, I agree. But as far as using it in commerce it's just getting going in the US and a lot more prevalent outside the US.
Yes, controlling the money supply is an aspect of the control. With respect to monitoring and taxing, the digital dollar will be monitored and taxed.
This isn't U.S. centric, it's the central theme of all major governments.
The issue isn't crypto being new. The only inherent value of crypto is the faith of those willing to buy and sell it. Again, the volatility of the buying and selling prevents it from really acting as a currency. It only has value because "in he beginning" someone was willing to take a step of faith to exchange X amount of fiat currency for X amount of Bitcoin. It's remained alive and increasing in value because in a step of faith others were willing to exchange increasing amounts of fiat for those coins. The process continued until about a year ago when that faith in a continued increase in value began to wane. And while this is essentially true for fiat there are 100x as many folks exercise faith in fiat verse crypto AND governments supporting the continued existence of fiat, especially the dollar, as the world's reserve currency. Folks have seen their purchasing power (fiat dollars) diminished with time but not 50% in less than a year. All these crypto currencies trying to survive in this space are going to be crushed by whatever digital currency the U.S. and other major countries develop.
Are there any fortune 500 companies paying employees in crypto? Has the U.S given Social Security recipients the option to get their month payments in crypto? How many trillions of dollars in bonds are held by individuals, corporations and governments. Do you think the powers that be (nations and corporations including banks) are going to allow a rival currency to threaten those dollars? I don't believe they will and for that reason I don't think a crypto currency other the ones controlled, monitored and tax by the major governments backed up by the existing corporations and banks is going to survive.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@Ownerofawheatiehorde said:
In my opinion, the great days of crypto is over. There may be some excitement in the industry, but nothing compared to what it used to be
Just like 1950D nickels.
Now you tell me?
72 years later and now I find out I'm lugging virtually worthless metal.
@Ownerofawheatiehorde said:
In my opinion, the great days of crypto is over. There may be some excitement in the industry, but nothing compared to what it used to be
Just like 1950D nickels.
Now you tell me?
72 years later and now I find out I'm lugging virtually worthless metal.
LOL. Not worthless but waaaay off their peak.
To be fair, the US dollar is way off its peak, too.
@pmh1nic said:
I’m not questioning blockchain technology. I’m questioning the idea that major governments are going to accept an avenue of commerce they can’t control and that was one of the major selling points of crypto as a currency. They government will let you plan in a small space that doesn’t threaten their control over the larger economy. The ideal of some global, decentralized currency outside of the control and ability to monitor and tax is a fairytale. There will be a digital currency but it will not be one outside of government control.
To clarify, by control do you mean the ability to control its supply? Pre-1913 I don't believe this would be an issue but I agree the current spending tradition (Post 1913) of the Congress necessitates the ability to increase the supply on a whim. However, I have argued several times in this thread that BTC is far easier to monitor and tax than US Dollars and no one has challenged that. Why do people keep using this argument, or am I missing something?
The investment side of crypto and the volatility that accompanied it works against it being a currency and calls into why is it an asset. It’s only an asset because someone believes there will be a global adoption of crypto (one of the numerous coins) and that someone will be willing to pay more for that hope a year from now so they can reap a profit. In one sense that’s the same as gold (hope for a higher price tomorrow) with one major exception. Gold has been trusted as a medium of exchange for thousands of years. It also has some practical applications and as an ornament. You can’t wear a Bitcoin necklace. The perceived value of a Bitcoin has dropped from $60K to 16K in a year. That tells me a lot of the folks that invested are still very unsure of it as an investment and long term store of wealth.
How US-centric of you! You still choose to ignore the utility of crypto in countries without robust financial services. I encourage you to make a trip to SE Asia and you will see crypto has been adopted much more than you see in the US. But regardless, aside from ubiquity and adoption, Bitcoin is no different than US Dollars in that both rely on faith and utility and for their value. If you look at Bitcoin myopically through the lens of recent events you think it's dead or dying (as probably is the US Dollar), but if you really followed the sector you would see the investment and development and advances in the space.
I get it, crypto is new so there is no history and trust. Nothing can compare to gold and silver in this respect. But that doesn't mean there can't or won't be an innovation in money. If anyone thinks we'll be schlepping around paper notes and coins and checks 100 years from now I would say they are denying evolution and technology.
The obsession about the recent decline in price conveniently ignores the increases in price that we've seen and the recoveries that have occurred after previous "winters." I don't deny that the price is fairly volatile, but it isn't fair to focus only on the recent decline and ignore that massive gains that anyone who's owned it more than a few years still has.
I don't know why there is resistance to calling this a currency. It meets every definition, we've been over this. I'll concede Bitcoin wouldn't work well for a Central Bank, so if that's what you're referring to, I agree. But as far as using it in commerce it's just getting going in the US and a lot more prevalent outside the US.
Yes, controlling the money supply is an aspect of the control. With respect to monitoring and taxing, the digital dollar will be monitored and taxed.
This isn't U.S. centric, it's the central theme of all major governments.
The issue isn't crypto being new. The only inherent value of crypto is the faith of those willing to buy and sell it. Again, the volatility of the buying and selling prevents it from really acting as a currency. It only has value because "in he beginning" someone was willing to take a step of faith to exchange X amount of fiat currency for X amount of Bitcoin. It's remained alive and increasing in value because in a step of faith others were willing to exchange increasing amounts of fiat for those coins. The process continued until about a year ago when that faith in a continued increase in value began to wane. And while this is essentially true for fiat there are 100x as many folks exercise faith in fiat verse crypto AND governments supporting the continued existence of fiat, especially the dollar, as the world's reserve currency. Folks have seen their purchasing power (fiat dollars) diminished with time but not 50% in less than a year. All these crypto currencies trying to survive in this space are going to be crushed by whatever digital currency the U.S. and other major countries develop.
Are there any fortune 500 companies paying employees in crypto? Has the U.S given Social Security recipients the option to get their month payments in crypto? How many trillions of dollars in bonds are held by individuals, corporations and governments. Do you think the powers that be (nations and corporations including banks) are going to allow a rival currency to threaten those dollars? I don't believe they will and for that reason I don't think a crypto currency other the ones controlled, monitored and tax by the major governments backed up by the existing corporations and banks is going to survive.
Again, you've gone Americentric. U.S. doesn't pay SS in crypto. So what? You're willfully ignoring the fact that people buy things with crypto every day. In fact, it is HIGHLY likely that more items are purchased every day with crypto than with gold or silver. Does the U.S. offer to pay SS recipients in gold? Are there any fortune 500 companies paying employees in gold?
@Ownerofawheatiehorde said:
In my opinion, the great days of crypto is over. There may be some excitement in the industry, but nothing compared to what it used to be
Just like 1950D nickels.
Now you tell me?
72 years later and now I find out I'm lugging virtually worthless metal.
LOL. Not worthless but waaaay off their peak.
To be fair, the US dollar is way off its peak, too.
I don't think it's dropped as much as 50D nickels in the last 60 years. In fact, given the inflation in dollar denominated assets, 50 D nickels have dropped even more in real dollars than nominal dollars.
@Ownerofawheatiehorde said:
In my opinion, the great days of crypto is over. There may be some excitement in the industry, but nothing compared to what it used to be
Just like 1950D nickels.
Now you tell me?
72 years later and now I find out I'm lugging virtually worthless metal.
LOL. Not worthless but waaaay off their peak.
To be fair, the US dollar is way off its peak, too.
I don't think it's dropped as much as 50D nickels in the last 60 years.
No doubt. Then again, the US dollar isn't a collectible like a 50-D nickel is.
@Ownerofawheatiehorde said:
In my opinion, the great days of crypto is over. There may be some excitement in the industry, but nothing compared to what it used to be
Just like 1950D nickels.
Now you tell me?
72 years later and now I find out I'm lugging virtually worthless metal.
LOL. Not worthless but waaaay off their peak.
To be fair, the US dollar is way off its peak, too.
I don't think it's dropped as much as 50D nickels in the last 60 years.
No doubt. Then again, the US dollar isn't a collectible like a 50-D nickel is.
Now you are attacking the merits of my pile of 1957 silver certificates. 😀
@pmh1nic said:
I’m not questioning blockchain technology. I’m questioning the idea that major governments are going to accept an avenue of commerce they can’t control and that was one of the major selling points of crypto as a currency. They government will let you plan in a small space that doesn’t threaten their control over the larger economy. The ideal of some global, decentralized currency outside of the control and ability to monitor and tax is a fairytale. There will be a digital currency but it will not be one outside of government control.
To clarify, by control do you mean the ability to control its supply? Pre-1913 I don't believe this would be an issue but I agree the current spending tradition (Post 1913) of the Congress necessitates the ability to increase the supply on a whim. However, I have argued several times in this thread that BTC is far easier to monitor and tax than US Dollars and no one has challenged that. Why do people keep using this argument, or am I missing something?
The investment side of crypto and the volatility that accompanied it works against it being a currency and calls into why is it an asset. It’s only an asset because someone believes there will be a global adoption of crypto (one of the numerous coins) and that someone will be willing to pay more for that hope a year from now so they can reap a profit. In one sense that’s the same as gold (hope for a higher price tomorrow) with one major exception. Gold has been trusted as a medium of exchange for thousands of years. It also has some practical applications and as an ornament. You can’t wear a Bitcoin necklace. The perceived value of a Bitcoin has dropped from $60K to 16K in a year. That tells me a lot of the folks that invested are still very unsure of it as an investment and long term store of wealth.
How US-centric of you! You still choose to ignore the utility of crypto in countries without robust financial services. I encourage you to make a trip to SE Asia and you will see crypto has been adopted much more than you see in the US. But regardless, aside from ubiquity and adoption, Bitcoin is no different than US Dollars in that both rely on faith and utility and for their value. If you look at Bitcoin myopically through the lens of recent events you think it's dead or dying (as probably is the US Dollar), but if you really followed the sector you would see the investment and development and advances in the space.
I get it, crypto is new so there is no history and trust. Nothing can compare to gold and silver in this respect. But that doesn't mean there can't or won't be an innovation in money. If anyone thinks we'll be schlepping around paper notes and coins and checks 100 years from now I would say they are denying evolution and technology.
The obsession about the recent decline in price conveniently ignores the increases in price that we've seen and the recoveries that have occurred after previous "winters." I don't deny that the price is fairly volatile, but it isn't fair to focus only on the recent decline and ignore that massive gains that anyone who's owned it more than a few years still has.
I don't know why there is resistance to calling this a currency. It meets every definition, we've been over this. I'll concede Bitcoin wouldn't work well for a Central Bank, so if that's what you're referring to, I agree. But as far as using it in commerce it's just getting going in the US and a lot more prevalent outside the US.
Yes, controlling the money supply is an aspect of the control. With respect to monitoring and taxing, the digital dollar will be monitored and taxed.
This isn't U.S. centric, it's the central theme of all major governments.
The issue isn't crypto being new. The only inherent value of crypto is the faith of those willing to buy and sell it. Again, the volatility of the buying and selling prevents it from really acting as a currency. It only has value because "in he beginning" someone was willing to take a step of faith to exchange X amount of fiat currency for X amount of Bitcoin. It's remained alive and increasing in value because in a step of faith others were willing to exchange increasing amounts of fiat for those coins. The process continued until about a year ago when that faith in a continued increase in value began to wane. And while this is essentially true for fiat there are 100x as many folks exercise faith in fiat verse crypto AND governments supporting the continued existence of fiat, especially the dollar, as the world's reserve currency. Folks have seen their purchasing power (fiat dollars) diminished with time but not 50% in less than a year. All these crypto currencies trying to survive in this space are going to be crushed by whatever digital currency the U.S. and other major countries develop.
Are there any fortune 500 companies paying employees in crypto? Has the U.S given Social Security recipients the option to get their month payments in crypto? How many trillions of dollars in bonds are held by individuals, corporations and governments. Do you think the powers that be (nations and corporations including banks) are going to allow a rival currency to threaten those dollars? I don't believe they will and for that reason I don't think a crypto currency other the ones controlled, monitored and tax by the major governments backed up by the existing corporations and banks is going to survive.
Again, you've gone Americentric. U.S. doesn't pay SS in crypto. So what? You're willfully ignoring the fact that people buy things with crypto every day. In fact, it is HIGHLY likely that more items are purchased every day with crypto than with gold or silver. Does the U.S. offer to pay SS recipients in gold? Are there any fortune 500 companies paying employees in gold?
And again you go off on the U.S. centric rant as if that's the core of the argument I'm making. I said governments not government. Do I have to spell it out for you? Those governments would include the U.S., China, Russia the EU. It would also include other countries that interest in removing the dollar as the reserve currency. Those governments (plural) aren't looking to transfer the power they hold to some decentralized currency that they don't have the power to manipulate, monitor, control and tax.
Yes, a VERY SMALL percentage of the worlds commerce is done in crypto. There is commerce being done in silver, gold, high end watches, etc. That miniscule amount of commerce should give no one the impression that any particular coin of the numerous coins in existence is going to replace the dollar, yen, ruble or yuan.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@pmh1nic said:
I’m not questioning blockchain technology. I’m questioning the idea that major governments are going to accept an avenue of commerce they can’t control and that was one of the major selling points of crypto as a currency. They government will let you plan in a small space that doesn’t threaten their control over the larger economy. The ideal of some global, decentralized currency outside of the control and ability to monitor and tax is a fairytale. There will be a digital currency but it will not be one outside of government control.
To clarify, by control do you mean the ability to control its supply? Pre-1913 I don't believe this would be an issue but I agree the current spending tradition (Post 1913) of the Congress necessitates the ability to increase the supply on a whim. However, I have argued several times in this thread that BTC is far easier to monitor and tax than US Dollars and no one has challenged that. Why do people keep using this argument, or am I missing something?
The investment side of crypto and the volatility that accompanied it works against it being a currency and calls into why is it an asset. It’s only an asset because someone believes there will be a global adoption of crypto (one of the numerous coins) and that someone will be willing to pay more for that hope a year from now so they can reap a profit. In one sense that’s the same as gold (hope for a higher price tomorrow) with one major exception. Gold has been trusted as a medium of exchange for thousands of years. It also has some practical applications and as an ornament. You can’t wear a Bitcoin necklace. The perceived value of a Bitcoin has dropped from $60K to 16K in a year. That tells me a lot of the folks that invested are still very unsure of it as an investment and long term store of wealth.
How US-centric of you! You still choose to ignore the utility of crypto in countries without robust financial services. I encourage you to make a trip to SE Asia and you will see crypto has been adopted much more than you see in the US. But regardless, aside from ubiquity and adoption, Bitcoin is no different than US Dollars in that both rely on faith and utility and for their value. If you look at Bitcoin myopically through the lens of recent events you think it's dead or dying (as probably is the US Dollar), but if you really followed the sector you would see the investment and development and advances in the space.
I get it, crypto is new so there is no history and trust. Nothing can compare to gold and silver in this respect. But that doesn't mean there can't or won't be an innovation in money. If anyone thinks we'll be schlepping around paper notes and coins and checks 100 years from now I would say they are denying evolution and technology.
The obsession about the recent decline in price conveniently ignores the increases in price that we've seen and the recoveries that have occurred after previous "winters." I don't deny that the price is fairly volatile, but it isn't fair to focus only on the recent decline and ignore that massive gains that anyone who's owned it more than a few years still has.
I don't know why there is resistance to calling this a currency. It meets every definition, we've been over this. I'll concede Bitcoin wouldn't work well for a Central Bank, so if that's what you're referring to, I agree. But as far as using it in commerce it's just getting going in the US and a lot more prevalent outside the US.
Yes, controlling the money supply is an aspect of the control. With respect to monitoring and taxing, the digital dollar will be monitored and taxed.
This isn't U.S. centric, it's the central theme of all major governments.
The issue isn't crypto being new. The only inherent value of crypto is the faith of those willing to buy and sell it. Again, the volatility of the buying and selling prevents it from really acting as a currency. It only has value because "in he beginning" someone was willing to take a step of faith to exchange X amount of fiat currency for X amount of Bitcoin. It's remained alive and increasing in value because in a step of faith others were willing to exchange increasing amounts of fiat for those coins. The process continued until about a year ago when that faith in a continued increase in value began to wane. And while this is essentially true for fiat there are 100x as many folks exercise faith in fiat verse crypto AND governments supporting the continued existence of fiat, especially the dollar, as the world's reserve currency. Folks have seen their purchasing power (fiat dollars) diminished with time but not 50% in less than a year. All these crypto currencies trying to survive in this space are going to be crushed by whatever digital currency the U.S. and other major countries develop.
Are there any fortune 500 companies paying employees in crypto? Has the U.S given Social Security recipients the option to get their month payments in crypto? How many trillions of dollars in bonds are held by individuals, corporations and governments. Do you think the powers that be (nations and corporations including banks) are going to allow a rival currency to threaten those dollars? I don't believe they will and for that reason I don't think a crypto currency other the ones controlled, monitored and tax by the major governments backed up by the existing corporations and banks is going to survive.
Again, you've gone Americentric. U.S. doesn't pay SS in crypto. So what? You're willfully ignoring the fact that people buy things with crypto every day. In fact, it is HIGHLY likely that more items are purchased every day with crypto than with gold or silver. Does the U.S. offer to pay SS recipients in gold? Are there any fortune 500 companies paying employees in gold?
And again you go off on the U.S. centric rant as if that's the core of the argument I'm making. I said governments not government. Do I have to spell it out for you? Those governments would include the U.S., China, Russia the EU. It would also include other countries that interest in removing the dollar as the reserve currency. Those governments (plural) aren't looking to transfer the power they hold to some decentralized currency that they don't have the power to manipulate, monitor, control and tax.
Yes, a VERY SMALL percentage of the worlds commerce is done in crypto. There is commerce being done in silver, gold, high end watches, etc. That miniscule amount of commerce should give no one the impression that any particular coin of the numerous coins in existence is going to replace the dollar, yen, ruble or yuan.
No one ever said "replace". So you've set up a straw man argument.
@pmh1nic said:
I’m not questioning blockchain technology. I’m questioning the idea that major governments are going to accept an avenue of commerce they can’t control and that was one of the major selling points of crypto as a currency. They government will let you plan in a small space that doesn’t threaten their control over the larger economy. The ideal of some global, decentralized currency outside of the control and ability to monitor and tax is a fairytale. There will be a digital currency but it will not be one outside of government control.
To clarify, by control do you mean the ability to control its supply? Pre-1913 I don't believe this would be an issue but I agree the current spending tradition (Post 1913) of the Congress necessitates the ability to increase the supply on a whim. However, I have argued several times in this thread that BTC is far easier to monitor and tax than US Dollars and no one has challenged that. Why do people keep using this argument, or am I missing something?
The investment side of crypto and the volatility that accompanied it works against it being a currency and calls into why is it an asset. It’s only an asset because someone believes there will be a global adoption of crypto (one of the numerous coins) and that someone will be willing to pay more for that hope a year from now so they can reap a profit. In one sense that’s the same as gold (hope for a higher price tomorrow) with one major exception. Gold has been trusted as a medium of exchange for thousands of years. It also has some practical applications and as an ornament. You can’t wear a Bitcoin necklace. The perceived value of a Bitcoin has dropped from $60K to 16K in a year. That tells me a lot of the folks that invested are still very unsure of it as an investment and long term store of wealth.
How US-centric of you! You still choose to ignore the utility of crypto in countries without robust financial services. I encourage you to make a trip to SE Asia and you will see crypto has been adopted much more than you see in the US. But regardless, aside from ubiquity and adoption, Bitcoin is no different than US Dollars in that both rely on faith and utility and for their value. If you look at Bitcoin myopically through the lens of recent events you think it's dead or dying (as probably is the US Dollar), but if you really followed the sector you would see the investment and development and advances in the space.
I get it, crypto is new so there is no history and trust. Nothing can compare to gold and silver in this respect. But that doesn't mean there can't or won't be an innovation in money. If anyone thinks we'll be schlepping around paper notes and coins and checks 100 years from now I would say they are denying evolution and technology.
The obsession about the recent decline in price conveniently ignores the increases in price that we've seen and the recoveries that have occurred after previous "winters." I don't deny that the price is fairly volatile, but it isn't fair to focus only on the recent decline and ignore that massive gains that anyone who's owned it more than a few years still has.
I don't know why there is resistance to calling this a currency. It meets every definition, we've been over this. I'll concede Bitcoin wouldn't work well for a Central Bank, so if that's what you're referring to, I agree. But as far as using it in commerce it's just getting going in the US and a lot more prevalent outside the US.
Yes, controlling the money supply is an aspect of the control. With respect to monitoring and taxing, the digital dollar will be monitored and taxed.
This isn't U.S. centric, it's the central theme of all major governments.
The issue isn't crypto being new. The only inherent value of crypto is the faith of those willing to buy and sell it. Again, the volatility of the buying and selling prevents it from really acting as a currency. It only has value because "in he beginning" someone was willing to take a step of faith to exchange X amount of fiat currency for X amount of Bitcoin. It's remained alive and increasing in value because in a step of faith others were willing to exchange increasing amounts of fiat for those coins. The process continued until about a year ago when that faith in a continued increase in value began to wane. And while this is essentially true for fiat there are 100x as many folks exercise faith in fiat verse crypto AND governments supporting the continued existence of fiat, especially the dollar, as the world's reserve currency. Folks have seen their purchasing power (fiat dollars) diminished with time but not 50% in less than a year. All these crypto currencies trying to survive in this space are going to be crushed by whatever digital currency the U.S. and other major countries develop.
Are there any fortune 500 companies paying employees in crypto? Has the U.S given Social Security recipients the option to get their month payments in crypto? How many trillions of dollars in bonds are held by individuals, corporations and governments. Do you think the powers that be (nations and corporations including banks) are going to allow a rival currency to threaten those dollars? I don't believe they will and for that reason I don't think a crypto currency other the ones controlled, monitored and tax by the major governments backed up by the existing corporations and banks is going to survive.
Again, you've gone Americentric. U.S. doesn't pay SS in crypto. So what? You're willfully ignoring the fact that people buy things with crypto every day. In fact, it is HIGHLY likely that more items are purchased every day with crypto than with gold or silver. Does the U.S. offer to pay SS recipients in gold? Are there any fortune 500 companies paying employees in gold?
And again you go off on the U.S. centric rant as if that's the core of the argument I'm making. I said governments not government. Do I have to spell it out for you? Those governments would include the U.S., China, Russia the EU. It would also include other countries that interest in removing the dollar as the reserve currency. Those governments (plural) aren't looking to transfer the power they hold to some decentralized currency that they don't have the power to manipulate, monitor, control and tax.
Yes, a VERY SMALL percentage of the worlds commerce is done in crypto. There is commerce being done in silver, gold, high end watches, etc. That miniscule amount of commerce should give no one the impression that any particular coin of the numerous coins in existence is going to replace the dollar, yen, ruble or yuan.
No one ever said "replace". So you've set up a straw man argument.
You may have never said replace but those preaching the gospel of crypto believe crypto is the answer to all fiat currencies. And I'd argue crypto as being preached, decentralized, out of the control of the major sovereign governments is a fairytale. This stuff gets swallowed up by naive, idealistic folks believing it leads to an economic utopia. Not! Most if not all of the upward movement of Bitcoin was generated by the hype promoted by folks like O'Leary, Saylor and a thousand and one YouTube "influencers" appealing to the get rich quick crowd. There evidence of Bitcoin as a great investment were the stories of those that did make millions buying Bitcoin low, selling high exchanging it for fiat dollars to buy real assets. Ponzi schemes do make a lot of money for some as long as you have a fresh supply of buyers willing to exercise faith in an asset with no real underlying value.
Again, there is no crypto currency that is not controlled by the major governments (that's plural) taking over in any significant way the place of the dollar, yuan or any other major sovereign currency.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
Like I have said before, crypto started out with great promise and then the various shenanigans surrounding it has put me on the fence (and sort of agree to what Bob Moriarty says in below video).
Yes, controlling the money supply is an aspect of the control. With respect to monitoring and taxing, the digital dollar will be monitored and taxed.
That wasn't the topic. Will you admit that crypto is easier to monitor and tax than USD cash transactions today?
This isn't U.S. centric, it's the central theme of all major governments.
The issue isn't crypto being new. The only inherent value of crypto is the faith of those willing to buy and sell it. Again, the volatility of the buying and selling prevents it from really acting as a currency. It only has value because "in he beginning" someone was willing to take a step of faith to exchange X amount of fiat currency for X amount of Bitcoin. It's remained alive and increasing in value because in a step of faith others were willing to exchange increasing amounts of fiat for those coins. The process continued until about a year ago when that faith in a continued increase in value began to wane. And while this is essentially true for fiat there are 100x as many folks exercise faith in fiat verse crypto AND governments supporting the continued existence of fiat, especially the dollar, as the world's reserve currency. Folks have seen their purchasing power (fiat dollars) diminished with time but not 50% in less than a year. All these crypto currencies trying to survive in this space are going to be crushed by whatever digital currency the U.S. and other major countries develop.
Are there any fortune 500 companies paying employees in crypto? Has the U.S given Social Security recipients the option to get their month payments in crypto? How many trillions of dollars in bonds are held by individuals, corporations and governments. Do you think the powers that be (nations and corporations including banks) are going to allow a rival currency to threaten those dollars? I don't believe they will and for that reason I don't think a crypto currency other the ones controlled, monitored and tax by the major governments backed up by the existing corporations and banks is going to survive.
To be fair, you're comparing a brand new emerging technology with traditional currencies that have been around forever and asking why the new technology isn't ubiquitous yet. I must have been unclear about the US-centric comment because as I said before, crypto is much more commonplace in other countries. Adoption of new technologies takes time. It will take time to integrate crypto payment into existing POS interfaces and systems. It may seem simple but it's not. The US government is never going to pay with anything but its own fiat. Amazon is working on integrating crypto payments as I type.
You keep saying Bitcoin isn't a currency but you won't provide your definition. If we're not using words with the same meaning it's going to be hard to productive.
As others have stated, the USD is off about 98% off its peak. Sure, it's been gradual over ~100 years but 98% is a lousy track record. Bitcoin on the other hand is still up thousands of percent. All USD holders are down 8% (if you believe the gov't numbers) in the past year, while only ~50% of BTC wallets have lost value in USD terms. And let's not forget executive order 6102 (when gold went from $20/oz to $35/oz overnight) resulting in an overnight 58% haircut in USD/gold terms.
@pmh1nic said:
And again you go off on the U.S. centric rant as if that's the core of the argument I'm making. I said governments not government. Do I have to spell it out for you? Those governments would include the U.S., China, Russia the EU. It would also include other countries that interest in removing the dollar as the reserve currency. Those governments (plural) aren't looking to transfer the power they hold to some decentralized currency that they don't have the power to manipulate, monitor, control and tax.
I'm not sure anyone's made the argument that any crypto would replace government CBCs (central bank currencies). Only that governments would issue their own crypto version of their own currency.
Yes, a VERY SMALL percentage of the worlds commerce is done in crypto. There is commerce being done in silver, gold, high end watches, etc. That miniscule amount of commerce should give no one the impression that any particular coin of the numerous coins in existence is going to replace the dollar, yen, ruble or yuan.
I would agree that no crypto is likely to overtake them with the exception of international commerce for which crypto is very well suited.
@pmh1nic said:
You may have never said replace but those preaching the gospel of crypto believe crypto is the answer to all fiat currencies. And I'd argue crypto as being preached, decentralized, out of the control of the major sovereign governments is a fairytale. This stuff gets swallowed up by naive, idealistic folks believing it leads to an economic utopia. Not! Most if not all of the upward movement of Bitcoin was generated by the hype promoted by folks like O'Leary, Saylor and a thousand and one YouTube "influencers" appealing to the get rich quick crowd. There evidence of Bitcoin as a great investment were the stories of those that did make millions buying Bitcoin low, selling high exchanging it for fiat dollars to buy real assets. Ponzi schemes do make a lot of money for some as long as you have a fresh supply of buyers willing to exercise faith in an asset with no real underlying value.
Who is preaching the gospel of crypto? I am only here ensuring that it is critiqued fairly, so I'm not sure who your audience is. No governments control any decentralized cryptos. Ignoring the case where a government grabs a 50.00001% ownership stake in any crypto, it's just not possible. But again if I'm missing something please let me know.
Ponzi schemes do make a lot of money for some as long as you have a fresh supply of buyers willing to exercise faith in an asset with no real underlying value.
This also describes the US dollar. In fact, let's make a comparison:
US Dollar: Global acceptance is becoming more limited. Some countries dumping USD and USD assets. Oil transactions no longer exclusively done in USD.
BTC: Global acceptance is growing. Active wallet numbers ever-increasing.
If my analysis is correct, it seems like one ponzi is crumbling, while the other is still on its way up.
Again, there is no crypto currency that is not controlled by the major governments (that's plural) taking over in any significant way the place of the dollar, yuan or any other major sovereign currency.
Agreed.
@vulcanize said:
Like I have said before, crypto started out with great promise and then the various shenanigans surrounding it has put me on the fence (and sort of agree to what Bob Moriarty says in below video).
No industry/asset/whatever is exempt from scams and scammers. US investors have probably grown complacent about investment risks because the systems have done a good job of reducing or insuring against the amount of fraud we can be exposed to. Like most investments, the risk is commensurate with reward. Little risk, little reward. High risk, high reward. Everyone has to pick the risk profile they are comfortable with.
Like I have said before, crypto started out with great promise and then the various shenanigans surrounding it has put me on the fence (and sort of agree to what Bob Moriarty says in below video).
He covers a lot of stuff including geo-politics, so the timeline to skip all that, the ads etc. and go directly to pertaining topics:
2:14 FTX scandal
5:15 Blockchain
8:35 Digital Dollar
18:45 Crypto to metals
27:12 BRICS currency
**Edited to add timeline
Be cautious about listening to a no-coiner like this guy. Based on his explanation of blockchain, it's clear he's not much of an expert on blockchain/cryptocurrency. A blockchain is just a form of a database. There are centralized and decentralized blockchains, but his explanation ignores this which tells me he's only looked into crypto at a very high level.
I just don't understand all the arguing about crypto. If you like it, play it! If you don't like it, don't play it! Problem solved. Why the need to convince others of its worthiness or unworthiness?
@ms71 said:
I just don't understand all the arguing about crypto. If you like it, play it! If you don't like it, don't play it! Problem solved. Why the need to convince others of its worthiness or unworthiness?
Because those promoting it need more recruits (greater fools) to sell theirs to, in order to profit.
They are arguing that cryptos have the characteristics of currency, while the detractors state, imho correctly, that they much more have all the characteristics of pyramid schemes.
No one has ever had to talk me into buying an attractive rare old coin, or a solid growth stock with a good track record, or a piece of quality real estate in a good location.
But they sure push the common moderns, the penny stocks, and the timeshares, don't they!
@ms71 said:
I just don't understand all the arguing about crypto. If you like it, play it! If you don't like it, don't play it! Problem solved. Why the need to convince others of its worthiness or unworthiness?
Because those promoting it need more recruits (greater fools) to sell theirs to, in order to profit.
They are arguing that cryptos have the characteristics of currency, while the detractors state, imho correctly, that they much more have all the characteristics of pyramid schemes.
No one has ever had to talk me into buying an attractive rare old coin, or a solid growth stock with a good track record, or a piece of quality real estate in a good location.
But they sure push the common moderns, the penny stocks, and the timeshares, don't they!
are you really suggesting that there has never been a pump and dump with stocks, coins or gold? If so, you might want to do more research.
And no one here has suggested that anyone buy anything.
@ms71 said:
I just don't understand all the arguing about crypto. If you like it, play it! If you don't like it, don't play it! Problem solved. Why the need to convince others of its worthiness or unworthiness?
For this thread anyway, it's not so much convincing as it is correcting the ignorance, misunderstandings, and misconceptions around it. And there is a lot of it.
Yes, controlling the money supply is an aspect of the control. With respect to monitoring and taxing, the digital dollar will be monitored and taxed.
That wasn't the topic. Will you admit that crypto is easier to monitor and tax than USD cash transactions today?
This isn't U.S. centric, it's the central theme of all major governments.
The issue isn't crypto being new. The only inherent value of crypto is the faith of those willing to buy and sell it. Again, the volatility of the buying and selling prevents it from really acting as a currency. It only has value because "in he beginning" someone was willing to take a step of faith to exchange X amount of fiat currency for X amount of Bitcoin. It's remained alive and increasing in value because in a step of faith others were willing to exchange increasing amounts of fiat for those coins. The process continued until about a year ago when that faith in a continued increase in value began to wane. And while this is essentially true for fiat there are 100x as many folks exercise faith in fiat verse crypto AND governments supporting the continued existence of fiat, especially the dollar, as the world's reserve currency. Folks have seen their purchasing power (fiat dollars) diminished with time but not 50% in less than a year. All these crypto currencies trying to survive in this space are going to be crushed by whatever digital currency the U.S. and other major countries develop.
Are there any fortune 500 companies paying employees in crypto? Has the U.S given Social Security recipients the option to get their month payments in crypto? How many trillions of dollars in bonds are held by individuals, corporations and governments. Do you think the powers that be (nations and corporations including banks) are going to allow a rival currency to threaten those dollars? I don't believe they will and for that reason I don't think a crypto currency other the ones controlled, monitored and tax by the major governments backed up by the existing corporations and banks is going to survive.
To be fair, you're comparing a brand new emerging technology with traditional currencies that have been around forever and asking why the new technology isn't ubiquitous yet. I must have been unclear about the US-centric comment because as I said before, crypto is much more commonplace in other countries. Adoption of new technologies takes time. It will take time to integrate crypto payment into existing POS interfaces and systems. It may seem simple but it's not. The US government is never going to pay with anything but its own fiat. Amazon is working on integrating crypto payments as I type.
You keep saying Bitcoin isn't a currency but you won't provide your definition. If we're not using words with the same meaning it's going to be hard to productive.
As others have stated, the USD is off about 98% off its peak. Sure, it's been gradual over ~100 years but 98% is a lousy track record. Bitcoin on the other hand is still up thousands of percent. All USD holders are down 8% (if you believe the gov't numbers) in the past year, while only ~50% of BTC wallets have lost value in USD terms. And let's not forget executive order 6102 (when gold went from $20/oz to $35/oz overnight) resulting in an overnight 58% haircut in USD/gold terms.
@pmh1nic said:
And again you go off on the U.S. centric rant as if that's the core of the argument I'm making. I said governments not government. Do I have to spell it out for you? Those governments would include the U.S., China, Russia the EU. It would also include other countries that interest in removing the dollar as the reserve currency. Those governments (plural) aren't looking to transfer the power they hold to some decentralized currency that they don't have the power to manipulate, monitor, control and tax.
I'm not sure anyone's made the argument that any crypto would replace government CBCs (central bank currencies). Only that governments would issue their own crypto version of their own currency.
Yes, a VERY SMALL percentage of the worlds commerce is done in crypto. There is commerce being done in silver, gold, high end watches, etc. That miniscule amount of commerce should give no one the impression that any particular coin of the numerous coins in existence is going to replace the dollar, yen, ruble or yuan.
I would agree that no crypto is likely to overtake them with the exception of international commerce for which crypto is very well suited.
@pmh1nic said:
You may have never said replace but those preaching the gospel of crypto believe crypto is the answer to all fiat currencies. And I'd argue crypto as being preached, decentralized, out of the control of the major sovereign governments is a fairytale. This stuff gets swallowed up by naive, idealistic folks believing it leads to an economic utopia. Not! Most if not all of the upward movement of Bitcoin was generated by the hype promoted by folks like O'Leary, Saylor and a thousand and one YouTube "influencers" appealing to the get rich quick crowd. There evidence of Bitcoin as a great investment were the stories of those that did make millions buying Bitcoin low, selling high exchanging it for fiat dollars to buy real assets. Ponzi schemes do make a lot of money for some as long as you have a fresh supply of buyers willing to exercise faith in an asset with no real underlying value.
Who is preaching the gospel of crypto? I am only here ensuring that it is critiqued fairly, so I'm not sure who your audience is. No governments control any decentralized cryptos. Ignoring the case where a government grabs a 50.00001% ownership stake in any crypto, it's just not possible. But again if I'm missing something please let me know.
Ponzi schemes do make a lot of money for some as long as you have a fresh supply of buyers willing to exercise faith in an asset with no real underlying value.
This also describes the US dollar. In fact, let's make a comparison:
US Dollar: Global acceptance is becoming more limited. Some countries dumping USD and USD assets. Oil transactions no longer exclusively done in USD.
BTC: Global acceptance is growing. Active wallet numbers ever-increasing.
If my analysis is correct, it seems like one ponzi is crumbling, while the other is still on its way up.
Again, there is no crypto currency that is not controlled by the major governments (that's plural) taking over in any significant way the place of the dollar, yuan or any other major sovereign currency.
Agreed.
@vulcanize said:
Like I have said before, crypto started out with great promise and then the various shenanigans surrounding it has put me on the fence (and sort of agree to what Bob Moriarty says in below video).
No industry/asset/whatever is exempt from scams and scammers. US investors have probably grown complacent about investment risks because the systems have done a good job of reducing or insuring against the amount of fraud we can be exposed to. Like most investments, the risk is commensurate with reward. Little risk, little reward. High risk, high reward. Everyone has to pick the risk profile they are comfortable with.
This isn't about a new technology. It's an argument about who controls monetary policy. The countries with the largest economies in the world are not going to abandon that control. What they are doing in El Salvador is a meaningless distraction with respect to monetary policy and who controls it.
I referenced some of the names preaching the gospel of crypto and there are many more. You don't see my criticism as fair because you're invested in crypto and don't want to hear anything negative that is said about it.
Yes, over the last 100 years the dollars has lost 98% of its value. That has somewhat been offset by the increase in wages. The average wage in 1922 was $0.75 per hour, today it is $10.93. On the other had Bitcoin has lost over 70% of its buying power in less that a year. You cannot have a stable, functioning currency that loses or gains 70% per year.
My guess is there was a huge growth in active wallets during the massive hyping of crypto over the last year. There was a lot of activity in those wallets as the massive sell off occurred. This attempted to bite of a significant (I avoided saying all) percentage of commerce is NOT going to be allowed by the major governments unless they are actively involved in controlling that commerce and taxing it, period, end of story.
Again, are any Fortune 500 companies giving employees the option to be paid in crypto? Are there any other countries with a system similar to Social Security paying benefits in crypto?
Digital currency exist today and will increase but it's not going to be a digital currency that is not controlled by the major economic players of the world. That decentralized, impossible to monitor, disconnected from government control currency is a fairytale. It may be allowed to play in some small corner but it's not going to be anything close to a mainstream means of commerce.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@ms71 said:
I just don't understand all the arguing about crypto. If you like it, play it! If you don't like it, don't play it! Problem solved. Why the need to convince others of its worthiness or unworthiness?
Well we're giving our informed or uniformed as the case may be.... opinions, isn"t that what a message board does half the time? Good info and good opinion in this thread.
Until the moderators shut it down because they or the curmudgeons do not like what is being said we are free to opine.
I find the space and the times we find ourselves occupied with crypto fascinating.
Bear in mind the confidence in the US dollar is just that, confidence.
@pmh1nic said:
This isn't about a new technology. It's an argument about who controls monetary policy. The countries with the largest economies in the world are not going to abandon that control. What they are doing in El Salvador is a meaningless distraction with respect to monetary policy and who controls it.
Well it is about new technology when one of your chief arguments against it is (paraphrasing), "Why isn't everyone using it then?" Like asking why everyone isn't on the Internet in 1995 and predicting doom because it hasn't caught on yet.
Who said governments would abandon control of their currencies? I don't recall seeing that claim here.
I referenced some of the names preaching the gospel of crypto and there are many more. You don't see my criticism as fair because you're invested in crypto and don't want to hear anything negative that is said about it.
I could name some gold bugs too, but that doesn't mean they are right about everything. None of these people are involved in this thread from what I can tell.
Some of your criticism has been fair, and I have answered that which has not been, such as why "everyone" isn't using crypto yet and your statements about monitoring and taxing crypto.
Yes, over the last 100 years the dollars has lost 98% of its value. That has somewhat been offset by the increase in wages. The average wage in 1922 was $0.75 per hour, today it is $10.93. On the other had Bitcoin has lost over 70% of its buying power in less that a year. You cannot have a stable, functioning currency that loses or gains 70% per year.
Again, selective statistics. Sure it's down 70% in a year, but what about 5 years, or 10 years?
I agree that the price of Bitcoin relative to USD is not stable, but that isn't stopping people from continuing to hold and use it in transactions. Yep, even after the recent decline you can still use your Bitcoin and other crypto at APMEX.
Edited to add: Yet another exhibit for the use/application of crypto: Lower fees using crypto vs third parties (ie credit cards). Faster than checks or bank transfers.
My guess is there was a huge growth in active wallets during the massive hyping of crypto over the last year. There was a lot of activity in those wallets as the massive sell off occurred. This attempted to bite of a significant (I avoided saying all) percentage of commerce is NOT going to be allowed by the major governments unless they are actively involved in controlling that commerce and taxing it, period, end of story.
I don't know if it will ever be a significant form of commerce. Probably not if the US CBDC works fine. It will likely be a prominent second form of commerce though.
Again, are any Fortune 500 companies giving employees the option to be paid in crypto? Are there any other countries with a system similar to Social Security paying benefits in crypto?
Again, it's pretty new so a lot of the infrastructure to support this really doesn't exist yet. And that's probably a poor example. I'll point out that even your multinational companies won't pay US employees in Yen or Euros upon request either.
Digital currency exist today and will increase but it's not going to be a digital currency that is not controlled by the major economic players of the world. That decentralized, impossible to monitor, disconnected from government control currency is a fairytale. It may be allowed to play in some small corner but it's not going to be anything close to a mainstream means of commerce.
It's actually not. It's not Bitcoin, but zero-knowledge privacy coins exist and work quite well. These cryptos are definitely not controlled by any governments and they are impossible to monitor so long as there are no exposure points, such as through an exchange or other entity that would associate and ID with a wallet address. I'll concede that the US government and many others will probably not allow an exchange operating within their borders to trade those coins. That doesn't mean that they don't exist and aren't useful, but I agree they will never be mainstream.
@pmh1nic said:
This isn't about a new technology. It's an argument about who controls monetary policy. The countries with the largest economies in the world are not going to abandon that control. What they are doing in El Salvador is a meaningless distraction with respect to monetary policy and who controls it.
Well it is about new technology when one of your chief arguments against it is (paraphrasing), "Why isn't everyone using it then?" Like asking why everyone isn't on the Internet in 1995 and predicting doom because it hasn't caught on yet.
Who said governments would abandon control of their currencies? I don't recall seeing that claim here.
I referenced some of the names preaching the gospel of crypto and there are many more. You don't see my criticism as fair because you're invested in crypto and don't want to hear anything negative that is said about it.
I could name some gold bugs too, but that doesn't mean they are right about everything. None of these people are involved in this thread from what I can tell.
Some of your criticism has been fair, and I have answered that which has not been, such as why "everyone" isn't using crypto yet and your statements about monitoring and taxing crypto.
Yes, over the last 100 years the dollars has lost 98% of its value. That has somewhat been offset by the increase in wages. The average wage in 1922 was $0.75 per hour, today it is $10.93. On the other had Bitcoin has lost over 70% of its buying power in less that a year. You cannot have a stable, functioning currency that loses or gains 70% per year.
Again, selective statistics. Sure it's down 70% in a year, but what about 5 years, or 10 years?
I agree that the price of Bitcoin relative to USD is not stable, but that isn't stopping people from continuing to hold and use it in transactions. Yep, even after the recent decline you can still use your Bitcoin and other crypto at APMEX.
Edited to add: Yet another exhibit for the use/application of crypto: Lower fees using crypto vs third parties (ie credit cards). Faster than checks or bank transfers.
My guess is there was a huge growth in active wallets during the massive hyping of crypto over the last year. There was a lot of activity in those wallets as the massive sell off occurred. This attempted to bite of a significant (I avoided saying all) percentage of commerce is NOT going to be allowed by the major governments unless they are actively involved in controlling that commerce and taxing it, period, end of story.
I don't know if it will ever be a significant form of commerce. Probably not if the US CBDC works fine. It will likely be a prominent second form of commerce though.
Again, are any Fortune 500 companies giving employees the option to be paid in crypto? Are there any other countries with a system similar to Social Security paying benefits in crypto?
Again, it's pretty new so a lot of the infrastructure to support this really doesn't exist yet. And that's probably a poor example. I'll point out that even your multinational companies won't pay US employees in Yen or Euros upon request either.
Digital currency exist today and will increase but it's not going to be a digital currency that is not controlled by the major economic players of the world. That decentralized, impossible to monitor, disconnected from government control currency is a fairytale. It may be allowed to play in some small corner but it's not going to be anything close to a mainstream means of commerce.
It's actually not. It's not Bitcoin, but zero-knowledge privacy coins exist and work quite well. These cryptos are definitely not controlled by any governments and they are impossible to monitor so long as there are no exposure points, such as through an exchange or other entity that would associate and ID with a wallet address. I'll concede that the US government and many others will probably not allow an exchange operating within their borders to trade those coins. That doesn't mean that they don't exist and aren't useful, but I agree they will never be mainstream.
My chief argument for not using it is trust and what has occurred over the last year and the last week has shown crypto hasn't earn that trust. Another reason it has failed and will continue to do so is governments and those that control the current monetary policy. No entity that threatens that control will survive. A huge selling point of crypto was it being outside government control and regulation. That was a false claim in my opinion.
Name the gold bugs all you want. False claims made by gold bugs does nothing to bolster your argument.
The statistics are what they are. I didn't make them. And what the statistics say is Bitcoin is not going to be anything more than a highly volatile asset that's only an asset if you believe others will pay more for next month while you're holding.
What you can buy on Ampex today is 70% less than you could have purchased a year ago.
No Fortune 500 company I'm aware of is giving employees an option to be paid in Bitcoin. There hasn't been the mass adoption of crypto in commerce. Yes, there has been a lot of trading in the space and the key to that trading was a hope for major profits. A lot of folks did not have the faith to buy and hold as evidenced by the sell off.
Unless someone has been living under a rock just about everyone has heard about crypto. And why so U.S. centric. The rejection with respect to governments is not limited to the U.S. I don't think China or Russia are keen on the idea.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
Yes, over the last 100 years the dollars has lost 98% of its value. That has somewhat been offset by the increase in wages. The average wage in 1922 was $0.75 per hour, today it is $10.93. On the other had Bitcoin has lost over 70% of its buying power in less that a year. You cannot have a stable, functioning currency that loses or gains 70% per year.
Is this really true? Is my local grocery store hiring cashiers for 140% of the average wage? Does average here mean "mean" or something else? I'm extremely skeptical, like where are all the people making below average wages?
Yes, over the last 100 years the dollars has lost 98% of its value. That has somewhat been offset by the increase in wages. The average wage in 1922 was $0.75 per hour, today it is $10.93. On the other had Bitcoin has lost over 70% of its buying power in less that a year. You cannot have a stable, functioning currency that loses or gains 70% per year.
Is this really true? Is my local grocery store hiring cashiers for 140% of the average wage? Does average here mean "mean" or something else? I'm extremely skeptical, like where are all the people making below average wages?
It's not even close to right unless that is inflation adjusted dollars.
Yes, over the last 100 years the dollars has lost 98% of its value. That has somewhat been offset by the increase in wages. The average wage in 1922 was $0.75 per hour, today it is $10.93. On the other had Bitcoin has lost over 70% of its buying power in less that a year. You cannot have a stable, functioning currency that loses or gains 70% per year.
Is this really true? Is my local grocery store hiring cashiers for 140% of the average wage? Does average here mean "mean" or something else? I'm extremely skeptical, like where are all the people making below average wages?
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@pmh1nic said:
My chief argument for not using it is trust and what has occurred over the last year and the last week has shown crypto hasn't earn that trust. Another reason it has failed and will continue to do so is governments and those that control the current monetary policy. No entity that threatens that control will survive. A huge selling point of crypto was it being outside government control and regulation. That was a false claim in my opinion.
I agree that crypto has been associated with some high profile scams and failures, but that's a bit like blaming cars for car accidents and saying how unsafe it is to ride in a car.
I don't see where governments are or should be threatened by cryptocurrency any more than they should be threatened by gold and silver or the currency of another foreign nation. I know this is a popular theme among the anti-crypto crowd, but for many of the reasons we have discussed it won't ever supplant the local currency except perhaps in countries without robust financial systems and services.
Name the gold bugs all you want. False claims made by gold bugs does nothing to bolster your argument.
And false claims by crypto bugs don't bolster your arguments either.
The statistics are what they are. I didn't make them. And what the statistics say is Bitcoin is not going to be anything more than a highly volatile asset that's only an asset if you believe others will pay more for next month while you're holding.
And here you go again redefining 'asset' now. The classification of 'asset' is not contingent on a belief of appreciation, only a belief or expectation of future benefit.
What you can buy on Ampex today is 70% less than you could have purchased a year ago.
Right. And in my city, my US dollars buy half the house I could have bought two years ago. That doesn't mean Bitcoin can't be used in commerce to buy things which pretty well demonstrates its use as a currency. But again, you won't tell use what your definition of _currency _ is.
No Fortune 500 company I'm aware of is giving employees an option to be paid in Bitcoin. There hasn't been the mass adoption of crypto in commerce.
Yes, we're still early in the adoption curve. Why don't you get that? Were you beating the drum of, why can't I buy things on [insert company name] website in 1995? That's what you're saying.
Yes, there has been a lot of trading in the space and the key to that trading was a hope for major profits. A lot of folks did not have the faith to buy and hold as evidenced by the sell off.
For every seller there was a buyer. A lower price indicates that demand is lower or supply is higher now (or a bit of both), but each Bitcoin is still held by someone who sees a benefit in owning it.
Unless someone has been living under a rock just about everyone has heard about crypto. And why so U.S. centric. The rejection with respect to governments is not limited to the U.S. I don't think China or Russia are keen on the idea.
Who suggested that any major government would replace their central bank currencies with a decentralized crypto? The crypto bugs?
Yes, over the last 100 years the dollars has lost 98% of its value. That has somewhat been offset by the increase in wages. The average wage in 1922 was $0.75 per hour, today it is $10.93. On the other had Bitcoin has lost over 70% of its buying power in less that a year. You cannot have a stable, functioning currency that loses or gains 70% per year.
Is this really true? Is my local grocery store hiring cashiers for 140% of the average wage? Does average here mean "mean" or something else? I'm extremely skeptical, like where are all the people making below average wages?
@pmh1nic said:
My chief argument for not using it is trust and what has occurred over the last year and the last week has shown crypto hasn't earn that trust. Another reason it has failed and will continue to do so is governments and those that control the current monetary policy. No entity that threatens that control will survive. A huge selling point of crypto was it being outside government control and regulation. That was a false claim in my opinion.
I agree that crypto has been associated with some high profile scams and failures, but that's a bit like blaming cars for car accidents and saying how unsafe it is to ride in a car.
I don't see where governments are or should be threatened by cryptocurrency any more than they should be threatened by gold and silver or the currency of another foreign nation. I know this is a popular theme among the anti-crypto crowd, but for many of the reasons we have discussed it won't ever supplant the local currency except perhaps in countries without robust financial systems and services.
Name the gold bugs all you want. False claims made by gold bugs does nothing to bolster your argument.
And false claims by crypto bugs don't bolster your arguments either.
The statistics are what they are. I didn't make them. And what the statistics say is Bitcoin is not going to be anything more than a highly volatile asset that's only an asset if you believe others will pay more for next month while you're holding.
And here you go again redefining 'asset' now. The classification of 'asset' is not contingent on a belief of appreciation, only a belief or expectation of future benefit.
What you can buy on Ampex today is 70% less than you could have purchased a year ago.
Right. And in my city, my US dollars buy half the house I could have bought two years ago. That doesn't mean Bitcoin can't be used in commerce to buy things which pretty well demonstrates its use as a currency. But again, you won't tell use what your definition of _currency _ is.
No Fortune 500 company I'm aware of is giving employees an option to be paid in Bitcoin. There hasn't been the mass adoption of crypto in commerce.
Yes, we're still early in the adoption curve. Why don't you get that? Were you beating the drum of, why can't I buy things on [insert company name] website in 1995? That's what you're saying.
Yes, there has been a lot of trading in the space and the key to that trading was a hope for major profits. A lot of folks did not have the faith to buy and hold as evidenced by the sell off.
For every seller there was a buyer. A lower price indicates that demand is lower or supply is higher now (or a bit of both), but each Bitcoin is still held by someone who sees a benefit in owning it.
Unless someone has been living under a rock just about everyone has heard about crypto. And why so U.S. centric. The rejection with respect to governments is not limited to the U.S. I don't think China or Russia are keen on the idea.
Who suggested that any major government would replace their central bank currencies with a decentralized crypto? The crypto bugs?
Which way do you want it? Is it going to grow where there is mass acceptance or continue to be a novelty that doesn't warrant the attention of governments?
Yes, there are crackpots promoting both but gold has been valued and trust as a store of value for thousands of years not 17 years.
Is there a meaningful difference between belief in appreciation and belief in future benefit?
What city do you live in??? A 50% drop in housing prices FAR from the norm across the country. Housing prices have flatten or gone down slightly depending on where you live. My son purchased his house in 2020 and the price is up 20% since he purchased it. Even if that's somewhat inflated in far from a 50% decrease.
Yes, for every seller there was a buyer but those buyers that purchased at $60K, 50K, $40K, 30K, $20K are kicking themselves in the rear. Did you jump in on the way down thing "this is as low as it's going to go" expecting the turn around to be just around the next corner? It's apparent that a lot of folks either have faith you have in the space. Maybe they lack the knowledge you have that generates the faith you have or they have a greater knowledge that in hindsight they realize the space doesn't warrant the faith you have in it. But it is evident that a lot of folks that for whatever reason, reap a profit and/or minimize their loss, have sold off their coins. And some like Kevin O'Leary are going to avoid crypto until governments take some oversight and control over it, which is contrary to one of the main selling points of crypto.
I don't delight in anyone's loss but I've never been sold on the concept of a "currency" outside of government control and backed by nothing but faith that other individuals would join that system. When the fiat dollar was created you had the promise of a major government backing that system, first with gold and silver followed by just a promise. You had an immediate acceptance of that system by hundreds of millions of people in the U.S. and around the globe. An attempt to do something similar starting at a grassroots level, making promise that in my opinion couldn't be kept, still keeps me highly suspect that this concept is going to gain anymore traction than it already has. Digital currency is coming in the form of a digital dollar control by governments, banks and the ultra wealthy in business.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@pmh1nic said:
Which way do you want it? Is it going to grow where there is mass acceptance or continue to be a novelty that doesn't warrant the attention of governments?
It will grow to mass acceptance, and it already has the attention of governments. As discussed, they already monitor crypto transactions and it is already taxed.
Yes, there are crackpots promoting both but gold has been valued and trust as a store of value for thousands of years not 17 years.
So because of crypto's lack of history, false statements by crypto "bugs" are more meaningful/impactful?
Is there a meaningful difference between belief in appreciation and belief in future benefit?
Future benefit is much broader in scope. If I buy a rental property I would consider it an asset, not because I believe can sell it for more than I paid for it, but because it will generate income. You might not be aware but several cryptos offer staking which is a form of interest income. I have bought several cryptos for this purpose.
What city do you live in??? A 50% drop in housing prices FAR from the norm across the country. Housing prices have flatten or gone down slightly depending on where you live. My son purchased his house in 2020 and the price is up 20% since he purchased it. Even if that's somewhat inflated in far from a 50% decrease.
Why did the real estate prices have to drop 50%? In my city (as in many) the prices doubled, thus the dollar lost 50% of its value vs housing. In reconsideration my numbers are off. Prices have doubled over the last 5 years, not 2 years.
Yes, for every seller there was a buyer but those buyers that purchased at $60K, 50K, $40K, 30K, $20K are kicking themselves in the rear. Did you jump in on the way down thing "this is as low as it's going to go" expecting the turn around to be just around the next corner? It's apparent that a lot of folks either have faith you have in the space. Maybe they lack the knowledge you have that generates the faith you have or they have a greater knowledge that in hindsight they realize the space doesn't warrant the faith you have in it. But it is evident that a lot of folks that for whatever reason, reap a profit and/or minimize their loss, have sold off their coins. And some like Kevin O'Leary are going to avoid crypto until governments take some oversight and control over it, which is contrary to one of the main selling points of crypto.
So are you ever going to answer the question or will you keep avoiding it? How is a government going to take control of a decentralized cryptocurrency? Are you saying Kevin O' Leary expects the government to buy 50.000001% of one or more crypto projects to control them (a move which would probably drive the remaining 49.9999% to sell? What kind of control is he advocating for? I really want to know. Keep following him if you think he's worth listening to. Rules and regs are needed with regard to forcing crypto custodians to not be able to rehypothicate depositor's assets, but that risk is easily avoided by keeping crypto in your own possession. That said, once we can rely more on third party custodians it will open up the crypto markets immensely. But that's not what I would consider "control." Please explain how one (or a government) would or could theoretically control Bitcoin, or what you mean when you talk about controlling a crypto currency.
And so what's your point? You said people lost faith and sold off, but for every person that sold, a person with faith bought. And that's not even a fair assessment as I very much have faith in crypto but if I can see that the US dollar bull is going to continue, I know that cryptos are probably going to keep going down so I will sell and have sold in expectation of buying back in lower. Nothing goes straight up. I've bought several investments that went down after I bought them, it's not unique to crypto at all. Have you seen Carvana stock? A lot of people have lost faith in Carvana, but there are still folks around who believe in it. Maybe it's because they know something most other people don't. I'm not suggesting you listen to me about the future of crypto, but I do suggest you look at what the titans of industry are doing (rather than what they are saying). JP Morgan's Jamie Dimon has been very outspoken against crypto while his company has been making big moves in the space. Ignore what the big boys are doing at your own peril. https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2022/11/06/a-massive-step-jpmorgan-just-made-a-surprize-game-changing-bet-on-crypto-despite-2-trillion-bitcoin-ethereum-and-crypto-price-crash/?sh=64e735aa652d
I don't delight in anyone's loss but I've never been sold on the concept of a "currency" outside of government control and backed by nothing but faith that other individuals would join that system. When the fiat dollar was created you had the promise of a major government backing that system, first with gold and silver followed by just a promise. You had an immediate acceptance of that system by hundreds of millions of people in the U.S. and around the globe. An attempt to do something similar starting at a grassroots level, making promise that in my opinion couldn't be kept, still keeps me highly suspect that this concept is going to gain anymore traction than it already has. Digital currency is coming in the form of a digital dollar control by governments, banks and the ultra wealthy in business.
That's an understandable position to take, but as in my previous comment, do some research as to what the "big boys" are doing and you will see that there is big money being bet on the future of crypto. The players on Wall Street are getting in. Major retail is getting in, I've seen the crypto job postings by Amazon and Facebook. There's a reason why Paypal added crypto recently. The signals are there to be seen or ignored.
@pmh1nic said:
Which way do you want it? Is it going to grow where there is mass acceptance or continue to be a novelty that doesn't warrant the attention of governments?
It will grow to mass acceptance, and it already has the attention of governments. As discussed, they already monitor crypto transactions and it is already taxed.
That's an understandable position to take, but as in my previous comment, do some research as to what the "big boys" are doing and you will see that there is big money being bet on the future of crypto. The players on Wall Street are getting in. Major retail is getting in, I've seen the crypto job postings by Amazon and Facebook. There's a reason why Paypal added crypto recently. The signals are there to be seen or ignored.
It's called "confirmation bias". Once they've made up their mind, they only pay attention to the voices that echo their own. Skepticism is healthy, but it should work both ways.
@pmh1nic said:
Which way do you want it? Is it going to grow where there is mass acceptance or continue to be a novelty that doesn't warrant the attention of governments?
It will grow to mass acceptance, and it already has the attention of governments. As discussed, they already monitor crypto transactions and it is already taxed.
That's an understandable position to take, but as in my previous comment, do some research as to what the "big boys" are doing and you will see that there is big money being bet on the future of crypto. The players on Wall Street are getting in. Major retail is getting in, I've seen the crypto job postings by Amazon and Facebook. There's a reason why Paypal added crypto recently. The signals are there to be seen or ignored.
It's called "confirmation bias". Once they've made up their mind, they only pay attention to the voices that echo their own. Skepticism is healthy, but it should work both ways.
You might as well throw in Recency bias as well. If the public believes that the Crypto's will rise sharply, once again, then Wall St will help them get their fill. The question is, where was everyone at $1 Btitcoin , $1000 Bitcoin, or even $20,000 Bitcoin. Now, after seeing $70,000 ...and the pullback are most still believers? Last chance to get in before new highs? Does that thinking fall under the recency bias?
@pmh1nic said:
Which way do you want it? Is it going to grow where there is mass acceptance or continue to be a novelty that doesn't warrant the attention of governments?
It will grow to mass acceptance, and it already has the attention of governments. As discussed, they already monitor crypto transactions and it is already taxed.
Yes, there are crackpots promoting both but gold has been valued and trust as a store of value for thousands of years not 17 years.
So because of crypto's lack of history, false statements by crypto "bugs" are more meaningful/impactful?
Is there a meaningful difference between belief in appreciation and belief in future benefit?
Future benefit is much broader in scope. If I buy a rental property I would consider it an asset, not because I believe can sell it for more than I paid for it, but because it will generate income. You might not be aware but several cryptos offer staking which is a form of interest income. I have bought several cryptos for this purpose.
What city do you live in??? A 50% drop in housing prices FAR from the norm across the country. Housing prices have flatten or gone down slightly depending on where you live. My son purchased his house in 2020 and the price is up 20% since he purchased it. Even if that's somewhat inflated in far from a 50% decrease.
Why did the real estate prices have to drop 50%? In my city (as in many) the prices doubled, thus the dollar lost 50% of its value vs housing. In reconsideration my numbers are off. Prices have doubled over the last 5 years, not 2 years.
Yes, for every seller there was a buyer but those buyers that purchased at $60K, 50K, $40K, 30K, $20K are kicking themselves in the rear. Did you jump in on the way down thing "this is as low as it's going to go" expecting the turn around to be just around the next corner? It's apparent that a lot of folks either have faith you have in the space. Maybe they lack the knowledge you have that generates the faith you have or they have a greater knowledge that in hindsight they realize the space doesn't warrant the faith you have in it. But it is evident that a lot of folks that for whatever reason, reap a profit and/or minimize their loss, have sold off their coins. And some like Kevin O'Leary are going to avoid crypto until governments take some oversight and control over it, which is contrary to one of the main selling points of crypto.
So are you ever going to answer the question or will you keep avoiding it? How is a government going to take control of a decentralized cryptocurrency? Are you saying Kevin O' Leary expects the government to buy 50.000001% of one or more crypto projects to control them (a move which would probably drive the remaining 49.9999% to sell? What kind of control is he advocating for? I really want to know. Keep following him if you think he's worth listening to. Rules and regs are needed with regard to forcing crypto custodians to not be able to rehypothicate depositor's assets, but that risk is easily avoided by keeping crypto in your own possession. That said, once we can rely more on third party custodians it will open up the crypto markets immensely. But that's not what I would consider "control." Please explain how one (or a government) would or could theoretically control Bitcoin, or what you mean when you talk about controlling a crypto currency.
And so what's your point? You said people lost faith and sold off, but for every person that sold, a person with faith bought. And that's not even a fair assessment as I very much have faith in crypto but if I can see that the US dollar bull is going to continue, I know that cryptos are probably going to keep going down so I will sell and have sold in expectation of buying back in lower. Nothing goes straight up. I've bought several investments that went down after I bought them, it's not unique to crypto at all. Have you seen Carvana stock? A lot of people have lost faith in Carvana, but there are still folks around who believe in it. Maybe it's because they know something most other people don't. I'm not suggesting you listen to me about the future of crypto, but I do suggest you look at what the titans of industry are doing (rather than what they are saying). JP Morgan's Jamie Dimon has been very outspoken against crypto while his company has been making big moves in the space. Ignore what the big boys are doing at your own peril. https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2022/11/06/a-massive-step-jpmorgan-just-made-a-surprize-game-changing-bet-on-crypto-despite-2-trillion-bitcoin-ethereum-and-crypto-price-crash/?sh=64e735aa652d
I don't delight in anyone's loss but I've never been sold on the concept of a "currency" outside of government control and backed by nothing but faith that other individuals would join that system. When the fiat dollar was created you had the promise of a major government backing that system, first with gold and silver followed by just a promise. You had an immediate acceptance of that system by hundreds of millions of people in the U.S. and around the globe. An attempt to do something similar starting at a grassroots level, making promise that in my opinion couldn't be kept, still keeps me highly suspect that this concept is going to gain anymore traction than it already has. Digital currency is coming in the form of a digital dollar control by governments, banks and the ultra wealthy in business.
That's an understandable position to take, but as in my previous comment, do some research as to what the "big boys" are doing and you will see that there is big money being bet on the future of crypto. The players on Wall Street are getting in. Major retail is getting in, I've seen the crypto job postings by Amazon and Facebook. There's a reason why Paypal added crypto recently. The signals are there to be seen or ignored.
It will not grow to mass acceptance until it is backed by governments and governments are not going to back anything they can't monitor, regulate, control and tax. And if a government can monitor, control and tax it is no longer crypto as you define it.
Because crypto has a relatively short history the evidence that it is what you or anyone else claims it is is lacking. Bitcoin, the most popular and well known crypto, is a non-productive asset like gold but gold has proven to be a store of wealth over thousands of years. Bitcoin has not. Beyond that crypto has not proven itself to be a store or wealth or a stable currency. It won't gain that confidence until it is backed by major governments and again, that's not going to happen unless they control it.
You asked the question how will governments take control of crypto. They do it by controlling the major banks and corporations that ultimately control what form of money can be used in commerce. They control those Fortune 500 companies and how they pay their employees. They control how government workers get paid. They control how a huge percentage of the population get the government benefits. You boost about the relatively tiny bit of commerce is done in crypto which pales in comparison to the commerce done using fiat (dollars, euros, yen, rubles, yuan, etc.). Governments are not going to give up control.
You do not know if it was a one for one seller versus buyer. My guess is the number of hands holding crypto has shrunk during this last sell of and that the numbers with faith are small, especially given the fiasco with FTX. Nothing that has occurred in the space over the last year has generate more faith in the future of crypto. Losing 50% of its value certainly didn't help. My guess is folks like Saylor bought up a lot of the crypto that was sold by those whose faith wavered over the last year.
I know what the big boys are doing (those Fortune 500 companies, large governments and investment companies) and its not speculating in crypto. If you did business using crypto and held the funds in crypto you lost 50% of your revenue. No business is going to take the risk of being paid and holding onto a volatile asset. Musk realized pretty quickly that was a bad idea.
What you refuse to accept is that the governments that ultimately control everything are going to allow a mode of commerce to grow substantially that they don't control. It's not going to happen.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
So I have a serious question. Can you or I or any normal, that is not especially connected, person borrow, say, ten bitcoin, pay interest in bitcoin, and repay after an intermediate to long term in bitcoin? So like borrow ten bitcoin, pay 0.4 bitcoin every six months for five years or ten years, and return ten bitcoin at that time? Rate and term can vary somewhat and any crypto is fine. Just wondering if there is a lending market.
@daltex said:
So I have a serious question. Can you or I or any normal, that is not especially connected, person borrow, say, ten bitcoin, pay interest in bitcoin, and repay after an intermediate to long term in bitcoin? So like borrow ten bitcoin, pay 0.4 bitcoin every six months for five years or ten years, and return ten bitcoin at that time? Rate and term can vary somewhat and any crypto is fine. Just wondering if there is a lending market.
@pmh1nic said:
Which way do you want it? Is it going to grow where there is mass acceptance or continue to be a novelty that doesn't warrant the attention of governments?
It will grow to mass acceptance, and it already has the attention of governments. As discussed, they already monitor crypto transactions and it is already taxed.
Yes, there are crackpots promoting both but gold has been valued and trust as a store of value for thousands of years not 17 years.
So because of crypto's lack of history, false statements by crypto "bugs" are more meaningful/impactful?
Is there a meaningful difference between belief in appreciation and belief in future benefit?
Future benefit is much broader in scope. If I buy a rental property I would consider it an asset, not because I believe can sell it for more than I paid for it, but because it will generate income. You might not be aware but several cryptos offer staking which is a form of interest income. I have bought several cryptos for this purpose.
What city do you live in??? A 50% drop in housing prices FAR from the norm across the country. Housing prices have flatten or gone down slightly depending on where you live. My son purchased his house in 2020 and the price is up 20% since he purchased it. Even if that's somewhat inflated in far from a 50% decrease.
Why did the real estate prices have to drop 50%? In my city (as in many) the prices doubled, thus the dollar lost 50% of its value vs housing. In reconsideration my numbers are off. Prices have doubled over the last 5 years, not 2 years.
Yes, for every seller there was a buyer but those buyers that purchased at $60K, 50K, $40K, 30K, $20K are kicking themselves in the rear. Did you jump in on the way down thing "this is as low as it's going to go" expecting the turn around to be just around the next corner? It's apparent that a lot of folks either have faith you have in the space. Maybe they lack the knowledge you have that generates the faith you have or they have a greater knowledge that in hindsight they realize the space doesn't warrant the faith you have in it. But it is evident that a lot of folks that for whatever reason, reap a profit and/or minimize their loss, have sold off their coins. And some like Kevin O'Leary are going to avoid crypto until governments take some oversight and control over it, which is contrary to one of the main selling points of crypto.
So are you ever going to answer the question or will you keep avoiding it? How is a government going to take control of a decentralized cryptocurrency? Are you saying Kevin O' Leary expects the government to buy 50.000001% of one or more crypto projects to control them (a move which would probably drive the remaining 49.9999% to sell? What kind of control is he advocating for? I really want to know. Keep following him if you think he's worth listening to. Rules and regs are needed with regard to forcing crypto custodians to not be able to rehypothicate depositor's assets, but that risk is easily avoided by keeping crypto in your own possession. That said, once we can rely more on third party custodians it will open up the crypto markets immensely. But that's not what I would consider "control." Please explain how one (or a government) would or could theoretically control Bitcoin, or what you mean when you talk about controlling a crypto currency.
And so what's your point? You said people lost faith and sold off, but for every person that sold, a person with faith bought. And that's not even a fair assessment as I very much have faith in crypto but if I can see that the US dollar bull is going to continue, I know that cryptos are probably going to keep going down so I will sell and have sold in expectation of buying back in lower. Nothing goes straight up. I've bought several investments that went down after I bought them, it's not unique to crypto at all. Have you seen Carvana stock? A lot of people have lost faith in Carvana, but there are still folks around who believe in it. Maybe it's because they know something most other people don't. I'm not suggesting you listen to me about the future of crypto, but I do suggest you look at what the titans of industry are doing (rather than what they are saying). JP Morgan's Jamie Dimon has been very outspoken against crypto while his company has been making big moves in the space. Ignore what the big boys are doing at your own peril. https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2022/11/06/a-massive-step-jpmorgan-just-made-a-surprize-game-changing-bet-on-crypto-despite-2-trillion-bitcoin-ethereum-and-crypto-price-crash/?sh=64e735aa652d
I don't delight in anyone's loss but I've never been sold on the concept of a "currency" outside of government control and backed by nothing but faith that other individuals would join that system. When the fiat dollar was created you had the promise of a major government backing that system, first with gold and silver followed by just a promise. You had an immediate acceptance of that system by hundreds of millions of people in the U.S. and around the globe. An attempt to do something similar starting at a grassroots level, making promise that in my opinion couldn't be kept, still keeps me highly suspect that this concept is going to gain anymore traction than it already has. Digital currency is coming in the form of a digital dollar control by governments, banks and the ultra wealthy in business.
That's an understandable position to take, but as in my previous comment, do some research as to what the "big boys" are doing and you will see that there is big money being bet on the future of crypto. The players on Wall Street are getting in. Major retail is getting in, I've seen the crypto job postings by Amazon and Facebook. There's a reason why Paypal added crypto recently. The signals are there to be seen or ignored.
It will not grow to mass acceptance until it is backed by governments and governments are not going to back anything they can't monitor, regulate, control and tax.
`
In the face of these troubles, Venezuelans have turned to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Unlike US dollars, Bitcoin (BTC) can be purchased digitally and directly by using Peer2Peer (P2P) exchanges. It is an asset that can be purchased anywhere in the world.
Venezuela is one of the most rapid adopters of cryptocurrency in the world. Typically, Venezuelans aren’t holding cryptocurrency as a long-term hedge against inflation. Instead, they are using it to buy food, medical supplies, and day-to-day purchases.
`
And if a government can monitor, control and tax it is no longer crypto as you define it.
The US government can monitor and tax crypto today and it is still crypto. Why do you keep insisting they can't? Did you notice the question on your last form 1040? The IRS asks you if you received or sent any crypto. The only thing they can do is tighten controls on the US-based fiat crypto exchanges, like Coinbase.
Because crypto has a relatively short history the evidence that it is what you or anyone else claims it is is lacking. Bitcoin, the most popular and well known crypto, is a non-productive asset like gold but gold has proven to be a store of wealth over thousands of years. Bitcoin has not. Beyond that crypto has not proven itself to be a store or wealth or a stable currency. It won't gain that confidence until it is backed by major governments and again, that's not going to happen unless they control it.
I can agree with all but the last statement. People don't much much faith in their governments, and the faith they do have is declining. I will again disagree about the control statement. Several state legislatures have entertained and passed laws to accept payment of state taxes in Bitcoin. No state is doing this yet, but the state governments have not cited lack of control as a reason not to. Note that they don't control the USD either.
You asked the question how will governments take control of crypto. They do it by controlling the major banks and corporations that ultimately control what form of money can be used in commerce. They control those Fortune 500 companies and how they pay their employees. They control how government workers get paid. They control how a huge percentage of the population get the government benefits. You boost about the relatively tiny bit of commerce is done in crypto which pales in comparison to the commerce done using fiat (dollars, euros, yen, rubles, yuan, etc.). Governments are not going to give up control.
I would say that none of the items you described are governments "controlling crypto" but rather controlling the utility of crypto - how and where it can be used. We only see this happening in communist/dictatorial regimes. You can predict that the US government will go that direction, and I will predict they won't. There are two strong reasons why this won't happen (why the US government won't go anit-crypto):
1. The horses are already out of the barn. Crypto, although still a small market, is already in the possession and use of too many people and businesses. A quick Google shows that over 23% of US citizens own crypto and according to NBC, over 21% have traded or used crypto. US companies already have large investments in the space and tech. Very hard to un-ring this bell.
2. Wall Street wants in. Wall Street controls the government. Wall Street will get what it wants.
I am not so delusional to think that a government that prints its own currency will pay in any currency but that which they can print to oblivion. Nor would a company who doesn't accept crypto for payments procure crypto in order to offer a different payment option to employees. Employees aren't really asking for it (yet), and it would take a lot of effort to implement. There are too many logistical hurdles to this before we get into any of the other arguments. This is probably something that third party payroll processors will start providing though, if they haven't already.
You do not know if it was a one for one seller versus buyer. My guess is the number of hands holding crypto has shrunk during this last sell of and that the numbers with faith are small, especially given the fiasco with FTX. Nothing that has occurred in the space over the last year has generate more faith in the future of crypto. Losing 50% of its value certainly didn't help. My guess is folks like Saylor bought up a lot of the crypto that was sold by those whose faith wavered over the last year.
You don't have to guess, you just have to go back a few posts where I told you that the number of active Bitcoin wallets continues to grow or remain stable. The cool thing about blockchain is that the data is easy to find and 100% accurate.
I know what the big boys are doing (those Fortune 500 companies, large governments and investment companies) and its not speculating in crypto. If you did business using crypto and held the funds in crypto you lost 50% of your revenue. No business is going to take the risk of being paid and holding onto a volatile asset. Musk realized pretty quickly that was a bad idea.
That's completely inaccurate. International businesses transact in multiple currencies and have sophisticated operations to maximize their assets. Do you think large companies held on to large amounts of Euros and Yen during this last USD bull? Of course not. They have staff dedicated to managing their positions in cash and commodities. They hedge against market moves using options and futures to keep their positions neutral. Why would crypto be different?
What you refuse to accept is that the governments that ultimately control everything are going to allow a mode of commerce to grow substantially that they don't control. It's not going to happen.
There are only a small number of governments that "control everything." And those that do, don't do a very good job at it, as evidenced by the article linked above and the article about China that I posted recently.
@daltex said:
So I have a serious question. Can you or I or any normal, that is not especially connected, person borrow, say, ten bitcoin, pay interest in bitcoin, and repay after an intermediate to long term in bitcoin? So like borrow ten bitcoin, pay 0.4 bitcoin every six months for five years or ten years, and return ten bitcoin at that time? Rate and term can vary somewhat and any crypto is fine. Just wondering if there is a lending market.
Yes, Nexo.com, but they are not a US company. Keep in mind that at all of the platforms I know, to borrow Bitcoin you'll have to post some digital collateral, and you'll want to keep it at less than 50% LTV. Keep in mind that one of the primary purposes of these platforms is to allow you to spend your crypto without selling it in order to avoid a taxation event if you're sitting on a lot of gains.
By backed I mean endorsed and supported by that government. Please don't talk about Venezuela with a $98 billion gdp, 73rd behind Luxemburg. The major economic powers in the world are not going to make Bitcoin their currency of choice.
I thought one of the major selling points of crypto is that it couldn't be monitored. Beyond that governments and banks exercise control over the economy by controlling the money supply. They are NOT giving up that control. The 1040 statement regarding crypto is a taxpayer voluntary statement and not based on federal monitoring of income.
A couple of states suggesting receiving taxes in Bitcoin is just that, a suggestion. I don't see it happening and there is no mechanism in place to allow it to happen.
If you can't use it it has been effectively controlled. If you can't be paid with it, if your SS benefit has to be in dollars, if you can't buy groceries with it, if you can't pay your mortgage and car loan with it's effectively been shutout of wide spread use.
What do you mean by too many people. How many people are using crypto to pay for the daily necessities of life? What percentage of the population is conducting a major portion of their transaction using crypto?
And where did you get the idea that Wall Street wants in? You have a couple of institutional investor talking about it, less in the last few weeks as a result of the FTX fiasco, but there has been no great clamoring on Wall Street to embrace crypto.
There are approximately 106 million individuals that own Bitcoin, 200 million wallets, 53 million Bitcoin traders and 270,000 Bitcoin transaction daily. That is miniscule! In addition it appears many folks have more than one Bitcoin wallet and many of those wallets are owned by traders not by folks using Bitcoin for daily ecommerce.
What I wrote about Fortune 500 companies is not "completely inaccurate". They are not paying their employees in Bitcoin. I seriously doubt any of them are doing international business in Bitcoin. You making a claim about something you do not know. You're guessing. Tesla accepted Bitcoin for about a week and dropped it. Those currencies you mentioned are no where near as volatile as Bitcoin. Give me 50 companies in the Fortune 500 companies (10% of the 500) that are transacting business in Bitcoin.
The U.S. has successfully fought off every attempt to dethrone the dollar as the worlds reserve currency. China is not going to allow a currency to oust the yuan, the Japanese the yen, the Russians the ruble, the EU the Euro or India the rupee. That's better than half the world's total GDP. And these countries have a major influence on what happens in the rest of the world. The 200 million Bitcoin wallets is not even an afterthought when it comes to deciding on what happens next as far as a digital currency is concerned.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
Gov regulation will entice some people and chase others away, so it's not a total win for crypto. In any case it will take a prolonged period of stability for wide acceptance and utility and we are not close to being there. So chill.
@pmh1nic said:
By backed I mean endorsed and supported by that government. Please don't talk about Venezuela with a $98 billion gdp, 73rd behind Luxemburg. The major economic powers in the world are not going to make Bitcoin their currency of choice.
Then maybe St Kitts and Nemis? https://cryptoslate.com/st-kitts-and-nevis-to-adopt-bitcoincash-as-legal-tender-in-2023/
Look, your point is taken, but you should be able to see that this is a movement that is gaining momentum. It starts with the small countries first.
I understand major countries won't ever do it because they can print their own money. If I could print my own money and get people to accept it, I would do that too. I wouldn't ever expect a country to endorse the competition.
I thought one of the major selling points of crypto is that it couldn't be monitored. Beyond that governments and banks exercise control over the economy by controlling the money supply. They are NOT giving up that control. .
Again, go take they argument up with someone who is making that argument, but you can stop saying that it can't be monitored. They can control their fiat money supplies all they want, it won't keep crypto from flourishing.
The 1040 statement regarding crypto is a taxpayer voluntary statement and not based on federal monitoring of income.
Yes, in the US, all taxes are voluntary. Go ahead and try not paying them.
And try withdrawing a lot of US dollars from Coinbase to you bank account. You don't think the government doesn't see the money going into your bank account? If you can tell me how I can start avoiding taxes on my crypto grains I would like to know. I had a hefty bill last year.
A couple of states suggesting receiving taxes in Bitcoin is just that, a suggestion. I don't see it happening and there is no mechanism in place to allow it to happen.
To be fair, you wouldn't have the mechanism until you needed the mechanism. Such a mechanism would not be difficult to implement. Many online retailers have already done so.
If you can't use it it has been effectively controlled. If you can't be paid with it, if your SS benefit has to be in dollars, if you can't buy groceries with it, if you can't pay your mortgage and car loan with it's effectively been shutout of wide spread use.
Sure, but if I can still make peer-to-peer transactions there's a lot of utility that can't be controlled and can be quite useful. I also think it would be unconstitutional to place those limits and controls on transactions.
What do you mean by too many people. How many people are using crypto to pay for the daily necessities of life? What percentage of the population is conducting a major portion of their transaction using crypto?
I said "in possession and use." That doesn't mean they are using it daily. 20-25% of a population is not insignificant and enough to make politicians think twice about taking it away.
>
And where did you get the idea that Wall Street wants in? You have a couple of institutional investor talking about it, less in the last few weeks as a result of the FTX fiasco, but there has been no great clamoring on Wall Street to embrace crypto.
You may need to review my posts again, I've mentioned several examples. All of the major players have made huge investments in the space including JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs, Citibank, Chase, BOA, Wells Fargo, they are all chomping at the bit. This is the part where you need to do your own research, but here's a start: https://www.ft.com/content/2119ee69-e5d9-41ac-b443-3f74a14e73e8
Three of the world’s leading banks — Citigroup, BNY Mellon and Wells Fargo — have joined a funding round for a US developer of cryptocurrency trading technology, highlighting the work now being done on Wall Street to prepare for the growing adoption of digital assets.
There are approximately 106 million individuals that own Bitcoin, 200 million wallets, 53 million Bitcoin traders and 270,000 Bitcoin transaction daily. That is miniscule! In addition it appears many folks have more than one Bitcoin wallet and many of those wallets are owned by traders not by folks using Bitcoin for daily ecommerce.
Your point? It would be easier to follow if you would respond below the text you are replying to.
It is minuscule but it is growing. That is the part you keep ignoring. Things have to start small and grow, that's how it works. https://decrypt.co/92501/wells-fargo-report-argues-not-too-late-invest-crypto
`
Wells Fargo’s main argument is that it is still early enough to invest in cryptocurrencies because of what the bank has observed from global crypto adoption rates.
The bank also cites a commonly used analogy between Bitcoin and the internet, arguing that “cryptocurrencies have been following an adoption pattern similar to other new advanced technologies, such as the internet,” adding that it often takes many years for real adoption to occur.
`
What I wrote about Fortune 500 companies is not "completely inaccurate". They are not paying their employees in Bitcoin. I seriously doubt any of them are doing international business in Bitcoin. You making a claim about something you do not know. You're guessing. Tesla accepted Bitcoin for about a week and dropped it. Those currencies you mentioned are no where near as volatile as Bitcoin. Give me 50 companies in the Fortune 500 companies (10% of the 500) that are transacting business in Bitcoin.
First, you missed the point which is that large companies deal in volatile pricing, assets, etc and have people dedicated to managing this risk and there are tools such as options and futures contracts to allow companies to maintain neutrality. Volatility is not a reason for large companies to avoid dealing in crypto.
I feel like I keep repeating myself, adoption is still growing. I'm not going to go through the Fortune 500 list, but here are some major companies accepting crypto today: YUM brands, Coca Cola, Etsy, Overstock, Restaurant Brands (Burger King, etc), Rakuten, Whole Foods, Virgin Group, Paypal, Starbucks, Home Depot, BMW, Microsoft, AT&T. Is that good enough for you?
The U.S. has successfully fought off every attempt to dethrone the dollar as the worlds reserve currency. China is not going to allow a currency to oust the yuan, the Japanese the yen, the Russians the ruble, the EU the Euro or India the rupee. That's better than half the world's total GDP. And these countries have a major influence on what happens in the rest of the world. The 200 million Bitcoin wallets is not even an afterthought when it comes to deciding on what happens next as far as a digital currency is concerned.
I have never suggested that crypto will supplant any major currencies. You keep going back to this but I'm not making that argument. It's pretty hard to fight decentralized organizations. Most countries will realize that the best path forward is to embrace it. That doesn't mean that the government will actually use crypto. It will be a successful alternative payment and investment option, but it won't replace any central bank currencies.
The movement just got smashed over the last six months.
Whether you're making the argument (inability of governments to control) is immaterial. The so-called influencers are making that argument.
In the U.S. all taxes are NOT voluntary. Just ask Wesley Snipes. Right now there is voluntary reporting of income in crypto. Other income gets reported to the IRS. And I never said anything about money going into your bank account. I'm talk about crypto on an exchange.
You gave an answer but didn't answer the question. Who is the "too many" you are referring to? The number of people and transactions done using crypto is miniscule.
Do you have a subscription with Financial Times? All I get is a headline saying they invested in a crypto technology company. I see nothing about a "huge investment". Investment in the technology could be an investment in block chain technology (that has other potential uses) not in any particular crypto.
My point is the amount of commerce being done in crypto is miniscule and much of the activity has nothing to do with actual commerce but the highly speculative ponzi scheme.
Adoption WAS growing until the crash and burn that has occurred over the last year. You had a huge surge in 2020-2021 when a ton of new speculators jumped and now a huge drop showing much of the money that flowed into the sector was by those that were not true believers.
I go back to that argument because the preachers of the gospel of crypto continue to attempted to motivate folks to come into the space because fiat currencies are going to collapse. I don't know what the future holds for the dollar BUT whatever replaces the dollar, yen, yuan, etc. is something that will controlled by central governments and not outside their ability to manipulated to the benefit of banks and large corporations. Again, we are moving to 100% digital currency but it won't be one outside the government's ability to manipulate.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@pmh1nic said:
By backed I mean endorsed and supported by that government. Please don't talk about Venezuela with a $98 billion gdp, 73rd behind Luxemburg. The major economic powers in the world are not going to make Bitcoin their currency of choice.
I thought one of the major selling points of crypto is that it couldn't be monitored. Beyond that governments and banks exercise control over the economy by controlling the money supply. They are NOT giving up that control. The 1040 statement regarding crypto is a taxpayer voluntary statement and not based on federal monitoring of income.
A couple of states suggesting receiving taxes in Bitcoin is just that, a suggestion. I don't see it happening and there is no mechanism in place to allow it to happen.
If you can't use it it has been effectively controlled. If you can't be paid with it, if your SS benefit has to be in dollars, if you can't buy groceries with it, if you can't pay your mortgage and car loan with it's effectively been shutout of wide spread use.
What do you mean by too many people. How many people are using crypto to pay for the daily necessities of life? What percentage of the population is conducting a major portion of their transaction using crypto?
And where did you get the idea that Wall Street wants in? You have a couple of institutional investor talking about it, less in the last few weeks as a result of the FTX fiasco, but there has been no great clamoring on Wall Street to embrace crypto.
There are approximately 106 million individuals that own Bitcoin, 200 million wallets, 53 million Bitcoin traders and 270,000 Bitcoin transaction daily. That is miniscule! In addition it appears many folks have more than one Bitcoin wallet and many of those wallets are owned by traders not by folks using Bitcoin for daily ecommerce.
What I wrote about Fortune 500 companies is not "completely inaccurate". They are not paying their employees in Bitcoin. I seriously doubt any of them are doing international business in Bitcoin. You making a claim about something you do not know. You're guessing. Tesla accepted Bitcoin for about a week and dropped it. Those currencies you mentioned are no where near as volatile as Bitcoin. Give me 50 companies in the Fortune 500 companies (10% of the 500) that are transacting business in Bitcoin.
The U.S. has successfully fought off every attempt to dethrone the dollar as the worlds reserve currency. China is not going to allow a currency to oust the yuan, the Japanese the yen, the Russians the ruble, the EU the Euro or India the rupee. That's better than half the world's total GDP. And these countries have a major influence on what happens in the rest of the world. The 200 million Bitcoin wallets is not even an afterthought when it comes to deciding on what happens next as far as a digital currency is concerned.
You are stuck repeating the same things that he has refuted several times.
@pmh1nic said:
By backed I mean endorsed and supported by that government. Please don't talk about Venezuela with a $98 billion gdp, 73rd behind Luxemburg. The major economic powers in the world are not going to make Bitcoin their currency of choice.
Then maybe St Kitts and Nemis? https://cryptoslate.com/st-kitts-and-nevis-to-adopt-bitcoincash-as-legal-tender-in-2023/
Look, your point is taken, but you should be able to see that this is a movement that is gaining momentum. It starts with the small countries first.
I understand major countries won't ever do it because they can print their own money. If I could print my own money and get people to accept it, I would do that too. I wouldn't ever expect a country to endorse the competition.
I thought one of the major selling points of crypto is that it couldn't be monitored. Beyond that governments and banks exercise control over the economy by controlling the money supply. They are NOT giving up that control. .
Again, go take they argument up with someone who is making that argument, but you can stop saying that it can't be monitored. They can control their fiat money supplies all they want, it won't keep crypto from flourishing.
The 1040 statement regarding crypto is a taxpayer voluntary statement and not based on federal monitoring of income.
Yes, in the US, all taxes are voluntary. Go ahead and try not paying them.
And try withdrawing a lot of US dollars from Coinbase to you bank account. You don't think the government doesn't see the money going into your bank account? If you can tell me how I can start avoiding taxes on my crypto grains I would like to know. I had a hefty bill last year.
A couple of states suggesting receiving taxes in Bitcoin is just that, a suggestion. I don't see it happening and there is no mechanism in place to allow it to happen.
To be fair, you wouldn't have the mechanism until you needed the mechanism. Such a mechanism would not be difficult to implement. Many online retailers have already done so.
If you can't use it it has been effectively controlled. If you can't be paid with it, if your SS benefit has to be in dollars, if you can't buy groceries with it, if you can't pay your mortgage and car loan with it's effectively been shutout of wide spread use.
Sure, but if I can still make peer-to-peer transactions there's a lot of utility their transaction using crypto?
I said "in possession and use." That doesn't mean they are using it daily. 20-25% of a population is not insignificant and enough to make politicians think twice about taking
There Bitcoin. You making a claim about something you do not know. You're guessing. Tesla accepted Bitcoin for about a week and dropped it. Those currencies you mentioned are no where near as volatile as Bitcoin. Give me 50 companies in the Fortune 500 companies (10% of the 500) that are transacting business in Bitcoin.
First, you missed the point which is that large companies deal in volatile pricing, assets, etc and have people dedicated to managing this risk and there are tools such as options and futures contracts to allow companies to maintain neutrality. Volatility is not a reason for large companies to avoid dealing in crypto.
I feel like I keep repeating myself, adoption is still growing. I'm not going to go through the Fortune 500 list, but here are some major companies accepting crypto today: YUM brands, Coca Cola, Etsy, Overstock, Restaurant Brands (Burger King, etc), Rakuten, Whole Foods, Virgin Group, Paypal, Starbucks, Home Depot, BMW, Microsoft, AT&T. Is that good enough for you?
The U.S. has successfully fought off every attempt to dethrone the dollar as the worlds reserve currency. China is not going to allow a currency to oust the yuan, the Japanese the yen, the Russians the ruble, the EU the Euro or India the rupee. That's better than half the world's total GDP. And these countries have a major influence on what happens in the rest of the world. The 200 million Bitcoin wallets is not even an afterthought when it comes to deciding on what happens next as far as a digital currency is concerned.
I have never suggested that crypto will supplant any major currencies. You keep going back to this but I'm not making that argument. It's pretty hard to fight decentralized organizations. Most countries will realize that the best path forward is to embrace it. That doesn't mean that the government will actually use crypto. It will be a successful alternative payment and investment option, but it won't replace any central bank currencies.
I appreciate your efforts, but you might as well be talking to yourself. He's not open-minded enough to consider me information that runs counter to his bias.
Simplest example:
Him: Bitcoin does not act as a currency.
You: It's legal tender in Venezuela.
Him: Venezuela doesn't count.
Oddly, Venezuela didn't count because it's only the 78th largest economy. That must really upset the 130 economies that are smaller than Venezuela to find out that they don't count either.
Just to cite a few examples, there are conversion apps involved in the bitcoin acceptance, its not direct to Starbucks or Home Depot. BMW does not have a company wide policy, it is select privately owned dealerships.
Venezuela year over year currency inflation is 155%, what do they have to lose? St Kitts and Nevis .......are you kidding me?
Why let a few facts get in the way. Its not becoming widely accepted, not by a long shot.
Comments
Now you tell me?
72 years later and now I find out I'm lugging virtually worthless metal.
To clarify, by control do you mean the ability to control its supply? Pre-1913 I don't believe this would be an issue but I agree the current spending tradition (Post 1913) of the Congress necessitates the ability to increase the supply on a whim. However, I have argued several times in this thread that BTC is far easier to monitor and tax than US Dollars and no one has challenged that. Why do people keep using this argument, or am I missing something?
How US-centric of you! You still choose to ignore the utility of crypto in countries without robust financial services. I encourage you to make a trip to SE Asia and you will see crypto has been adopted much more than you see in the US. But regardless, aside from ubiquity and adoption, Bitcoin is no different than US Dollars in that both rely on faith and utility and for their value. If you look at Bitcoin myopically through the lens of recent events you think it's dead or dying (as probably is the US Dollar), but if you really followed the sector you would see the investment and development and advances in the space.
I get it, crypto is new so there is no history and trust. Nothing can compare to gold and silver in this respect. But that doesn't mean there can't or won't be an innovation in money. If anyone thinks we'll be schlepping around paper notes and coins and checks 100 years from now I would say they are denying evolution and technology.
The obsession about the recent decline in price conveniently ignores the increases in price that we've seen and the recoveries that have occurred after previous "winters." I don't deny that the price is fairly volatile, but it isn't fair to focus only on the recent decline and ignore that massive gains that anyone who's owned it more than a few years still has.
I don't know why there is resistance to calling this a currency. It meets every definition, we've been over this. I'll concede Bitcoin wouldn't work well for a Central Bank, so if that's what you're referring to, I agree. But as far as using it in commerce it's just getting going in the US and a lot more prevalent outside the US.
Yes, controlling the money supply is an aspect of the control. With respect to monitoring and taxing, the digital dollar will be monitored and taxed.
This isn't U.S. centric, it's the central theme of all major governments.
The issue isn't crypto being new. The only inherent value of crypto is the faith of those willing to buy and sell it. Again, the volatility of the buying and selling prevents it from really acting as a currency. It only has value because "in he beginning" someone was willing to take a step of faith to exchange X amount of fiat currency for X amount of Bitcoin. It's remained alive and increasing in value because in a step of faith others were willing to exchange increasing amounts of fiat for those coins. The process continued until about a year ago when that faith in a continued increase in value began to wane. And while this is essentially true for fiat there are 100x as many folks exercise faith in fiat verse crypto AND governments supporting the continued existence of fiat, especially the dollar, as the world's reserve currency. Folks have seen their purchasing power (fiat dollars) diminished with time but not 50% in less than a year. All these crypto currencies trying to survive in this space are going to be crushed by whatever digital currency the U.S. and other major countries develop.
Are there any fortune 500 companies paying employees in crypto? Has the U.S given Social Security recipients the option to get their month payments in crypto? How many trillions of dollars in bonds are held by individuals, corporations and governments. Do you think the powers that be (nations and corporations including banks) are going to allow a rival currency to threaten those dollars? I don't believe they will and for that reason I don't think a crypto currency other the ones controlled, monitored and tax by the major governments backed up by the existing corporations and banks is going to survive.
LOL. Not worthless but waaaay off their peak.
To be fair, the US dollar is way off its peak, too.
Again, you've gone Americentric. U.S. doesn't pay SS in crypto. So what? You're willfully ignoring the fact that people buy things with crypto every day. In fact, it is HIGHLY likely that more items are purchased every day with crypto than with gold or silver. Does the U.S. offer to pay SS recipients in gold? Are there any fortune 500 companies paying employees in gold?
I don't think it's dropped as much as 50D nickels in the last 60 years. In fact, given the inflation in dollar denominated assets, 50 D nickels have dropped even more in real dollars than nominal dollars.
No doubt. Then again, the US dollar isn't a collectible like a 50-D nickel is.
Now you are attacking the merits of my pile of 1957 silver certificates. 😀
I've got a small pile, too. But then again, doesn't everybody?
And again you go off on the U.S. centric rant as if that's the core of the argument I'm making. I said governments not government. Do I have to spell it out for you? Those governments would include the U.S., China, Russia the EU. It would also include other countries that interest in removing the dollar as the reserve currency. Those governments (plural) aren't looking to transfer the power they hold to some decentralized currency that they don't have the power to manipulate, monitor, control and tax.
Yes, a VERY SMALL percentage of the worlds commerce is done in crypto. There is commerce being done in silver, gold, high end watches, etc. That miniscule amount of commerce should give no one the impression that any particular coin of the numerous coins in existence is going to replace the dollar, yen, ruble or yuan.
No one ever said "replace". So you've set up a straw man argument.
You may have never said replace but those preaching the gospel of crypto believe crypto is the answer to all fiat currencies. And I'd argue crypto as being preached, decentralized, out of the control of the major sovereign governments is a fairytale. This stuff gets swallowed up by naive, idealistic folks believing it leads to an economic utopia. Not! Most if not all of the upward movement of Bitcoin was generated by the hype promoted by folks like O'Leary, Saylor and a thousand and one YouTube "influencers" appealing to the get rich quick crowd. There evidence of Bitcoin as a great investment were the stories of those that did make millions buying Bitcoin low, selling high exchanging it for fiat dollars to buy real assets. Ponzi schemes do make a lot of money for some as long as you have a fresh supply of buyers willing to exercise faith in an asset with no real underlying value.
Again, there is no crypto currency that is not controlled by the major governments (that's plural) taking over in any significant way the place of the dollar, yuan or any other major sovereign currency.
Exactly. I ain't loving it nor hating it.
Like I have said before, crypto started out with great promise and then the various shenanigans surrounding it has put me on the fence (and sort of agree to what Bob Moriarty says in below video).
He covers a lot of stuff including geo-politics, so the timeline to skip all that, the ads etc. and go directly to pertaining topics:
2:14 FTX scandal
5:15 Blockchain
8:35 Digital Dollar
18:45 Crypto to metals
27:12 BRICS currency
**Edited to add timeline
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/quarters/PCGS-2020-quarter-quest/album/247091
That wasn't the topic. Will you admit that crypto is easier to monitor and tax than USD cash transactions today?
To be fair, you're comparing a brand new emerging technology with traditional currencies that have been around forever and asking why the new technology isn't ubiquitous yet. I must have been unclear about the US-centric comment because as I said before, crypto is much more commonplace in other countries. Adoption of new technologies takes time. It will take time to integrate crypto payment into existing POS interfaces and systems. It may seem simple but it's not. The US government is never going to pay with anything but its own fiat. Amazon is working on integrating crypto payments as I type.
You keep saying Bitcoin isn't a currency but you won't provide your definition. If we're not using words with the same meaning it's going to be hard to productive.
As others have stated, the USD is off about 98% off its peak. Sure, it's been gradual over ~100 years but 98% is a lousy track record. Bitcoin on the other hand is still up thousands of percent. All USD holders are down 8% (if you believe the gov't numbers) in the past year, while only ~50% of BTC wallets have lost value in USD terms. And let's not forget executive order 6102 (when gold went from $20/oz to $35/oz overnight) resulting in an overnight 58% haircut in USD/gold terms.
I'm not sure anyone's made the argument that any crypto would replace government CBCs (central bank currencies). Only that governments would issue their own crypto version of their own currency.
I would agree that no crypto is likely to overtake them with the exception of international commerce for which crypto is very well suited.
Who is preaching the gospel of crypto? I am only here ensuring that it is critiqued fairly, so I'm not sure who your audience is. No governments control any decentralized cryptos. Ignoring the case where a government grabs a 50.00001% ownership stake in any crypto, it's just not possible. But again if I'm missing something please let me know.
This also describes the US dollar. In fact, let's make a comparison:
US Dollar: Global acceptance is becoming more limited. Some countries dumping USD and USD assets. Oil transactions no longer exclusively done in USD.
BTC: Global acceptance is growing. Active wallet numbers ever-increasing.
If my analysis is correct, it seems like one ponzi is crumbling, while the other is still on its way up.
Agreed.
No industry/asset/whatever is exempt from scams and scammers. US investors have probably grown complacent about investment risks because the systems have done a good job of reducing or insuring against the amount of fraud we can be exposed to. Like most investments, the risk is commensurate with reward. Little risk, little reward. High risk, high reward. Everyone has to pick the risk profile they are comfortable with.
Be cautious about listening to a no-coiner like this guy. Based on his explanation of blockchain, it's clear he's not much of an expert on blockchain/cryptocurrency. A blockchain is just a form of a database. There are centralized and decentralized blockchains, but his explanation ignores this which tells me he's only looked into crypto at a very high level.
I just don't understand all the arguing about crypto. If you like it, play it! If you don't like it, don't play it! Problem solved. Why the need to convince others of its worthiness or unworthiness?
Coinlearner, Ahrensdad, Nolawyer, RG, coinlieutenant, Yorkshireman, lordmarcovan, Soldi, masscrew, JimTyler, Relaxn, jclovescoins
Now listen boy, I'm tryin' to teach you sumthin' . . . . that ain't an optical illusion, it only looks like an optical illusion.
My mind reader refuses to charge me....
Because those promoting it need more recruits (greater fools) to sell theirs to, in order to profit.
They are arguing that cryptos have the characteristics of currency, while the detractors state, imho correctly, that they much more have all the characteristics of pyramid schemes.
No one has ever had to talk me into buying an attractive rare old coin, or a solid growth stock with a good track record, or a piece of quality real estate in a good location.
But they sure push the common moderns, the penny stocks, and the timeshares, don't they!
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
are you really suggesting that there has never been a pump and dump with stocks, coins or gold? If so, you might want to do more research.
And no one here has suggested that anyone buy anything.
For this thread anyway, it's not so much convincing as it is correcting the ignorance, misunderstandings, and misconceptions around it. And there is a lot of it.
This isn't about a new technology. It's an argument about who controls monetary policy. The countries with the largest economies in the world are not going to abandon that control. What they are doing in El Salvador is a meaningless distraction with respect to monetary policy and who controls it.
I referenced some of the names preaching the gospel of crypto and there are many more. You don't see my criticism as fair because you're invested in crypto and don't want to hear anything negative that is said about it.
Yes, over the last 100 years the dollars has lost 98% of its value. That has somewhat been offset by the increase in wages. The average wage in 1922 was $0.75 per hour, today it is $10.93. On the other had Bitcoin has lost over 70% of its buying power in less that a year. You cannot have a stable, functioning currency that loses or gains 70% per year.
My guess is there was a huge growth in active wallets during the massive hyping of crypto over the last year. There was a lot of activity in those wallets as the massive sell off occurred. This attempted to bite of a significant (I avoided saying all) percentage of commerce is NOT going to be allowed by the major governments unless they are actively involved in controlling that commerce and taxing it, period, end of story.
Again, are any Fortune 500 companies giving employees the option to be paid in crypto? Are there any other countries with a system similar to Social Security paying benefits in crypto?
Digital currency exist today and will increase but it's not going to be a digital currency that is not controlled by the major economic players of the world. That decentralized, impossible to monitor, disconnected from government control currency is a fairytale. It may be allowed to play in some small corner but it's not going to be anything close to a mainstream means of commerce.
Well we're giving our informed or uniformed as the case may be.... opinions, isn"t that what a message board does half the time? Good info and good opinion in this thread.
Until the moderators shut it down because they or the curmudgeons do not like what is being said we are free to opine.
I find the space and the times we find ourselves occupied with crypto fascinating.
Bear in mind the confidence in the US dollar is just that, confidence.
Well it is about new technology when one of your chief arguments against it is (paraphrasing), "Why isn't everyone using it then?" Like asking why everyone isn't on the Internet in 1995 and predicting doom because it hasn't caught on yet.
Who said governments would abandon control of their currencies? I don't recall seeing that claim here.
I could name some gold bugs too, but that doesn't mean they are right about everything. None of these people are involved in this thread from what I can tell.
Some of your criticism has been fair, and I have answered that which has not been, such as why "everyone" isn't using crypto yet and your statements about monitoring and taxing crypto.
Again, selective statistics. Sure it's down 70% in a year, but what about 5 years, or 10 years?
I agree that the price of Bitcoin relative to USD is not stable, but that isn't stopping people from continuing to hold and use it in transactions. Yep, even after the recent decline you can still use your Bitcoin and other crypto at APMEX.
Edited to add: Yet another exhibit for the use/application of crypto: Lower fees using crypto vs third parties (ie credit cards). Faster than checks or bank transfers.
I don't know if it will ever be a significant form of commerce. Probably not if the US CBDC works fine. It will likely be a prominent second form of commerce though.
Again, it's pretty new so a lot of the infrastructure to support this really doesn't exist yet. And that's probably a poor example. I'll point out that even your multinational companies won't pay US employees in Yen or Euros upon request either.
It's actually not. It's not Bitcoin, but zero-knowledge privacy coins exist and work quite well. These cryptos are definitely not controlled by any governments and they are impossible to monitor so long as there are no exposure points, such as through an exchange or other entity that would associate and ID with a wallet address. I'll concede that the US government and many others will probably not allow an exchange operating within their borders to trade those coins. That doesn't mean that they don't exist and aren't useful, but I agree they will never be mainstream.
My chief argument for not using it is trust and what has occurred over the last year and the last week has shown crypto hasn't earn that trust. Another reason it has failed and will continue to do so is governments and those that control the current monetary policy. No entity that threatens that control will survive. A huge selling point of crypto was it being outside government control and regulation. That was a false claim in my opinion.
Name the gold bugs all you want. False claims made by gold bugs does nothing to bolster your argument.
The statistics are what they are. I didn't make them. And what the statistics say is Bitcoin is not going to be anything more than a highly volatile asset that's only an asset if you believe others will pay more for next month while you're holding.
What you can buy on Ampex today is 70% less than you could have purchased a year ago.
No Fortune 500 company I'm aware of is giving employees an option to be paid in Bitcoin. There hasn't been the mass adoption of crypto in commerce. Yes, there has been a lot of trading in the space and the key to that trading was a hope for major profits. A lot of folks did not have the faith to buy and hold as evidenced by the sell off.
Unless someone has been living under a rock just about everyone has heard about crypto. And why so U.S. centric. The rejection with respect to governments is not limited to the U.S. I don't think China or Russia are keen on the idea.
Is this really true? Is my local grocery store hiring cashiers for 140% of the average wage? Does average here mean "mean" or something else? I'm extremely skeptical, like where are all the people making below average wages?
It's not even close to right unless that is inflation adjusted dollars.
https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/pay-salary/average-hourly-wage-in-us
For the rest of us... let it GOOOO
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
https://moneytransfers.com/news/content/how-much-does-the-average-american-make
I agree that crypto has been associated with some high profile scams and failures, but that's a bit like blaming cars for car accidents and saying how unsafe it is to ride in a car.
I don't see where governments are or should be threatened by cryptocurrency any more than they should be threatened by gold and silver or the currency of another foreign nation. I know this is a popular theme among the anti-crypto crowd, but for many of the reasons we have discussed it won't ever supplant the local currency except perhaps in countries without robust financial systems and services.
And false claims by crypto bugs don't bolster your arguments either.
And here you go again redefining 'asset' now. The classification of 'asset' is not contingent on a belief of appreciation, only a belief or expectation of future benefit.
Right. And in my city, my US dollars buy half the house I could have bought two years ago. That doesn't mean Bitcoin can't be used in commerce to buy things which pretty well demonstrates its use as a currency. But again, you won't tell use what your definition of _currency _ is.
Yes, we're still early in the adoption curve. Why don't you get that? Were you beating the drum of, why can't I buy things on [insert company name] website in 1995? That's what you're saying.
For every seller there was a buyer. A lower price indicates that demand is lower or supply is higher now (or a bit of both), but each Bitcoin is still held by someone who sees a benefit in owning it.
Who suggested that any major government would replace their central bank currencies with a decentralized crypto? The crypto bugs?
That number is inflation adjusted. See the link I posted. In 2022 dollars, the average is over $30 per hour.
Let it go? Are you kidding?
I still haven't found out whether I should buy more 1950-D nickles with my 1957 silver certificates?
Which way do you want it? Is it going to grow where there is mass acceptance or continue to be a novelty that doesn't warrant the attention of governments?
Yes, there are crackpots promoting both but gold has been valued and trust as a store of value for thousands of years not 17 years.
Is there a meaningful difference between belief in appreciation and belief in future benefit?
What city do you live in??? A 50% drop in housing prices FAR from the norm across the country. Housing prices have flatten or gone down slightly depending on where you live. My son purchased his house in 2020 and the price is up 20% since he purchased it. Even if that's somewhat inflated in far from a 50% decrease.
Yes, for every seller there was a buyer but those buyers that purchased at $60K, 50K, $40K, 30K, $20K are kicking themselves in the rear. Did you jump in on the way down thing "this is as low as it's going to go" expecting the turn around to be just around the next corner? It's apparent that a lot of folks either have faith you have in the space. Maybe they lack the knowledge you have that generates the faith you have or they have a greater knowledge that in hindsight they realize the space doesn't warrant the faith you have in it. But it is evident that a lot of folks that for whatever reason, reap a profit and/or minimize their loss, have sold off their coins. And some like Kevin O'Leary are going to avoid crypto until governments take some oversight and control over it, which is contrary to one of the main selling points of crypto.
I don't delight in anyone's loss but I've never been sold on the concept of a "currency" outside of government control and backed by nothing but faith that other individuals would join that system. When the fiat dollar was created you had the promise of a major government backing that system, first with gold and silver followed by just a promise. You had an immediate acceptance of that system by hundreds of millions of people in the U.S. and around the globe. An attempt to do something similar starting at a grassroots level, making promise that in my opinion couldn't be kept, still keeps me highly suspect that this concept is going to gain anymore traction than it already has. Digital currency is coming in the form of a digital dollar control by governments, banks and the ultra wealthy in business.
Yes. Definitely.
It will grow to mass acceptance, and it already has the attention of governments. As discussed, they already monitor crypto transactions and it is already taxed.
So because of crypto's lack of history, false statements by crypto "bugs" are more meaningful/impactful?
Future benefit is much broader in scope. If I buy a rental property I would consider it an asset, not because I believe can sell it for more than I paid for it, but because it will generate income. You might not be aware but several cryptos offer staking which is a form of interest income. I have bought several cryptos for this purpose.
Why did the real estate prices have to drop 50%? In my city (as in many) the prices doubled, thus the dollar lost 50% of its value vs housing. In reconsideration my numbers are off. Prices have doubled over the last 5 years, not 2 years.
So are you ever going to answer the question or will you keep avoiding it? How is a government going to take control of a decentralized cryptocurrency? Are you saying Kevin O' Leary expects the government to buy 50.000001% of one or more crypto projects to control them (a move which would probably drive the remaining 49.9999% to sell? What kind of control is he advocating for? I really want to know. Keep following him if you think he's worth listening to. Rules and regs are needed with regard to forcing crypto custodians to not be able to rehypothicate depositor's assets, but that risk is easily avoided by keeping crypto in your own possession. That said, once we can rely more on third party custodians it will open up the crypto markets immensely. But that's not what I would consider "control." Please explain how one (or a government) would or could theoretically control Bitcoin, or what you mean when you talk about controlling a crypto currency.
And so what's your point? You said people lost faith and sold off, but for every person that sold, a person with faith bought. And that's not even a fair assessment as I very much have faith in crypto but if I can see that the US dollar bull is going to continue, I know that cryptos are probably going to keep going down so I will sell and have sold in expectation of buying back in lower. Nothing goes straight up. I've bought several investments that went down after I bought them, it's not unique to crypto at all. Have you seen Carvana stock? A lot of people have lost faith in Carvana, but there are still folks around who believe in it. Maybe it's because they know something most other people don't. I'm not suggesting you listen to me about the future of crypto, but I do suggest you look at what the titans of industry are doing (rather than what they are saying). JP Morgan's Jamie Dimon has been very outspoken against crypto while his company has been making big moves in the space. Ignore what the big boys are doing at your own peril. https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2022/11/06/a-massive-step-jpmorgan-just-made-a-surprize-game-changing-bet-on-crypto-despite-2-trillion-bitcoin-ethereum-and-crypto-price-crash/?sh=64e735aa652d
That's an understandable position to take, but as in my previous comment, do some research as to what the "big boys" are doing and you will see that there is big money being bet on the future of crypto. The players on Wall Street are getting in. Major retail is getting in, I've seen the crypto job postings by Amazon and Facebook. There's a reason why Paypal added crypto recently. The signals are there to be seen or ignored.
Yes. Definitely.
It's called "confirmation bias". Once they've made up their mind, they only pay attention to the voices that echo their own. Skepticism is healthy, but it should work both ways.
You might as well throw in Recency bias as well. If the public believes that the Crypto's will rise sharply, once again, then Wall St will help them get their fill. The question is, where was everyone at $1 Btitcoin , $1000 Bitcoin, or even $20,000 Bitcoin. Now, after seeing $70,000 ...and the pullback are most still believers? Last chance to get in before new highs? Does that thinking fall under the recency bias?
It will not grow to mass acceptance until it is backed by governments and governments are not going to back anything they can't monitor, regulate, control and tax. And if a government can monitor, control and tax it is no longer crypto as you define it.
Because crypto has a relatively short history the evidence that it is what you or anyone else claims it is is lacking. Bitcoin, the most popular and well known crypto, is a non-productive asset like gold but gold has proven to be a store of wealth over thousands of years. Bitcoin has not. Beyond that crypto has not proven itself to be a store or wealth or a stable currency. It won't gain that confidence until it is backed by major governments and again, that's not going to happen unless they control it.
You asked the question how will governments take control of crypto. They do it by controlling the major banks and corporations that ultimately control what form of money can be used in commerce. They control those Fortune 500 companies and how they pay their employees. They control how government workers get paid. They control how a huge percentage of the population get the government benefits. You boost about the relatively tiny bit of commerce is done in crypto which pales in comparison to the commerce done using fiat (dollars, euros, yen, rubles, yuan, etc.). Governments are not going to give up control.
You do not know if it was a one for one seller versus buyer. My guess is the number of hands holding crypto has shrunk during this last sell of and that the numbers with faith are small, especially given the fiasco with FTX. Nothing that has occurred in the space over the last year has generate more faith in the future of crypto. Losing 50% of its value certainly didn't help. My guess is folks like Saylor bought up a lot of the crypto that was sold by those whose faith wavered over the last year.
I know what the big boys are doing (those Fortune 500 companies, large governments and investment companies) and its not speculating in crypto. If you did business using crypto and held the funds in crypto you lost 50% of your revenue. No business is going to take the risk of being paid and holding onto a volatile asset. Musk realized pretty quickly that was a bad idea.
What you refuse to accept is that the governments that ultimately control everything are going to allow a mode of commerce to grow substantially that they don't control. It's not going to happen.
So I have a serious question. Can you or I or any normal, that is not especially connected, person borrow, say, ten bitcoin, pay interest in bitcoin, and repay after an intermediate to long term in bitcoin? So like borrow ten bitcoin, pay 0.4 bitcoin every six months for five years or ten years, and return ten bitcoin at that time? Rate and term can vary somewhat and any crypto is fine. Just wondering if there is a lending market.
youhodler.com
Never Bit(e)coin off more than you can chew.
What do you mean "back" it? This is your opinion and speculation. The masses, and not necessarily those in the US, will adopt crypto because their government isn't involved with it. Exhibit A: Venezuela: https://fee.org/articles/how-bitcoin-could-smash-socialism-in-venezuela/
`
In the face of these troubles, Venezuelans have turned to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Unlike US dollars, Bitcoin (BTC) can be purchased digitally and directly by using Peer2Peer (P2P) exchanges. It is an asset that can be purchased anywhere in the world.
`
The US government can monitor and tax crypto today and it is still crypto. Why do you keep insisting they can't? Did you notice the question on your last form 1040? The IRS asks you if you received or sent any crypto. The only thing they can do is tighten controls on the US-based fiat crypto exchanges, like Coinbase.
I can agree with all but the last statement. People don't much much faith in their governments, and the faith they do have is declining. I will again disagree about the control statement. Several state legislatures have entertained and passed laws to accept payment of state taxes in Bitcoin. No state is doing this yet, but the state governments have not cited lack of control as a reason not to. Note that they don't control the USD either.
I would say that none of the items you described are governments "controlling crypto" but rather controlling the utility of crypto - how and where it can be used. We only see this happening in communist/dictatorial regimes. You can predict that the US government will go that direction, and I will predict they won't. There are two strong reasons why this won't happen (why the US government won't go anit-crypto):
1. The horses are already out of the barn. Crypto, although still a small market, is already in the possession and use of too many people and businesses. A quick Google shows that over 23% of US citizens own crypto and according to NBC, over 21% have traded or used crypto. US companies already have large investments in the space and tech. Very hard to un-ring this bell.
2. Wall Street wants in. Wall Street controls the government. Wall Street will get what it wants.
I am not so delusional to think that a government that prints its own currency will pay in any currency but that which they can print to oblivion. Nor would a company who doesn't accept crypto for payments procure crypto in order to offer a different payment option to employees. Employees aren't really asking for it (yet), and it would take a lot of effort to implement. There are too many logistical hurdles to this before we get into any of the other arguments. This is probably something that third party payroll processors will start providing though, if they haven't already.
You don't have to guess, you just have to go back a few posts where I told you that the number of active Bitcoin wallets continues to grow or remain stable. The cool thing about blockchain is that the data is easy to find and 100% accurate.
That's completely inaccurate. International businesses transact in multiple currencies and have sophisticated operations to maximize their assets. Do you think large companies held on to large amounts of Euros and Yen during this last USD bull? Of course not. They have staff dedicated to managing their positions in cash and commodities. They hedge against market moves using options and futures to keep their positions neutral. Why would crypto be different?
There are only a small number of governments that "control everything." And those that do, don't do a very good job at it, as evidenced by the article linked above and the article about China that I posted recently.
Yes, Nexo.com, but they are not a US company. Keep in mind that at all of the platforms I know, to borrow Bitcoin you'll have to post some digital collateral, and you'll want to keep it at less than 50% LTV. Keep in mind that one of the primary purposes of these platforms is to allow you to spend your crypto without selling it in order to avoid a taxation event if you're sitting on a lot of gains.
By backed I mean endorsed and supported by that government. Please don't talk about Venezuela with a $98 billion gdp, 73rd behind Luxemburg. The major economic powers in the world are not going to make Bitcoin their currency of choice.
I thought one of the major selling points of crypto is that it couldn't be monitored. Beyond that governments and banks exercise control over the economy by controlling the money supply. They are NOT giving up that control. The 1040 statement regarding crypto is a taxpayer voluntary statement and not based on federal monitoring of income.
A couple of states suggesting receiving taxes in Bitcoin is just that, a suggestion. I don't see it happening and there is no mechanism in place to allow it to happen.
If you can't use it it has been effectively controlled. If you can't be paid with it, if your SS benefit has to be in dollars, if you can't buy groceries with it, if you can't pay your mortgage and car loan with it's effectively been shutout of wide spread use.
What do you mean by too many people. How many people are using crypto to pay for the daily necessities of life? What percentage of the population is conducting a major portion of their transaction using crypto?
And where did you get the idea that Wall Street wants in? You have a couple of institutional investor talking about it, less in the last few weeks as a result of the FTX fiasco, but there has been no great clamoring on Wall Street to embrace crypto.
There are approximately 106 million individuals that own Bitcoin, 200 million wallets, 53 million Bitcoin traders and 270,000 Bitcoin transaction daily. That is miniscule! In addition it appears many folks have more than one Bitcoin wallet and many of those wallets are owned by traders not by folks using Bitcoin for daily ecommerce.
What I wrote about Fortune 500 companies is not "completely inaccurate". They are not paying their employees in Bitcoin. I seriously doubt any of them are doing international business in Bitcoin. You making a claim about something you do not know. You're guessing. Tesla accepted Bitcoin for about a week and dropped it. Those currencies you mentioned are no where near as volatile as Bitcoin. Give me 50 companies in the Fortune 500 companies (10% of the 500) that are transacting business in Bitcoin.
The U.S. has successfully fought off every attempt to dethrone the dollar as the worlds reserve currency. China is not going to allow a currency to oust the yuan, the Japanese the yen, the Russians the ruble, the EU the Euro or India the rupee. That's better than half the world's total GDP. And these countries have a major influence on what happens in the rest of the world. The 200 million Bitcoin wallets is not even an afterthought when it comes to deciding on what happens next as far as a digital currency is concerned.
And then of course there is this.
Gov regulation will entice some people and chase others away, so it's not a total win for crypto. In any case it will take a prolonged period of stability for wide acceptance and utility and we are not close to being there. So chill.
Disclaimer: I'm not a dealer, trader, grader, investor or professional numismatist. I'm just a hobbyist. (To protect me but mostly you! 🤣 )
Then maybe St Kitts and Nemis?
https://cryptoslate.com/st-kitts-and-nevis-to-adopt-bitcoincash-as-legal-tender-in-2023/
Look, your point is taken, but you should be able to see that this is a movement that is gaining momentum. It starts with the small countries first.
I understand major countries won't ever do it because they can print their own money. If I could print my own money and get people to accept it, I would do that too. I wouldn't ever expect a country to endorse the competition.
Again, go take they argument up with someone who is making that argument, but you can stop saying that it can't be monitored. They can control their fiat money supplies all they want, it won't keep crypto from flourishing.
Yes, in the US, all taxes are voluntary. Go ahead and try not paying them.
And try withdrawing a lot of US dollars from Coinbase to you bank account. You don't think the government doesn't see the money going into your bank account? If you can tell me how I can start avoiding taxes on my crypto grains I would like to know. I had a hefty bill last year.
To be fair, you wouldn't have the mechanism until you needed the mechanism. Such a mechanism would not be difficult to implement. Many online retailers have already done so.
Sure, but if I can still make peer-to-peer transactions there's a lot of utility that can't be controlled and can be quite useful. I also think it would be unconstitutional to place those limits and controls on transactions.
I said "in possession and use." That doesn't mean they are using it daily. 20-25% of a population is not insignificant and enough to make politicians think twice about taking it away.
>
You may need to review my posts again, I've mentioned several examples. All of the major players have made huge investments in the space including JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs, Citibank, Chase, BOA, Wells Fargo, they are all chomping at the bit. This is the part where you need to do your own research, but here's a start:
https://www.ft.com/content/2119ee69-e5d9-41ac-b443-3f74a14e73e8
Three of the world’s leading banks — Citigroup, BNY Mellon and Wells Fargo — have joined a funding round for a US developer of cryptocurrency trading technology, highlighting the work now being done on Wall Street to prepare for the growing adoption of digital assets.Your point? It would be easier to follow if you would respond below the text you are replying to.
It is minuscule but it is growing. That is the part you keep ignoring. Things have to start small and grow, that's how it works.
https://decrypt.co/92501/wells-fargo-report-argues-not-too-late-invest-crypto
`
Wells Fargo’s main argument is that it is still early enough to invest in cryptocurrencies because of what the bank has observed from global crypto adoption rates.
The bank also cites a commonly used analogy between Bitcoin and the internet, arguing that “cryptocurrencies have been following an adoption pattern similar to other new advanced technologies, such as the internet,” adding that it often takes many years for real adoption to occur.
`
First, you missed the point which is that large companies deal in volatile pricing, assets, etc and have people dedicated to managing this risk and there are tools such as options and futures contracts to allow companies to maintain neutrality. Volatility is not a reason for large companies to avoid dealing in crypto.
I feel like I keep repeating myself, adoption is still growing. I'm not going to go through the Fortune 500 list, but here are some major companies accepting crypto today: YUM brands, Coca Cola, Etsy, Overstock, Restaurant Brands (Burger King, etc), Rakuten, Whole Foods, Virgin Group, Paypal, Starbucks, Home Depot, BMW, Microsoft, AT&T. Is that good enough for you?
I have never suggested that crypto will supplant any major currencies. You keep going back to this but I'm not making that argument. It's pretty hard to fight decentralized organizations. Most countries will realize that the best path forward is to embrace it. That doesn't mean that the government will actually use crypto. It will be a successful alternative payment and investment option, but it won't replace any central bank currencies.
The movement just got smashed over the last six months.
Whether you're making the argument (inability of governments to control) is immaterial. The so-called influencers are making that argument.
In the U.S. all taxes are NOT voluntary. Just ask Wesley Snipes. Right now there is voluntary reporting of income in crypto. Other income gets reported to the IRS. And I never said anything about money going into your bank account. I'm talk about crypto on an exchange.
You gave an answer but didn't answer the question. Who is the "too many" you are referring to? The number of people and transactions done using crypto is miniscule.
Do you have a subscription with Financial Times? All I get is a headline saying they invested in a crypto technology company. I see nothing about a "huge investment". Investment in the technology could be an investment in block chain technology (that has other potential uses) not in any particular crypto.
My point is the amount of commerce being done in crypto is miniscule and much of the activity has nothing to do with actual commerce but the highly speculative ponzi scheme.
Adoption WAS growing until the crash and burn that has occurred over the last year. You had a huge surge in 2020-2021 when a ton of new speculators jumped and now a huge drop showing much of the money that flowed into the sector was by those that were not true believers.
I go back to that argument because the preachers of the gospel of crypto continue to attempted to motivate folks to come into the space because fiat currencies are going to collapse. I don't know what the future holds for the dollar BUT whatever replaces the dollar, yen, yuan, etc. is something that will controlled by central governments and not outside their ability to manipulated to the benefit of banks and large corporations. Again, we are moving to 100% digital currency but it won't be one outside the government's ability to manipulate.
You are stuck repeating the same things that he has refuted several times.
I appreciate your efforts, but you might as well be talking to yourself. He's not open-minded enough to consider me information that runs counter to his bias.
Simplest example:
Him: Bitcoin does not act as a currency.
You: It's legal tender in Venezuela.
Him: Venezuela doesn't count.
Oddly, Venezuela didn't count because it's only the 78th largest economy. That must really upset the 130 economies that are smaller than Venezuela to find out that they don't count either.
As usual, @ProofCollection there is more context necessary,
Just to cite a few examples, there are conversion apps involved in the bitcoin acceptance, its not direct to Starbucks or Home Depot. BMW does not have a company wide policy, it is select privately owned dealerships.
Venezuela year over year currency inflation is 155%, what do they have to lose? St Kitts and Nevis .......are you kidding me?
Why let a few facts get in the way. Its not becoming widely accepted, not by a long shot.