Items have value because folks are willing to buy it with something else that is considered to have value. Software is not tangible yet still has value. The same is true of crypto. I would think that many of you that don't want to trust the government and their dollar issuing would agree that crypto offers an alternative. I know that this post will not change anyone's mind, but crypto is very similar to gold /silver. It has value and is off the government's books.
crypto has no inherit value, only an imaginary value placed on it by a buyer. No buyers, no value. Unlike a stock that is backed by hard assets, when a crypto goes to zero there is nothing left. crypto is not similar to gold, I can't hold it my hand or hide it from someone who is determined to take it from me.
I have traded cryptos extensively, they are simply a bet that demand for them will increase. I was investing in nothing more than where I thought the price would go.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
@Goldminers said:
Down $150 in the past week. The market prefers buying companies with fast chips, clouds, and AI.
Perfectly understandable after the rise we had. We could even base for more months, this pattern has been seen many times since the 1970's.
$5,000 by 2030 is possible. I originally though 2035 but we made great progress in lifting off from $1,500 and don't seem to need a bigger correction. With supply limited (as you know) and all headwinds turning to tailwinds (Central Bank buying, SWF buying, institutional and retail buying), it's the best time for gold since the 1970's.
@ProofCollection said:
Every asset and investment has pros and cons. Returns are usually correlated to risk. Crypto's biggest pro is its >transparency, unlike stocks (see Enron and the Plunge Protection Team).
Stocks are way more transparent than other financial instruments since they have greater upside and downside than other securities like bonds. Enron was once very transparent until it got into opaque trading nonsense.
The PPTs role is exaggerated as they operate inside the Treasury via the ESF from the 1933 Gold Act.
@derryb said:
crypto has no inherit value, only an imaginary value placed on it by a buyer. No buyers, no value. Unlike a stock that is backed by hard assets, when a crypto goes to zero there is nothing left. crypto is not similar to gold, I can't hold it my hand or hide it from someone who is determined to take it from me.
I have traded cryptos extensively, they are simply a bet that demand for them will increase. I was investing in nothing more than where I thought the price would go.
That's not true at all. A global network of millions of users who trust and use the same software which generates fees and a return (i.e., Ethereum) has value. It's not worthless. Many companies have tried and failed to build such networks. How many companies would love to own and control the Ethereum network? Not because of the value of the Eth token, but because of what they can do with the network and its global network of users? What would they pay if it was able to be bought?
@Goldminers said:
Down $150 in the past week. The market prefers buying companies with fast chips, clouds, and AI.
Perfectly understandable after the rise we had. We could even base for more months, this pattern has been seen many times since the 1970's.
$5,000 by 2030 is possible. I originally though 2035 but we made great progress in lifting off from $1,500 and don't seem to need a bigger correction. With supply limited (as you know) and all headwinds turning to tailwinds (Central Bank buying, SWF buying, institutional and retail buying), it's the best time for gold since the 1970's.
What a bold prediction. Really going out on a limb there. I predict by 2030 a massive hurricane will hit Florida again.
@ProofCollection said:
Every asset and investment has pros and cons. Returns are usually correlated to risk. Crypto's biggest pro is its >transparency, unlike stocks (see Enron and the Plunge Protection Team).
Stocks are way more transparent than other financial instruments since they have greater upside and downside than other securities like bonds. Enron was once very transparent until it got into opaque trading nonsense.
Yeah, they're always transparent until they're not. The CEO is always trustworthy and a great guy up until the day it all gets exposed.
@derryb said:
crypto has no inherit value, only an imaginary value placed on it by a buyer. No buyers, no value. Unlike a stock that is backed by hard assets, when a crypto goes to zero there is nothing left. crypto is not similar to gold, I can't hold it my hand or hide it from someone who is determined to take it from me.
I have traded cryptos extensively, they are simply a bet that demand for them will increase. I was investing in nothing more than where I thought the price would go.
That's not true at all. A global network of millions of users who trust and use the same software which generates fees and a return (i.e., Ethereum) has value. It's not worthless. Many companies have tried and failed to build such networks. How many companies would love to own and control the Ethereum network? Not because of the value of the Eth token, but because of what they can do with the network and its global network of users? What would they pay if it was able to be bought?
.
How would an entity go about "buying" Etherium (the network and/or the users) ?
@derryb said:
crypto has no inherit value, only an imaginary value placed on it by a buyer. No buyers, no value. Unlike a stock that is backed by hard assets, when a crypto goes to zero there is nothing left. crypto is not similar to gold, I can't hold it my hand or hide it from someone who is determined to take it from me.
I have traded cryptos extensively, they are simply a bet that demand for them will increase. I was investing in nothing more than where I thought the price would go.
Just like early critics of the internet struggled to see its utility beyond email, you're overlooking how blockchain technology could underpin future systems—financial or otherwise. Certain cryptocurrencies have utility, and their value arises not just from speculation but from the function they serve:
Ethereum powers decentralized applications and smart contracts, making it like the operating system of a new internet layer.
Bitcoin is increasingly seen as a hedge against inflation and monetary policy risk—especially in countries with unstable currencies.
Stablecoins allow global value transfer in seconds without banking intermediaries.
Just as tech platforms gained value from their networks of users (Facebook, Uber, etc.), the value of crypto networks grows with adoption and usage. Blockchain offers transparent, tamper-proof tracking, which is crucial in global supply chains.
@derryb said:
crypto has no inherit value, only an imaginary value placed on it by a buyer. No buyers, no value. Unlike a stock that is backed by hard assets, when a crypto goes to zero there is nothing left. crypto is not similar to gold, I can't hold it my hand or hide it from someone who is determined to take it from me.
I have traded cryptos extensively, they are simply a bet that demand for them will increase. I was investing in nothing more than where I thought the price would go.
That's not true at all. A global network of millions of users who trust and use the same software which generates fees and a return (i.e., Ethereum) has value. It's not worthless. Many companies have tried and failed to build such networks. How many companies would love to own and control the Ethereum network? Not because of the value of the Eth token, but because of what they can do with the network and its global network of users? What would they pay if it was able to be bought?
.
How would an entity go about "buying" Etherium (the network and/or the users) ?
It was academic, sorry if I was unclear. The suggestion was that crypto has no inherent value, and I provided an example that companies would pay billions to have what the ETH network already is in an attempt to show that there most certainly is inherent value.
And I get it. It's easy to be in the 'if I can't eat it, hold it, see it, etc' mindset but the future is very digital and there's value there too. It's hard for some to make that paradigm shift.
@derryb said:
crypto has no inherit value, only an imaginary value placed on it by a buyer. No buyers, no value. Unlike a stock that is backed by hard assets, when a crypto goes to zero there is nothing left. crypto is not similar to gold, I can't hold it my hand or hide it from someone who is determined to take it from me.
I have traded cryptos extensively, they are simply a bet that demand for them will increase. I was investing in nothing more than where I thought the price would go.
Just like early critics of the internet struggled to see its utility beyond email, you're overlooking how blockchain technology could underpin future systems—financial or otherwise. Certain cryptocurrencies have utility, and their value arises not just from speculation but from the function they serve:
Ethereum powers decentralized applications and smart contracts, making it like the operating system of a new internet layer.
Bitcoin is increasingly seen as a hedge against inflation and monetary policy risk—especially in countries with unstable currencies.
Stablecoins allow global value transfer in seconds without banking intermediaries.
Just as tech platforms gained value from their networks of users (Facebook, Uber, etc.), the value of crypto networks grows with adoption and usage. Blockchain offers transparent, tamper-proof tracking, which is crucial in global supply chains.
Well said. We also haven't discussed staking and defi which provide actual ways to generate returns just like dividends on stocks.
Most people just haven't taken the time to do the research which is why they'll be behind the curve just like everybody else.
Just as tech platforms gained value from their networks of users (Facebook, Uber, etc.), the value of crypto networks grows with adoption and usage. Blockchain offers transparent, tamper-proof tracking, which is crucial in global supply chains.
While crypto is built around blockchain a buyer of crypto is not buying the blockchain technology; a holder of the crypto does not own nor have a future claim to the technology. In the case of crypto, blockchain is simply a transaction ledger. In Bitcoin's case, the blockchain is decentralized, so no single person or group has control—instead, all users collectively retain control. Control is not ownership.
Just like nobody owns email technology, nobody owns a crypto's network. Understanding and recognizing the value of blockchain technology should be kept separate from a perceived value of individual cryptos.
Blockchain is the future of financial transactions, but it will not involve currently marketed cryptos. Current crypto products are simply a byproduct of technology. A buyer of crypto today will not profit from the future of blockchain. His only hope for profit is a buyer willing to pay more for the crypto he owns or a buyer who mistakenly believes he is buying the technology behind it.
Businesses are embracing crypto only because it is another way for them to get paid. They are not investing in crypto, they are likely immediately converting crypto receipts into what their product was originally priced in - dollars.
Bitcoin is increasingly seen as a hedge against inflation and monetary policy risk—especially in countries with unstable currencies.
Only as long as bitcoin's expected gains are greater than inflation's negative impact on the dollar. This is true of any perceived "hedge."
Certain cryptocurrencies have utility, and their value arises not just from speculation but from the function they serve:
Ethereum powers decentralized applications and smart contracts, making it like the operating system of a new internet layer.
Again, crypto owners do not own the utility. They are not buying or selling the technology behind the crypto.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
Just as tech platforms gained value from their networks of users (Facebook, Uber, etc.), the value of crypto networks grows with adoption and usage. Blockchain offers transparent, tamper-proof tracking, which is crucial in global supply chains.
While crypto is built around blockchain a buyer of crypto is not buying the blockchain technology; a holder of the crypto does not own nor have a future claim to the technology. In the case of crypto, blockchain is simply a transaction ledger. In Bitcoin's case, the blockchain is decentralized, so no single person or group has control—instead, all users collectively retain control. Control is not ownership.
Just like nobody owns email technology, nobody owns a crypto's network. Understanding and recognizing the value of blockchain technology should be kept separate from a perceived value of individual cryptos.
You are conflating blockchain and payments. Payments are just one application of blockchain. If you never look beyond the payments application you will never appreciate the entirety of technology.
While a holder of crypto does not own or have a future claim in the technology, I think you intentionally avoided saying that a holder does own access and license to use the technology as it (in almost all cases) cannot be used without being a holder and spending some of it. As the capability, use, and demand of for the tech increases, so does the value of the crypto.
Blockchain is the future of financial transactions, but it will not involve currently marketed cryptos. Current crypto products are simply a byproduct of technology. A buyer of crypto today will not profit from the future of blockchain. His only hope for profit is a buyer willing to pay more for the crypto he owns or a buyer who mistakenly believes he is buying the technology behind it.
Businesses are embracing crypto only because it is another way for them to get paid. They are not investing in crypto, they are likely immediately converting crypto receipts into what their product was originally priced in - dollars.
You didn't bother to read the article I linked then. As I pointed out earlier, accepting crypto for payments does not require billions of dollars of investment. It is an easy integration for any software development team. Companies are not spending billions to figure out how to do what APMEX and many other companies already doing. There are entire areas of functionality in Defi, DePin, Tokenization, NFTs and other use cases you are completely ignoring.
Bitcoin is increasingly seen as a hedge against inflation and monetary policy risk—especially in countries with unstable currencies.
Only as long as bitcoin's expected gains or greater than inflation's negative impact on the dollar. This is true of any perceived "hedge."
Certain cryptocurrencies have utility, and their value arises not just from speculation but from the function they serve:
Ethereum powers decentralized applications and smart contracts, making it like the operating system of a new internet layer.
Again, crypto owners do not own the utility. Their only investment value is in tomorrow's price.
Perhaps you missed the part where you have to own some of it in order to be able to use it.
Just as tech platforms gained value from their networks of users (Facebook, Uber, etc.), the value of crypto networks grows with adoption and usage. Blockchain offers transparent, tamper-proof tracking, which is crucial in global supply chains.
While crypto is built around blockchain a buyer of crypto is not buying the blockchain technology; a holder of the crypto does not own nor have a future claim to the technology. In the case of crypto, blockchain is simply a transaction ledger. In Bitcoin's case, the blockchain is decentralized, so no single person or group has control—instead, all users collectively retain control. Control is not ownership.
Just like nobody owns email technology, nobody owns a crypto's network. Understanding and recognizing the value of blockchain technology should be kept separate from a perceived value of individual cryptos.
You are conflating blockchain and payments. Payments are just one application of blockchain. If you never look beyond the payments application you will never appreciate the entirety of technology.
While a holder of crypto does not own or have a future claim in the technology, I think you intentionally avoided saying that a holder does own access and license to use the technology as it (in almost all cases) cannot be used without being a holder and spending some of it. As the capability, use, and demand of for the tech increases, so does the value of the crypto.
Blockchain is the future of financial transactions, but it will not involve currently marketed cryptos. Current crypto products are simply a byproduct of technology. A buyer of crypto today will not profit from the future of blockchain. His only hope for profit is a buyer willing to pay more for the crypto he owns or a buyer who mistakenly believes he is buying the technology behind it.
Businesses are embracing crypto only because it is another way for them to get paid. They are not investing in crypto, they are likely immediately converting crypto receipts into what their product was originally priced in - dollars.
You didn't bother to read the article I linked then. As I pointed out earlier, accepting crypto for payments does not require billions of dollars of investment. It is an easy integration for any software development team. Companies are not spending billions to figure out how to do what APMEX and many other companies already doing. There are entire areas of functionality in Defi, DePin, Tokenization, NFTs and other use cases you are completely ignoring.
Bitcoin is increasingly seen as a hedge against inflation and monetary policy risk—especially in countries with unstable currencies.
Only as long as bitcoin's expected gains or greater than inflation's negative impact on the dollar. This is true of any perceived "hedge."
Certain cryptocurrencies have utility, and their value arises not just from speculation but from the function they serve:
Ethereum powers decentralized applications and smart contracts, making it like the operating system of a new internet layer.
Again, crypto owners do not own the utility. Their only investment value is in tomorrow's price.
Perhaps you missed the part where you have to own some of it in order to be able to use it.
blockchain technology is not exclusive to holders of crypto. While the owner of bitcoin has access to using his crypto's blockchain, it is not his. It will appear in many non-crypto transaction systems in the future. The blockchain technology is why crypto has the attention of many financiers and governments. This interest in the technology behind cryptos does not increase the value of cryptos. As I have said the only value in crypto is what it's buyer places on it. Cryptos themselves are pure speculation with no actual underlying value. At least with tulips you could always take delivery of your bulbs.
I am not anti-crypto. I only see them for what they really are - a speculative play that I take advantage of.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
Just as tech platforms gained value from their networks of users (Facebook, Uber, etc.), the value of crypto networks grows with adoption and usage. Blockchain offers transparent, tamper-proof tracking, which is crucial in global supply chains.
While crypto is built around blockchain a buyer of crypto is not buying the blockchain technology; a holder of the crypto does not own nor have a future claim to the technology. In the case of crypto, blockchain is simply a transaction ledger. In Bitcoin's case, the blockchain is decentralized, so no single person or group has control—instead, all users collectively retain control. Control is not ownership.
Just like nobody owns email technology, nobody owns a crypto's network. Understanding and recognizing the value of blockchain technology should be kept separate from a perceived value of individual cryptos.
You are conflating blockchain and payments. Payments are just one application of blockchain. If you never look beyond the payments application you will never appreciate the entirety of technology.
While a holder of crypto does not own or have a future claim in the technology, I think you intentionally avoided saying that a holder does own access and license to use the technology as it (in almost all cases) cannot be used without being a holder and spending some of it. As the capability, use, and demand of for the tech increases, so does the value of the crypto.
Blockchain is the future of financial transactions, but it will not involve currently marketed cryptos. Current crypto products are simply a byproduct of technology. A buyer of crypto today will not profit from the future of blockchain. His only hope for profit is a buyer willing to pay more for the crypto he owns or a buyer who mistakenly believes he is buying the technology behind it.
Businesses are embracing crypto only because it is another way for them to get paid. They are not investing in crypto, they are likely immediately converting crypto receipts into what their product was originally priced in - dollars.
You didn't bother to read the article I linked then. As I pointed out earlier, accepting crypto for payments does not require billions of dollars of investment. It is an easy integration for any software development team. Companies are not spending billions to figure out how to do what APMEX and many other companies already doing. There are entire areas of functionality in Defi, DePin, Tokenization, NFTs and other use cases you are completely ignoring.
Bitcoin is increasingly seen as a hedge against inflation and monetary policy risk—especially in countries with unstable currencies.
Only as long as bitcoin's expected gains or greater than inflation's negative impact on the dollar. This is true of any perceived "hedge."
Certain cryptocurrencies have utility, and their value arises not just from speculation but from the function they serve:
Ethereum powers decentralized applications and smart contracts, making it like the operating system of a new internet layer.
Again, crypto owners do not own the utility. Their only investment value is in tomorrow's price.
Perhaps you missed the part where you have to own some of it in order to be able to use it.
blockchain technology is not exclusive to holders of crypto. While the owner of bitcoin has access to using his crypto's blockchain, it is not his. It will appear in many non-crypto transaction systems in the future. The blockchain technology is why crypto has the attention of many financiers and governments. This interest in the technology behind cryptos does not increase the value of cryptos. As I have said the only value in crypto is what it's buyer places on it. Cryptos themselves are pure speculation with no actual underlying value. At least with tulips you could always take delivery of your bulbs.
I am not anti-crypto. I only see them for what they really are - a speculative play that I take advantage of.
Then why do you ignore the utility beyond making payments and/or assert that that utility has no value?
Just as tech platforms gained value from their networks of users (Facebook, Uber, etc.), the value of crypto networks grows with adoption and usage. Blockchain offers transparent, tamper-proof tracking, which is crucial in global supply chains.
While crypto is built around blockchain a buyer of crypto is not buying the blockchain technology; a holder of the crypto does not own nor have a future claim to the technology. In the case of crypto, blockchain is simply a transaction ledger. In Bitcoin's case, the blockchain is decentralized, so no single person or group has control—instead, all users collectively retain control. Control is not ownership.
Just like nobody owns email technology, nobody owns a crypto's network. Understanding and recognizing the value of blockchain technology should be kept separate from a perceived value of individual cryptos.
You are conflating blockchain and payments. Payments are just one application of blockchain. If you never look beyond the payments application you will never appreciate the entirety of technology.
While a holder of crypto does not own or have a future claim in the technology, I think you intentionally avoided saying that a holder does own access and license to use the technology as it (in almost all cases) cannot be used without being a holder and spending some of it. As the capability, use, and demand of for the tech increases, so does the value of the crypto.
Blockchain is the future of financial transactions, but it will not involve currently marketed cryptos. Current crypto products are simply a byproduct of technology. A buyer of crypto today will not profit from the future of blockchain. His only hope for profit is a buyer willing to pay more for the crypto he owns or a buyer who mistakenly believes he is buying the technology behind it.
Businesses are embracing crypto only because it is another way for them to get paid. They are not investing in crypto, they are likely immediately converting crypto receipts into what their product was originally priced in - dollars.
You didn't bother to read the article I linked then. As I pointed out earlier, accepting crypto for payments does not require billions of dollars of investment. It is an easy integration for any software development team. Companies are not spending billions to figure out how to do what APMEX and many other companies already doing. There are entire areas of functionality in Defi, DePin, Tokenization, NFTs and other use cases you are completely ignoring.
Bitcoin is increasingly seen as a hedge against inflation and monetary policy risk—especially in countries with unstable currencies.
Only as long as bitcoin's expected gains or greater than inflation's negative impact on the dollar. This is true of any perceived "hedge."
Certain cryptocurrencies have utility, and their value arises not just from speculation but from the function they serve:
Ethereum powers decentralized applications and smart contracts, making it like the operating system of a new internet layer.
Again, crypto owners do not own the utility. Their only investment value is in tomorrow's price.
Perhaps you missed the part where you have to own some of it in order to be able to use it.
blockchain technology is not exclusive to holders of crypto. While the owner of bitcoin has access to using his crypto's blockchain, it is not his. It will appear in many non-crypto transaction systems in the future. The blockchain technology is why crypto has the attention of many financiers and governments. This interest in the technology behind cryptos does not increase the value of cryptos. As I have said the only value in crypto is what it's buyer places on it. Cryptos themselves are pure speculation with no actual underlying value. At least with tulips you could always take delivery of your bulbs.
I am not anti-crypto. I only see them for what they really are - a speculative play that I take advantage of.
Then why do you ignore the utility beyond making payments and/or assert that that utility has no value?
I have made it perfectly clear that the utility in cryptos (blockchain technology) does have value. I also have made it equally clear that the buyer/holder/owner of a crypto does not own the utility, only a product that has no underlying value itself. If bitcoin were to hypothetically go to zero, what would the bitcoin holder have of value? How many times and how many ways do I need to say this for you to comprehend what I have said?
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
Just as tech platforms gained value from their networks of users (Facebook, Uber, etc.), the value of crypto networks grows with adoption and usage. Blockchain offers transparent, tamper-proof tracking, which is crucial in global supply chains.
While crypto is built around blockchain a buyer of crypto is not buying the blockchain technology; a holder of the crypto does not own nor have a future claim to the technology. In the case of crypto, blockchain is simply a transaction ledger. In Bitcoin's case, the blockchain is decentralized, so no single person or group has control—instead, all users collectively retain control. Control is not ownership.
Just like nobody owns email technology, nobody owns a crypto's network. Understanding and recognizing the value of blockchain technology should be kept separate from a perceived value of individual cryptos.
You are conflating blockchain and payments. Payments are just one application of blockchain. If you never look beyond the payments application you will never appreciate the entirety of technology.
While a holder of crypto does not own or have a future claim in the technology, I think you intentionally avoided saying that a holder does own access and license to use the technology as it (in almost all cases) cannot be used without being a holder and spending some of it. As the capability, use, and demand of for the tech increases, so does the value of the crypto.
Blockchain is the future of financial transactions, but it will not involve currently marketed cryptos. Current crypto products are simply a byproduct of technology. A buyer of crypto today will not profit from the future of blockchain. His only hope for profit is a buyer willing to pay more for the crypto he owns or a buyer who mistakenly believes he is buying the technology behind it.
Businesses are embracing crypto only because it is another way for them to get paid. They are not investing in crypto, they are likely immediately converting crypto receipts into what their product was originally priced in - dollars.
You didn't bother to read the article I linked then. As I pointed out earlier, accepting crypto for payments does not require billions of dollars of investment. It is an easy integration for any software development team. Companies are not spending billions to figure out how to do what APMEX and many other companies already doing. There are entire areas of functionality in Defi, DePin, Tokenization, NFTs and other use cases you are completely ignoring.
Bitcoin is increasingly seen as a hedge against inflation and monetary policy risk—especially in countries with unstable currencies.
Only as long as bitcoin's expected gains or greater than inflation's negative impact on the dollar. This is true of any perceived "hedge."
Certain cryptocurrencies have utility, and their value arises not just from speculation but from the function they serve:
Ethereum powers decentralized applications and smart contracts, making it like the operating system of a new internet layer.
Again, crypto owners do not own the utility. Their only investment value is in tomorrow's price.
Perhaps you missed the part where you have to own some of it in order to be able to use it.
Just as tech platforms gained value from their networks of users (Facebook, Uber, etc.), the value of crypto networks grows with adoption and usage. Blockchain offers transparent, tamper-proof tracking, which is crucial in global supply chains.
While crypto is built around blockchain a buyer of crypto is not buying the blockchain technology; a holder of the crypto does not own nor have a future claim to the technology. In the case of crypto, blockchain is simply a transaction ledger. In Bitcoin's case, the blockchain is decentralized, so no single person or group has control—instead, all users collectively retain control. Control is not ownership.
Just like nobody owns email technology, nobody owns a crypto's network. Understanding and recognizing the value of blockchain technology should be kept separate from a perceived value of individual cryptos.
You are conflating blockchain and payments. Payments are just one application of blockchain. If you never look beyond the payments application you will never appreciate the entirety of technology.
While a holder of crypto does not own or have a future claim in the technology, I think you intentionally avoided saying that a holder does own access and license to use the technology as it (in almost all cases) cannot be used without being a holder and spending some of it. As the capability, use, and demand of for the tech increases, so does the value of the crypto.
Blockchain is the future of financial transactions, but it will not involve currently marketed cryptos. Current crypto products are simply a byproduct of technology. A buyer of crypto today will not profit from the future of blockchain. His only hope for profit is a buyer willing to pay more for the crypto he owns or a buyer who mistakenly believes he is buying the technology behind it.
Businesses are embracing crypto only because it is another way for them to get paid. They are not investing in crypto, they are likely immediately converting crypto receipts into what their product was originally priced in - dollars.
You didn't bother to read the article I linked then. As I pointed out earlier, accepting crypto for payments does not require billions of dollars of investment. It is an easy integration for any software development team. Companies are not spending billions to figure out how to do what APMEX and many other companies already doing. There are entire areas of functionality in Defi, DePin, Tokenization, NFTs and other use cases you are completely ignoring.
Bitcoin is increasingly seen as a hedge against inflation and monetary policy risk—especially in countries with unstable currencies.
Only as long as bitcoin's expected gains or greater than inflation's negative impact on the dollar. This is true of any perceived "hedge."
Certain cryptocurrencies have utility, and their value arises not just from speculation but from the function they serve:
Ethereum powers decentralized applications and smart contracts, making it like the operating system of a new internet layer.
Again, crypto owners do not own the utility. Their only investment value is in tomorrow's price.
Perhaps you missed the part where you have to own some of it in order to be able to use it.
blockchain technology is not exclusive to holders of crypto. While the owner of bitcoin has access to using his crypto's blockchain, it is not his. It will appear in many non-crypto transaction systems in the future. The blockchain technology is why crypto has the attention of many financiers and governments. This interest in the technology behind cryptos does not increase the value of cryptos. As I have said the only value in crypto is what it's buyer places on it. Cryptos themselves are pure speculation with no actual underlying value. At least with tulips you could always take delivery of your bulbs.
I am not anti-crypto. I only see them for what they really are - a speculative play that I take advantage of.
Then why do you ignore the utility beyond making payments and/or assert that that utility has no value?
I have made it perfectly clear that the utility in cryptos (blockchain technology) does have value. I also have made it equally clear that the buyer/holder/owner of a crypto does not own the utility, only a paper product that has no underlying value itself. If bitcoin were to hypothetically go to zero, what would the bitcoin holder have of value? How many times and how many ways do I need to say this for you to comprehend what I have said?
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
If gold goes to zero all you have is a chunk of metal. It is fine if you do not see the value of crypto, but to make a blanket statement that cryptos have no value is not correct.
As @ProofCollection stated above, "While a holder of crypto does not own or have a future claim in the technology, I think you intentionally avoided saying that a holder does own access and license to use the technology as it (in almost all cases) cannot be used without being a holder and spending some of it," While some cryptos (many) may not have value/utility, but Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP and several others certainly do and the market is bearing that out.
Feel free to claim that crypto has no value to you. I used to have the same thoughts, but now I can see the value and where it is going.
@psuman08 said:
If gold goes to zero all you have is a chunk of metal. It is fine if you do not see the value of crypto, but to make a blanket statement that cryptos have no value is not correct.
if gold goes to zero it remains a physical rock and has utility as a metal in many industrial applications. If crypto goes to zero please tell what value the holder has left in their hands. Again, the technology behind cryptos, blockchain, is not owned by the holder of the crypto no more than I own email because I have an account.
As @ProofCollection stated above, "While a holder of crypto does not own or have a future claim in the technology, I think you intentionally avoided saying that a holder does own access and license to use the technology as it (in almost all cases) cannot be used without being a holder and spending some of it," While some cryptos (many) may not have value/utility, but Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP and several others certainly do and the market is bearing that out.
Not true, blockchain is not exclusive to crypto. Many governments and financial entities are looking to implement it.
Feel free to claim that crypto has no value to you. I used to have the same thoughts, but now I can see the value and where it is going.
The value in cryptos and where it is going is simply a result of buyers of the invisible product. The product and the technology behind it are completely separate when it comes to ownership. Sure, as a holder of bitcoin you get to use the blockchain. The day will come when blockchain will be used by all of us and it won't be by transacting in crypto products.
You guys sound like the silver paper product holders here (ETFs, future's, etc.) who think they own actual silver. LOL
When you buy crypto you are only buying the right to sell it to the next guy. If you believe you have a claim to the ownership of the technology behind it, please ask to your seller to ship it to you. Then you can post a pic of it here and prove me wrong. LOL
I profit from buying/selling cryptos. I do not fool myself into believing that ownership of the technology (blockchain) is included in the transaction. I fully understand that what I am trading is completely worthless if I can't find a buyer.
So, enough about crypto, this is a gold thread. Let's get back to the discussion. It will always have value in one form or another.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
Suppose I create a new crypto-currency and call it "Bitcoin". Who is going to stop me ?
Is "Bitcoin" copyrighted or protected via any patents ? If so, who owns those copyrights and/or patents ?
@dcarr said:
Suppose I create a new crypto-currency and call it "Bitcoin". Who is going to stop me ?
Is "Bitcoin" copyrighted or protected via any patents ? If so, who owns those copyrights and/or patents ?
Just as tech platforms gained value from their networks of users (Facebook, Uber, etc.), the value of crypto networks grows with adoption and usage. Blockchain offers transparent, tamper-proof tracking, which is crucial in global supply chains.
While crypto is built around blockchain a buyer of crypto is not buying the blockchain technology; a holder of the crypto does not own nor have a future claim to the technology. In the case of crypto, blockchain is simply a transaction ledger. In Bitcoin's case, the blockchain is decentralized, so no single person or group has control—instead, all users collectively retain control. Control is not ownership.
Just like nobody owns email technology, nobody owns a crypto's network. Understanding and recognizing the value of blockchain technology should be kept separate from a perceived value of individual cryptos.
You are conflating blockchain and payments. Payments are just one application of blockchain. If you never look beyond the payments application you will never appreciate the entirety of technology.
While a holder of crypto does not own or have a future claim in the technology, I think you intentionally avoided saying that a holder does own access and license to use the technology as it (in almost all cases) cannot be used without being a holder and spending some of it. As the capability, use, and demand of for the tech increases, so does the value of the crypto.
Blockchain is the future of financial transactions, but it will not involve currently marketed cryptos. Current crypto products are simply a byproduct of technology. A buyer of crypto today will not profit from the future of blockchain. His only hope for profit is a buyer willing to pay more for the crypto he owns or a buyer who mistakenly believes he is buying the technology behind it.
Businesses are embracing crypto only because it is another way for them to get paid. They are not investing in crypto, they are likely immediately converting crypto receipts into what their product was originally priced in - dollars.
You didn't bother to read the article I linked then. As I pointed out earlier, accepting crypto for payments does not require billions of dollars of investment. It is an easy integration for any software development team. Companies are not spending billions to figure out how to do what APMEX and many other companies already doing. There are entire areas of functionality in Defi, DePin, Tokenization, NFTs and other use cases you are completely ignoring.
Bitcoin is increasingly seen as a hedge against inflation and monetary policy risk—especially in countries with unstable currencies.
Only as long as bitcoin's expected gains or greater than inflation's negative impact on the dollar. This is true of any perceived "hedge."
Certain cryptocurrencies have utility, and their value arises not just from speculation but from the function they serve:
Ethereum powers decentralized applications and smart contracts, making it like the operating system of a new internet layer.
Again, crypto owners do not own the utility. Their only investment value is in tomorrow's price.
Perhaps you missed the part where you have to own some of it in order to be able to use it.
blockchain technology is not exclusive to holders of crypto. While the owner of bitcoin has access to using his crypto's blockchain, it is not his. It will appear in many non-crypto transaction systems in the future. The blockchain technology is why crypto has the attention of many financiers and governments. This interest in the technology behind cryptos does not increase the value of cryptos. As I have said the only value in crypto is what it's buyer places on it. Cryptos themselves are pure speculation with no actual underlying value. At least with tulips you could always take delivery of your bulbs.
I am not anti-crypto. I only see them for what they really are - a speculative play that I take advantage of.
Then why do you ignore the utility beyond making payments and/or assert that that utility has no value?
I have made it perfectly clear that the utility in cryptos (blockchain technology) does have value. I also have made it equally clear that the buyer/holder/owner of a crypto does not own the utility, only a product that has no underlying value itself. If bitcoin were to hypothetically go to zero, what would the bitcoin holder have of value? How many times and how many ways do I need to say this for you to comprehend what I have said?
I don't think you made it "perfectly clear." You said, and I quote: "Cryptos themselves are pure speculation with no actual underlying value" and then reply that you "made it perfectly clear that utility in cryptos does have value." Don't things that are useful have value? Sure there could be exceptions but most useful items have value and the value climbs as utility increases. Now you know why, in addition to speculation, crypto goes up in value.
@psuman08 said:
If gold goes to zero all you have is a chunk of metal. It is fine if you do not see the value of crypto, but to make a blanket statement that cryptos have no value is not correct.
if gold goes to zero it remains a physical rock and has utility as a metal in many industrial applications. If crypto goes to zero please tell what value the holder has left in their hands. Again, the technology behind cryptos, blockchain, is not owned by the holder of the crypto no more than I own email because I have an account.
If Bitcoin or Eth went to zero, assuming there was still one miner running, you could still use the network perform transactions and execute smart contracts and execute all of the applications that are running today or will be built tomorrow. Clearly the world values this.
As @ProofCollection stated above, "While a holder of crypto does not own or have a future claim in the technology, I think you intentionally avoided saying that a holder does own access and license to use the technology as it (in almost all cases) cannot be used without being a holder and spending some of it," While some cryptos (many) may not have value/utility, but Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP and several others certainly do and the market is bearing that out.
Not true, blockchain is not exclusive to crypto. Many governments and financial entities are looking to implement it.
Feel free to claim that crypto has no value to you. I used to have the same thoughts, but now I can see the value and where it is going.
The value in cryptos and where it is going is simply a result of buyers of the invisible product. The product and the technology behind it are completely separate when it comes to ownership. Sure, as a holder of bitcoin you get to use the blockchain. The day will come when blockchain will be used by all of us and it won't be by transacting in crypto products.
People buy invisible products all of the time. Ever heard of Microsoft? Their invisible products are in demand and have significant value. How is buying Ethereum so you can setup and run a smart contract any different than paying Microsoft $100 to use Microsoft Office for a year? The difference is that a) the price of Ethereum is dynamic, while Microsoft dictates what you must pay and b) Once your year subscription is up you have nothing whether you used it or not, but with ETH you pay as you go so you might have some left or you might use it up quickly and market price may fluctuate. Same concept, different models.
You guys sound like the silver paper product holders here (ETFs, future's, etc.) who think they own actual silver. LOL
When you buy crypto you are only buying the right to sell it to the next guy. If you believe you have a claim to the ownership of the technology behind it, please ask to your seller to ship it to you. Then you can post a pic of it here and prove me wrong. LOL
No, you're still missing the point. You're not buying the right to sell it to the next guy, you're buying a transferrable right to use the network. And why do you need to own the technology? Does it really matter if you own or lease a car? Either way you can pretty much use it as wish. Isn't the right to use the technology almost as good?
I profit from buying/selling cryptos. I do not fool myself into believing that ownership of the technology (blockchain) is included in the transaction. I fully understand that what I am trading is completely worthless if I can't find a buyer.
The same could be said for gold coins. Or houses. Or real estate. Remember when Detroit couldn't give houses away a few years ago?
So, enough about crypto, this is a gold thread. Let's get back to the discussion. It will always have value in one form or another.
I'm not about to pick the minds of political leaders or discuss it here. However if this Russia-Ukraine war comes to an end, I think there could be a nasty fall in the price of gold.
Quickly down $100 is a very easy call. How far down from that is anyone's guess. Could it test 3k?
@stevek said:
I'm not about to pick the minds of political leaders or discuss it here. However if this Russia-Ukraine war comes to an end, I think there could be a nasty fall in the price of gold.
Quickly down $100 is a very easy call. How far down from that is anyone's guess. Could it test 3k?
central banks will continue to stockpile to avert dependency on the dollar. There is now a threat of sanctions on countries that purchase energy from Ukraine's enemy. This escalation of weaponizing the dollar should bode well for gold.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
@stevek said:
I'm not about to pick the minds of political leaders or discuss it here. However if this Russia-Ukraine war comes to >an end, I think there could be a nasty fall in the price of gold.
Quickly down $100 is a very easy call. How far down from that is anyone's guess. Could it test 3k?
Sure, it could. But unlikely. More likely is that Russia is allowed to sell oil and re-builds their gold reserves as does the Ukrainian Central Bank.
What is more impressive is that without any big moves, any geopolotical or economic dislocations....gold has steadily creeped up the last few months and we are within 1% or so of an ATH.
@Goldminers said:
They are not selling, but last quarter net gain was smallest since 2022. It is investor demand that is becoming the >main driving force.
China is a selective buyer. They may take a few quarters off but they will resume buying if the price does not decline.
The more important thing is that SELLING is not taking place. That was the huge headwind from 1980-2000. There is enough interest in gold around the globe that you can live without CB purchases: retail, SWF, institutional, industrial, etc.
I read that in 1980 there were only 100 million people globally who could afford to buy 1 ounce of gold per year. Today that amount is over 1 billion potential buyers.
It appears that the imbalance has already resolved itself, however......................
this disruption in the world gold market has nothing to do with supply/demand
tariff on refined Swiss gold bars is causing arbitrage to take place and is disrupting the hedging between comex and lbma with eventual gold revaluation in mind
it's no wonder that BRICS is growing
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
@jmski52 said:
it's no wonder that BRICS is growing
Forget BRICs, it's a non-entity.
You keep saying that and BRICS keeps growing and with it the desire to buy US debt decreases. I'd say they are an entity. Internal issues in individual countries are irrelevent, just as they are with G20.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
@tincup said:
Could possibly be fleeting though.... the situation that prompted this spike may be reversed at some point. Or not.
The chart pattern doesn't lie. While not 100% reliable of course, the pop was going to happen whether the tariff news came out or not. The press just found something to explain the move so they go with it.
Even if you click your heels three times and make a wish, the BRICS aren't going away. China and Japan, the two biggest holders of US debt are dumping it and the Fed is buying it. that's inflationary, on top of the debt problem.
Say what you want about this ponzi inside a shell game but it's not going to turn out well.
End the Fed. Buy PMs.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
@derryb said:
You keep saying that and BRICS keeps growing and with it the desire to buy US debt decreases. I'd say they are an >entity. Internal issues in individual countries are irrelevent, just as they are with G20.
They're not "growing" -- Chinas nominal GDP growth has never passed the U.S., contrary to forecasts. Brazil is stagnating....Russia is a basket-case....India has a good future but it isn't spending on any BRIC nonsense.
Comments
They are not selling, but last quarter net gain was smallest since 2022. It is investor demand that is becoming the main driving force.
My US Mint Commemorative Medal Set
Items have value because folks are willing to buy it with something else that is considered to have value. Software is not tangible yet still has value. The same is true of crypto. I would think that many of you that don't want to trust the government and their dollar issuing would agree that crypto offers an alternative. I know that this post will not change anyone's mind, but crypto is very similar to gold /silver. It has value and is off the government's books.
crypto has no inherit value, only an imaginary value placed on it by a buyer. No buyers, no value. Unlike a stock that is backed by hard assets, when a crypto goes to zero there is nothing left. crypto is not similar to gold, I can't hold it my hand or hide it from someone who is determined to take it from me.
I have traded cryptos extensively, they are simply a bet that demand for them will increase. I was investing in nothing more than where I thought the price would go.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
k 3372.70
Perfectly understandable after the rise we had. We could even base for more months, this pattern has been seen many times since the 1970's.
$5,000 by 2030 is possible. I originally though 2035 but we made great progress in lifting off from $1,500 and don't seem to need a bigger correction. With supply limited (as you know) and all headwinds turning to tailwinds (Central Bank buying, SWF buying, institutional and retail buying), it's the best time for gold since the 1970's.
Stocks are way more transparent than other financial instruments since they have greater upside and downside than other securities like bonds. Enron was once very transparent until it got into opaque trading nonsense.
The PPTs role is exaggerated as they operate inside the Treasury via the ESF from the 1933 Gold Act.
Cryptos are not real producing assets like a business.
citis take. "we don't expect it to do much anytime soon"
That's not true at all. A global network of millions of users who trust and use the same software which generates fees and a return (i.e., Ethereum) has value. It's not worthless. Many companies have tried and failed to build such networks. How many companies would love to own and control the Ethereum network? Not because of the value of the Eth token, but because of what they can do with the network and its global network of users? What would they pay if it was able to be bought?
What a bold prediction. Really going out on a limb there. I predict by 2030 a massive hurricane will hit Florida again.
Yeah, they're always transparent until they're not. The CEO is always trustworthy and a great guy up until the day it all gets exposed.
Over generalizing a bit, eh? Many cryptos have very developed ecosystems and token models that can produce very nice returns.
http://ProofCollection.Net
.
How would an entity go about "buying" Etherium (the network and/or the users) ?
.
k 3378
Just like early critics of the internet struggled to see its utility beyond email, you're overlooking how blockchain technology could underpin future systems—financial or otherwise. Certain cryptocurrencies have utility, and their value arises not just from speculation but from the function they serve:
Ethereum powers decentralized applications and smart contracts, making it like the operating system of a new internet layer.
Bitcoin is increasingly seen as a hedge against inflation and monetary policy risk—especially in countries with unstable currencies.
Stablecoins allow global value transfer in seconds without banking intermediaries.
Just as tech platforms gained value from their networks of users (Facebook, Uber, etc.), the value of crypto networks grows with adoption and usage. Blockchain offers transparent, tamper-proof tracking, which is crucial in global supply chains.
It was academic, sorry if I was unclear. The suggestion was that crypto has no inherent value, and I provided an example that companies would pay billions to have what the ETH network already is in an attempt to show that there most certainly is inherent value.
And I get it. It's easy to be in the 'if I can't eat it, hold it, see it, etc' mindset but the future is very digital and there's value there too. It's hard for some to make that paradigm shift.
Well said. We also haven't discussed staking and defi which provide actual ways to generate returns just like dividends on stocks.
Most people just haven't taken the time to do the research which is why they'll be behind the curve just like everybody else.
http://ProofCollection.Net
While crypto is built around blockchain a buyer of crypto is not buying the blockchain technology; a holder of the crypto does not own nor have a future claim to the technology. In the case of crypto, blockchain is simply a transaction ledger. In Bitcoin's case, the blockchain is decentralized, so no single person or group has control—instead, all users collectively retain control. Control is not ownership.
Just like nobody owns email technology, nobody owns a crypto's network. Understanding and recognizing the value of blockchain technology should be kept separate from a perceived value of individual cryptos.
Blockchain is the future of financial transactions, but it will not involve currently marketed cryptos. Current crypto products are simply a byproduct of technology. A buyer of crypto today will not profit from the future of blockchain. His only hope for profit is a buyer willing to pay more for the crypto he owns or a buyer who mistakenly believes he is buying the technology behind it.
Businesses are embracing crypto only because it is another way for them to get paid. They are not investing in crypto, they are likely immediately converting crypto receipts into what their product was originally priced in - dollars.
Only as long as bitcoin's expected gains are greater than inflation's negative impact on the dollar. This is true of any perceived "hedge."
Again, crypto owners do not own the utility. They are not buying or selling the technology behind the crypto.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
I don't think a 50% rise in an asset class within 4-5 years is baked in. While it's not the most grandiose prediction, it's not a sure thing.
FWIW, I made that forecast years ago with gold at $1,500. Gold hadn't sniffed out $2,000 when I put it out there.
You are conflating blockchain and payments. Payments are just one application of blockchain. If you never look beyond the payments application you will never appreciate the entirety of technology.
While a holder of crypto does not own or have a future claim in the technology, I think you intentionally avoided saying that a holder does own access and license to use the technology as it (in almost all cases) cannot be used without being a holder and spending some of it. As the capability, use, and demand of for the tech increases, so does the value of the crypto.
You didn't bother to read the article I linked then. As I pointed out earlier, accepting crypto for payments does not require billions of dollars of investment. It is an easy integration for any software development team. Companies are not spending billions to figure out how to do what APMEX and many other companies already doing. There are entire areas of functionality in Defi, DePin, Tokenization, NFTs and other use cases you are completely ignoring.
Perhaps you missed the part where you have to own some of it in order to be able to use it.
http://ProofCollection.Net
blockchain technology is not exclusive to holders of crypto. While the owner of bitcoin has access to using his crypto's blockchain, it is not his. It will appear in many non-crypto transaction systems in the future. The blockchain technology is why crypto has the attention of many financiers and governments. This interest in the technology behind cryptos does not increase the value of cryptos. As I have said the only value in crypto is what it's buyer places on it. Cryptos themselves are pure speculation with no actual underlying value. At least with tulips you could always take delivery of your bulbs.
I am not anti-crypto. I only see them for what they really are - a speculative play that I take advantage of.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
Then why do you ignore the utility beyond making payments and/or assert that that utility has no value?
http://ProofCollection.Net
I have made it perfectly clear that the utility in cryptos (blockchain technology) does have value. I also have made it equally clear that the buyer/holder/owner of a crypto does not own the utility, only a product that has no underlying value itself. If bitcoin were to hypothetically go to zero, what would the bitcoin holder have of value? How many times and how many ways do I need to say this for you to comprehend what I have said?
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
I have made it perfectly clear that the utility in cryptos (blockchain technology) does have value. I also have made it equally clear that the buyer/holder/owner of a crypto does not own the utility, only a paper product that has no underlying value itself. If bitcoin were to hypothetically go to zero, what would the bitcoin holder have of value? How many times and how many ways do I need to say this for you to comprehend what I have said?
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
If gold goes to zero all you have is a chunk of metal. It is fine if you do not see the value of crypto, but to make a blanket statement that cryptos have no value is not correct.
As @ProofCollection stated above, "While a holder of crypto does not own or have a future claim in the technology, I think you intentionally avoided saying that a holder does own access and license to use the technology as it (in almost all cases) cannot be used without being a holder and spending some of it," While some cryptos (many) may not have value/utility, but Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP and several others certainly do and the market is bearing that out.
Feel free to claim that crypto has no value to you. I used to have the same thoughts, but now I can see the value and where it is going.
if gold goes to zero it remains a physical rock and has utility as a metal in many industrial applications. If crypto goes to zero please tell what value the holder has left in their hands. Again, the technology behind cryptos, blockchain, is not owned by the holder of the crypto no more than I own email because I have an account.
Not true, blockchain is not exclusive to crypto. Many governments and financial entities are looking to implement it.
The value in cryptos and where it is going is simply a result of buyers of the invisible product. The product and the technology behind it are completely separate when it comes to ownership. Sure, as a holder of bitcoin you get to use the blockchain. The day will come when blockchain will be used by all of us and it won't be by transacting in crypto products.
You guys sound like the silver paper product holders here (ETFs, future's, etc.) who think they own actual silver. LOL
When you buy crypto you are only buying the right to sell it to the next guy. If you believe you have a claim to the ownership of the technology behind it, please ask to your seller to ship it to you. Then you can post a pic of it here and prove me wrong. LOL
I profit from buying/selling cryptos. I do not fool myself into believing that ownership of the technology (blockchain) is included in the transaction. I fully understand that what I am trading is completely worthless if I can't find a buyer.
So, enough about crypto, this is a gold thread. Let's get back to the discussion. It will always have value in one form or another.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
Suppose I create a new crypto-currency and call it "Bitcoin". Who is going to stop me ?
Is "Bitcoin" copyrighted or protected via any patents ? If so, who owns those copyrights and/or patents ?
Interesting question.
you'd need a blockchain and an exchange
it would be deceptive to set up a new exchange too
I don't think you made it "perfectly clear." You said, and I quote: "Cryptos themselves are pure speculation with no actual underlying value" and then reply that you "made it perfectly clear that utility in cryptos does have value." Don't things that are useful have value? Sure there could be exceptions but most useful items have value and the value climbs as utility increases. Now you know why, in addition to speculation, crypto goes up in value.
If Bitcoin or Eth went to zero, assuming there was still one miner running, you could still use the network perform transactions and execute smart contracts and execute all of the applications that are running today or will be built tomorrow. Clearly the world values this.
People buy invisible products all of the time. Ever heard of Microsoft? Their invisible products are in demand and have significant value. How is buying Ethereum so you can setup and run a smart contract any different than paying Microsoft $100 to use Microsoft Office for a year? The difference is that a) the price of Ethereum is dynamic, while Microsoft dictates what you must pay and b) Once your year subscription is up you have nothing whether you used it or not, but with ETH you pay as you go so you might have some left or you might use it up quickly and market price may fluctuate. Same concept, different models.
No, you're still missing the point. You're not buying the right to sell it to the next guy, you're buying a transferrable right to use the network. And why do you need to own the technology? Does it really matter if you own or lease a car? Either way you can pretty much use it as wish. Isn't the right to use the technology almost as good?
The same could be said for gold coins. Or houses. Or real estate. Remember when Detroit couldn't give houses away a few years ago?
I kept it about gold a little bit
http://ProofCollection.Net
I buy my Crypto the same way that I buy the gutter, with a click of the mouse. Easy-peasy. RGDS!
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
Wooooha! Did someone just say it's officially "TACO™" Tuesday????
Unless it's bitcoin and it's in your private "wallet," it's just another paper promise.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
I'm not about to pick the minds of political leaders or discuss it here. However if this Russia-Ukraine war comes to an end, I think there could be a nasty fall in the price of gold.
Quickly down $100 is a very easy call. How far down from that is anyone's guess. Could it test 3k?
central banks will continue to stockpile to avert dependency on the dollar. There is now a threat of sanctions on countries that purchase energy from Ukraine's enemy. This escalation of weaponizing the dollar should bode well for gold.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
What technology, platform, ledger, network, etc, do I get if I buy Melaniacoin?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Sure, it could. But unlikely. More likely is that Russia is allowed to sell oil and re-builds their gold reserves as does the Ukrainian Central Bank.
What is more impressive is that without any big moves, any geopolotical or economic dislocations....gold has steadily creeped up the last few months and we are within 1% or so of an ATH.
will just a promise suffice?
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
k 3390
anyone happy about this?
I picked up a couple ounces to flip last week, so quite...
k 3396
so close
k 3400
finally
$3,490 on COMEX a few minutes ago.
China is a selective buyer. They may take a few quarters off but they will resume buying if the price does not decline.
The more important thing is that SELLING is not taking place. That was the huge headwind from 1980-2000. There is enough interest in gold around the globe that you can live without CB purchases: retail, SWF, institutional, industrial, etc.
I read that in 1980 there were only 100 million people globally who could afford to buy 1 ounce of gold per year. Today that amount is over 1 billion potential buyers.
$3,490 on COMEX a few minutes ago.
It appears that the imbalance has already resolved itself, however......................
this disruption in the world gold market has nothing to do with supply/demand
tariff on refined Swiss gold bars is causing arbitrage to take place and is disrupting the hedging between comex and lbma with eventual gold revaluation in mind
it's no wonder that BRICS is growing
I knew it would happen.
Forget BRICs, it's a non-entity. You have no rule of law in those countries and no private property rights.
.> @GoldFinger1969 said:
You keep saying that and BRICS keeps growing and with it the desire to buy US debt decreases. I'd say they are an entity. Internal issues in individual countries are irrelevent, just as they are with G20.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
Looks like a breakout of the consolidation. $3800 here we come.
http://ProofCollection.Net
Could possibly be fleeting though.... the situation that prompted this spike may be reversed at some point. Or not.
Is this a chart of the futures price? I'm not seeing $3500 gold today?
The chart pattern doesn't lie. While not 100% reliable of course, the pop was going to happen whether the tariff news came out or not. The press just found something to explain the move so they go with it.
http://ProofCollection.Net
not anymore
do we have any gfd refiners operating right now?
Forget BRICs, it's a non-entity.
Even if you click your heels three times and make a wish, the BRICS aren't going away. China and Japan, the two biggest holders of US debt are dumping it and the Fed is buying it. that's inflationary, on top of the debt problem.
Say what you want about this ponzi inside a shell game but it's not going to turn out well.
End the Fed. Buy PMs.
I knew it would happen.
They're not "growing" -- Chinas nominal GDP growth has never passed the U.S., contrary to forecasts. Brazil is stagnating....Russia is a basket-case....India has a good future but it isn't spending on any BRIC nonsense.
4 drunks holding one another up.