I think that cryptocurrency and fiat currency can be used together. The feature of cryptocurrency is that fiat currency does not have, and the feature of fiat currency is that cryptocurrency does not. If there is no fiat currency, how do we buy cryptocurrency, and now various countries are launching digital fiat currency , This is actually a threat to cryptocurrency, because the government cannot control cryptocurrency. It will prohibit the use of cryptocurrency for everyone to use legal digital currency. It will be a blow to cryptocurrency at that time, but we Everyone likes to use cryptocurrency because it is relatively free, not regulated by the government, and there is no third party. Your own information will not be easily leaked, and now transaction payments are more convenient and fast
Digital fiat currency isn't much of a threat to decentralized cryptocurrencies. Digital fiat currencies are a threat to society because they undermine privacy like no tool did ever before. You can't transact anymore without the banks and the government knowing where you were at what point in time and what type of items you most likely bought. If you have to go to a pharmacy twice a week and buy something, they know you must be sick like hell. If you pay the price for a package of cigarettes and they see the exact same amount every day on your financial report, they know you are a heavy smoker. What you're describing isn't any different from electronic payments as they currently are. You don't even need a digital currency. There's no reason to suspect that a digital currency though would allow the government to know what specific items you're purchasing though, just like the current digital payment systems don't provide that information. That concern is overblown, but I agree a digital currency is a potential nightmare for consumers because of the extra power it grants the government over the economy. |
|
|
|
Both good and bad reforms will help bitcoin price to grow regardless of what they do. In a scenario were the government chooses to ban it, this just promotes people to be innovative enough to create a network where they will sell for much higher prices than its market price making the price of btc in that country high.
For countries that have made crypto welcome because of good government policies it's not a matter of inflated or exgaratted pricing, but demand that will influence price to go up.
It didn't happen in China when they banned bitcoin. People rushed to get out of bitcoin so fast that the price dropped from $60k to $30k in a very short amount of time. Banning bitcoin will not lead to a higher price because it greatly reduces demand for bitcoin as people start complying with the law. |
|
|
|
Yeah, Bitcoin price doesn't care much about Tesla or any other company now. It doesn't fluctuate too much like the old times when these companies make a statement like they are going to hold Bitcoin or to accept payments with Bitcoin. I like that the market is getting more resistant against these kind of manipulations.
It's not really manipulation. The price is driven by individual investors who are trying to get rich or FOMOing in. When a company would announce they were accepting bitcoin, the speculators would pile in hoping to make a quick buck on the hype of "mass adoption." To the extent these types of things don't happen anymore, it's because it's just too big at this point. "Adoption" isn't really a driving force anymore in the price because the speculators can't buy enough to meaningfully move the price. It just takes too much money at this point. |
|
|
|
It has been another year and I checked back, my prediction still holds.
During this year, the most common question I get from investors is: What is the use of this thing?
In fact, many things people don’t know their usage, as long as they can be sold for fiat money, they are useful
Hedge inflation is still the most easy to understand: Since fiat currency is issued exponentially, scarce assets that have wide acceptance will appreciate
The rise in the price of ordinary goods is a slow process. New QE money often need to change hands many times before reaching the supplier. More often, the supplier is worried that no one will buy his product
But cryptocurrencies are different, they can be exchanged for all those QE money without delay. According to my simulation earlier in this post (investors buy and hold for four years, and then sell 10% every year), the daily net selling of coins is less than 5,000 coins. If the market demand exceeds 5,000 coins, the price will rise.
The key is to understand that it is sustainable since constant fiat money inflow will digest those 5000 coins sell pressure every day
There are 385,000 new babies every day now. Assuming one-tenth of these people need to buy coins to get on this ship, that's 30,000. 30,000 people are competing for 5000 coins every day, and each person gets 1/6 of those coins. These coins are the total amount of all their investments in their lifetime, which can be assumed to be the amount of investment in their pension funds. If each person invests 10,000 USD, the price of Bitcoin can be maintained at 60,000. If they invest 100,000, the price can be maintained at 600K. If they invest 1 million, the price of Bitcoin can be maintained at 6 million.
So once ETF is mature and invested by pension funds, it will get a guaranteed support
Bit of a nit, but is money creation actually exponential? It may accelerate over time, but I doubt exponentially. Your larger point that increasing the money pool should create price appreciation for scarce assets though. The amount of speculation though makes it volatile and risky, and nothing is guaranteed to go up forever; not even scarce assets. The risk is that the volatility will have you at a loss when you need to cash out, and it's not an insignificant one. |
|
|
|
I couldn't put the full title in the subject line due to character restrictions, but here is the full question:
If bitcoin was fully adopted into everyday life, why would it ever be used for day-to-day transactions if the general consensus was that the price would always appreciate?
After reading several posts on this forum many people seem to think that Bitcoin will always go up. If this were to be the case, why would people spend Bitcoin at all? In this theoretical time, wouldn't it just be a poor financial decision to do?
Or is it thought that in this future where there is widespread adoption the price would stop being so volatile and for the most part stabilize?
Congratulations, you've identified the main problem with a deflationary currency- it disincentivizes economic activity. That's why inflation is built in to our economic system and monetary policy. It's a feature, not a bug. |
|
|
|
What makes you think that will happen? Bitcoin was outlawed in China and did we see a bunch of underground exchanges open up, or did we see a mass exodus of bitcoin leaving China while people could still exchange it legally before the crackdown? We saw the latter, so there's no reason to think that there's going to be a bunch of illegal exchanges popping up to try and get around the law when it becomes illegal to operate one.
There is no need for any new "illegal" exchange. Here in India, less than half of the trading volume is nowadays done through the mainstream exchanges. Hostile government actions since 2018 has made many of the users move to P2P platforms and DEX exchanges. I guess this is the case with China as well. When the legal exchanges closed down, many of the users might have moved to P2P platforms (although doing this in a dictatorship like China is much more than doing the same in India). Some of that might be happening on an extremely small scale if anyone wants to risk prison time over holding bitcoin and having to transact under the radar forever. The tradeoffs there seem way out of whack so I don't know how common that's gonna be, but I'd guess not at all. What we know is much more common is people just selling out of bitcoin, which is why the price tanked below $30k. There was a flood of people in China rushing to get out to comply with the law, which created a ton of new supply and crushed the price. |
|
|
|
Are you a big gambler? I have been using this site fairly heavily and consistently for about 4-5 years and still never reached 100k RP. Just wondering where your RP comes from so quickly that you've reached the conversion threshold twice in a single year.
A big gambler can easily reach above 100k RP many times within a year. So, I'm not a big gambler at freebitco as I have only made it two times in this year. Occasionally I wager much at freebitco. I do wager while they runs RP bonus on each week. And I have few active referrals too. Beside that I get small amount of reward points everyday from the WOF. All these things helps me to reach that mark quickly. I don't have any referrals, but I can't imagine that makes that much of a difference difference. If you earned 100 points a day, it would take you about 3 years to reach 100k. I just don't know how people make the RP that quickly unless they're gambling consistently. |
|
|
|
Shouldn't there be 8 rounds in this pay cycle? Weeks 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, and 136 which just ended. Unless maybe Week 136 isn't supposed to be included in this pay cycle...
Rounds: 123-129 Paid and with a bonus Can you check your records please? It looks like the last payment I received was Week 128. You can see the the payments made on 6/14 here: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/37s2UzdBhJCM624kjPNMEJvzviDnKZVsHc?page=1The last amount I received was 74169 sats which corresponds with the 73800 earned in Week 128. All the payments go in order going backwards through the weeks (i.e., the 41k matches week 127, the 43k matches week 126, and so on all the way back). So it looks like Week 129 is missing (unless I'm missing something). |
|
|
|
One of those successful cases of bitcoin hodling was a friend of a friend. They (a couple) took an important risk by investing 60k of a dismissal compensation into bitcoin and making a x100 on it before selling half. I do not know what they did with the rest. Now, these people were not rich, they took an enormous risk compared to their total wealth. They had to really believe on the project and pass though some of bitcoins usual "tests of faith".
For someone with let´s say, a net worth of 1M USD or more plus house, hodling 60k until they became 6M would have been not that much of an stress. Do you think it was easier to benefit economically from bitcoin if you were already a bit up in the ladder?
Everything is easier when you're richer. Obviously investing is too because you're much more immune to the volatility of the market. Someone who is rich can wait out drops without much consequence. Someone who is poor is much less equipped to do so and may have to sell low to protect what they have left from going to zero. |
|
|
|
I don't really understand the rules in the United States or Europe regarding buying a house on credit, but why do people prefer to buy a house with a longer mortgage because buying a house with the installment credit that he pays, it will not stop the value of the house he has bought from increasing, meaning that he buys a house with a longer loan with monthly installments it will not stop him from increasing the value of the assets he already owns. The house as a property has a value that always grows every year. Currently, we buy an average house with a value of hundreds of millions Rupiah but in the end of the mortgage the value of the asset will reach billions Rupiah.
That is indeed an interesting take. I do believe that property serves as a 100% sure set asset that is bound to grow in value over years. Taking a loan for it is positive most of the times. There are companies that do make it all easier and also aid people in the same. I think same might go for cryptocurrencies like bitcoins. I know some people who took loan from a friend or a bank to actually buy some bitcoins and at the end of the day he was not only able to repay it, but he made 10 folds!! But for sure you do need intelligent investment here, this can go the opposite side soon. I do believe that you should not extend it for that long ( 25 years!! ) You might have to give a lot of compound interest that way. But rather, you need to organize yourself, the assets are only worth it if they are not burdening you. This is exactly the mentality that lead to the housing crisis in 2007-2008. Everyone thought that real estate prices would go up forever, so no attention was paid to price. People borrowed whatever they could to buy whatever they good. The market was irrational, and eventually it crashed. In reality, no asset is guaranteed to go up in value. Not real estate, not bitcoin; nothing. |
|
|
|
Spreadsheet for round 136 has been turned in to lightlord for payment. Payout to be processed for last 7 rounds shortly. No Available spots. Users on my Blacklist ( BrainLess List), don't bother applying. Note: My DM is always open to any inquiries, complains, observations etc. Regards, Brainboss
Shouldn't there be 8 rounds in this pay cycle? Weeks 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, and 136 which just ended. Unless maybe Week 136 isn't supposed to be included in this pay cycle... |
|
|
|
A significant part of the European Recovery Funds will be channelled towards reducing the carbon emissions. This will include solar energy investments, other renewables but also public investments in car maker´s factories to prepare the massive introduction of the electric cars. One of the key selling points of Tesla stocks is the fact that it was born electric and does not have to spend money transitioning as opposed to all major car maker´s. The fact that Europe will publicly subsidize these changes means that Tesla will no longer have that competitive advantage and that one of it´s moats will be gone in 5 years.
Subsidies always create distortions in the economy. How come it is better to give subsidies to a company which is transitioning to electric, but does not give to a company that was born electric? How can this be more efficient in the goal to reduce carbon emissions than to give the same subsidy to both? So if I am going to create a new car company in Europe, I have an economic incentive to make a company which will transition to electric rather than create an electric company straight away. Tesla relies heavily on government subsidies, so there's no functional difference between a company that is born electric and one transitioning to electric. They'll both get the subsidies since the point is to incentivize the production of electric cars, not how the company started. |
|
|
|
First, your math is wrong. It would take you 20 years to lose 40k on 200k at this inflation rate, but if you had the $200k 20 years ago, you already would have bought the house and not experienced the inflation loss. Which is my whole point. Who holds $200k in cash for 20 years? Nobody, because if you do that you're not very smart.
My math is correct. 20% in 10 years from 200k= 40k, not in 20 years! I was describing 20 years period. So if you started with 0 ended with 200k after 20 years you hold 100k on average - 40% in inflation during 20 year period = 40k. Situation when you started saving when you were 25 and buying house when you are 45. thats not an uncommon situation. Then the math is correct, the logic is wrong. If you need $200k to buy the house, then you buy the house when you have $200k. So you wouldn't have $200k when you're 25 and then wait 20 years to buy the house for $200k and you wouldn't suffer $40k of inflationary losses. If you are trying to save $200k and it takes you 20 years to do it, your actual losses are significantly less, because it takes you 20 years to get to that point. You're calculating it as if you have $200k from the start but for some reason wait 20 years to spend it. You're so focused on the inflation rate you're ignoring the impracticality of people holding vast amounts of cash for decades at a time, which they don't do. You're arguing against a hypothetical situation that doesn't practically exist in the real world. Second, -20% in 10 years is appropriate for an asset that is ]designed to slowly depreciate over time. Compare that to bitcoin which loses 20% in less than a week on a regular basis and there's no comparison.
Dolar is losing in value ... only. Bitcoin is mainly gaining. If you only don't shit your pents seing -5% 5min candle, relax, zoom out you will see that bitcoin had only 1 red year!: This ignores the fact that you're arguing that 2% annually is too risky to accept but ignores the fact that the likelihood of being down many times more than this in any given day with bitcoin is several hundred times higher, if not more. The point of cash is that it's safe, you know exactly how much it's going to be worth tomorrow, because the only wealth you keep in cash is what you need in the immediate future. You can't do that with bitcoin because you don't know how much it's going to be worth tomorrow, let alone next week or month. Third, the handcuffs on macro economic prosperity created by the gold standard is much greater than the current system, which is why the world changed. I'll take the current system over the former 100 out of 100 times.
Elites strive for the greatest possible power over a crowd of sheeps. Thats why world changed. Of course you believe in conspiracy theories, this doesn't surprise me in the least. |
|
|
|
Looking at the past financial crises that happened, they all seem to have a few things in common, such as the mass adoption of a new financial product or technology (e.g. mortgage backed securities in 2008, dotcom boom in 2000). Given the extent to which institutions (and some influential figures) have been manipulating crypto recently, do you guys think this narrative is likely?
I don't think that there is a lot risk coming from crypto currencies to be the root of evil of the next financial crisis. We have been in a zero interest rate world for more than 10 years already. This interest rate makes loans so cheap which is making huge messes in the financial world. Everybody can get a loan for almost free right now which made real estate very expensive. Buying an apartment or house right now will put us in debt for the next 30 years. I think we will see another crash in the real estate bubble. As of now there isn't even a slight chance for cryptocurrencies to become the root of evil for the next financial crisis. Maybe if the overall market capitalization of all cryptocurrencies is above $5 trillion, we might slowly perceive cryptocurrencies and a potential massive crash as a systemic risk. Right now cryptocurrencies can't really do much in terms of initiating a financial crisis. Other markets are way bigger, riskier and way more dangerous to global financial stability. Just look at the housing market and the price explosion in real estate facilitated with newly printed money. Bubble? The way the financial systems are linked and the massive use of leverage, small problems can quickly snowball and become systemic. That's why you're seeing Janet Yellen start to talk about the risk posed by cryptocurrency because it's completely unregulated and operates in the dark. Nobody knows if or how big of a problem crypto could spark, and that's a problem. |
|
|
|
The role of the government in crypto is negligible but even if the government gives legitimacy to decentralize crypto it cannot control crypto. If the government operates like fiat currency then it is a threat to crypto anyone can work in crypto as an independent but I don't think the government can control crypto, they should focus on how the crypto project works and informing them through ongoing communication as well as continuing the long term vision. The more companies can educate their investors the more knowledgeable and confident these investors will be, and the more informed the industry as a whole will be.
The government can definitely control it. Look at what happened in China recently. They outlawed mining operations and started cracking down on exchanges and it forced people to sell their bitcoins. If it was truly out of government's ability to control it, they could make these rules and people wouldn't respond, but that's clearly not the case. |
|
|
|
That's really irrelevant for all practical purposes because people don't hold cash for 100 years, so nobody suffers the inflation rate this chart shows. Anyone with significant assets have their wealth in assets other than cash; equities, real estate, alternative investments, etc. And the dollar will never suffer the type of volatility that bitcoin suffers on a daily basis, so how bitcoin is going to be a "safe haven" for inflation when it has greater price volatility than the USD by several hundred times is something that bitcoin maximalists never have an answer for.
 https://wolfstreet.com/2018/06/12/dollars-purchasing-power-drops-2-9-in-may-from-year-ago/-20% in 10 years  No one hold cash that long? So if you were about to buy a house from your own savings (not using a mortgage) ... saved 200k$ in 20 years ... you just lost 40k on inflation ... The present system puts handcuffs on our hands. It makes us unable to go beyond a certain level. If you have 1 mln $ on your bank account you are paying 4000$ monthly in devaluation of your savings ... If you earn 6k$ monthly, spend 2k$ monthly on everyday spendings, rest 4k covers inflation ... that's pretty much your limit. You will not have more than 1 mln$ in present purchasing power. First, your math is wrong. It would take you 20 years to lose 40k on 200k at this inflation rate, but if you had the $200k 20 years ago, you already would have bought the house and not experienced the inflation loss. Which is my whole point. Who holds $200k in cash for 20 years? Nobody, because if you do that you're not very smart. Second, -20% in 10 years is appropriate for an asset that is designed to slowly depreciate over time. Compare that to bitcoin which loses 20% in less than a week on a regular basis and there's no comparison. Third, the handcuffs on macro economic prosperity created by the gold standard is much greater than the current system, which is why the world changed. I'll take the current system over the former 100 out of 100 times. |
|
|
|
The oil industry moves unthinkable amounts of money in the world which goes directly to the pockets of the establishment's members who rule their local societies on the backgrounds. That is the reason why electric cars and similar technologies are never fully implemented or opened to everyone for an affordable price.
Oil was indeed black gold many years, but it shouldn't remain like this anymore, because it's already possible to replace it, if there was legit interest from governments, businessmen and bureaucrats.
However, modern slavery is more profitable for them, as renewable sources of energy turn people less dependent, just like bitcoin and financial system correlation, so oil will last as black gold for a long time yet.
Petrol is incredibly energy dense and and really offers an excellent combination of efficiency and utility for the amount needed, so it's no wonder that oil became the dominant source of energy on the planet. All modern economies were built on the utilization of oil. |
|
|
|
The loss is because GAAP accounting rules require companies to report unrealized gains and losses on a quarterly basis, so companies will often report a this "phantom" income or loss even though it doesn't affect the actual cash flows of the company. That's what happened here, as MSTR was forced to report a loss on the bitcoins they bought for over $50K each when they dropped to the low 30s. It doesn't actually affect the cashflows of the company, and if the price goes back up, they'll report a "phantom" gain for the same reason. |
|
|
|
Isn't it funny how people are worried about inflation now?
It's almost like they have selective amnesia. If they hear inflation fears from bitcoiners (and they have, for 10 years), then they automatically deem us the radicals who are just spewing garbage to fulfill agendas. Whilst if they hear from mainstream media, they panic and start raising their inflationary expectations too.
Anyway, the period of deflation/low inflation is transient and now that is gone. This inflationary period is naturally reflective of the Fed and other central banks' wild policies during the pandemic. I don't know why anyone should be surprised.
BTC is still a great hedge against this, nothing has changed on that front.
And how is something that regularly drops 10% in a single day a hedge against inflation of a currency that has an annual inflation rate of 2-3%? The USD will never have periods where it devalues anywhere near the drops that bitcoin has on a regular basis. The point of a hedge against inflation is the the volatility is less, not more. |
|
|
|
They may as well be bucket shops, because you're essentially just speculating on the price when you buy it through PP or Robinhood, not truly owning it.
What PayPal is doing in so far as bitcoin is concerned is baffling to me thus far. Unless they have plans to allow buyers to withdraw their coins or let them use the coins for purchases at places that accept crypto, I'm not sure why they even dipped their toes into the crypto waters to begin with.
To be fair, that's all anyone who buys bitcoin is doing- speculating on the price. It's no different if you can transfer the coins to an external wallet or not. And for the record, PayPal is rolling out the ability to transfer to an external wallet. It's part of their plans to make PayPal a much larger and more all-encompassing financial services hub. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
