I'm not a fan of issuing a coin out of everything. I think the time for tokenization has already passed. The year 2017 was the year when everything was tokenized, from banana to taxi, to tickets, to freelancing, to songs, to Trump and Beiber, to boobs, to Jesus, and everything else under and beyond the sun. And, yes, there's already POTATO and POTATOZ and, of course, Potcoin, and anything you can think of.

But I agree there's indeed money in HODLing agricultural produce. If only they're not perishable. But thanks God they're perishable. This HODLing is basically hoarding and it might really be bad. As a matter of fact, despite being perishable, there are issues arising every now and then here in my country of hoarding agricultural products to manipulate the supply and, therefore, the price. Right now, in fact, red onions is getting very expensive that day-to-day dishes of ordinary people don't use them anymore. I'm afraid many are sacrificing how their food tastes just to save a good deal. Accordingly, one of the reasons for this are syndicates hoarding this specific agricultural product.

So perhaps instead of making profit out of this, why don't governments just address this problem? A senator here, who is also the chairperson of the senate committee on agriculture, just brush the issue off by saying she can live without onions. I mean, is that it? Is that how the soaring prices of agricultural products are addressed? Why not programs and all kinds of initiatives?

Well, this is, of course, good. Saudi Telecom is a big and influential player in the country. It plays a big role in the day-to-day lives of Saudis. However, it seems there are too many players in the middle. There's Binance Pay. There's Eazy Pay. There will certainly be banks as well because, for sure, the company won't probably be receiving the payments in Bitcoin itself. But, yeah, this is still adoption.

Anyway, I wonder why, except for Binance's tweet, I haven't encountered this in the news.

How about we forget whether they're BS or real? How about we forget whether they're merely snake oil or whatever? I guess the most important point here is that we make money, right? If we can do that by selling stones, we would, right? Or perhaps by selling nothing? So whether or not these stock, fiat, crypto are all BS, does it matter when we can actually sell them a lot more expensive than we bought them and make money? There are people who are willing to buy them, you know. And we can buy many more properties out of the proceeds.

How about we look at the other side of it? While they are indeed trying to make money and clients withdrawing funds means lesser income and they should do something about it, the context is obvious with what's happening to a number of centralized platforms. While they are a business, they are a business built on foundations laid by Bitcoin. While they are now doing things contrary to the spirit of Bitcoin, I suppose they are still believers of what Bitcoin means. I suppose they still believe in decentralization, 'not your key, not your coins', 'don't trust, verify', and other Bitcoin-related principles.

And while it is understandable that Bitstamp did this for the sake of the business, there was actually Kraken's Powell who advised to get funds out of exchanges. And while Kraken was a centralized exchange, Powell actually encouraged people to trade through peer to peer only.

And recently, there was also Paxful's Youssef who, despite having a custodial business, encouraged people to self-custody and keep funds out of exchanges including his own.


https://twitter.com/raypaxful/status/1601934200893997057

I'm simply saying, centralized platforms could be honest and call a spade a spade. Rather than making people believe that they are a safe platform, that their clients' money are guaranteed safu, that they have 1:1 reserve, that they are regularly audited, that they are keeping anybody's information private, and so forth, why don't they just set it straight that they are a risky platform and that everybody shouldn't be keeping funds in them except those they are willing to trade and lose?

Yeah, I agree. This is precisely the reason why the word crypto has now fallen from what used to be a prestigious spot. It is now being highly equated with shitcoins and shit projects and airdrops and all kinds of scams. It is now being equated with centralized platforms that offer unsustainable gains. It is now being closely attached to Ponzis.

On a different note, it is also unfortunate that Bitcoin is now being treated as if it is one among the different products of the traditional market. While it supposed to counter inflation, to somehow act as a hedge, its correlation with stocks, for example, has been hitting ATHs. I feel like there's something odd when people buy and sell Bitcoin according to indicators used in analyzing the traditional market.

I'm not sure of the specific mechanics in this game of ayo but there is a similar version of this game here in our country. It also involves a carved wood and either small rounded shells or marbles or stones or seeds as the pieces. But this is seldom played already. This used to be a pastime game, way back when there wasn't computers, cell phones, PSP, and internet yet. Many children probably don't know this local game already. But I think this is also offered in smart phone versions. But I doubt there is a casino that offers this. I guess it's probably because it's not that popular or perhaps it's not really a game designed for casinos.

If one is actively trading in FTX, it is most likely that he/she will also buy FTT. That gives him/her discounts, among other privileges. Those who did this and was entirely clueless about what to happen to the company must have suffered a double whammy. Of course, his/her funds are all gone but in the unlikely event that he/she will recover them, FTT has probably gone to zero.

There are so many who lost their money in the FTX fiasco. Many have been keeping coins in exchanges even if they are not trading. They are using them as storage. But despite what happened to FTX, I'm sure there are still a lot out there who are storing their funds in centralized exchanges.

It seems the bar has been higher. The criticisms kept coming in. The Merkle Tree used by CZ earlier failed to assure people of its reserves. Kraken's Powell even described it as pointless.

And now he's shifting to the use of a third party auditing firm. The problem is that even the auditing firm itself did not vouch for its reserves. Neither did it vouch for the specific methodology used as demanded by Binance itself.^[1] As a matter of fact, Mazar, the auditing firm, even clarified that what it did on Binance was not even an audit. Neither was "an agreed-upon procedures engagement" a "review or other assurance engagement."


https://twitter.com/WhaleChart/status/1602089342645817347

---

[1] https://mishtalk.com/economics/binances-alleged-crypto-audit-failed-not-even-its-auditor-would-vouch-for-it

The demand for Bitcoin would have probably remained high despite centralized platforms like FTX, Binance, BlockFi, Celsius, Voyagers, 3AC and the like not approved for operation.

If only centralized exchanges didn't become a thing, we could have better ones. DEx could have been the thing. So if centralized exchanges would perish for good, DExes could take over, or anything that would at least sell buyers with real Bitcoin and not just fake numbers.


Whatever you call it, but not decentralized, because they're not.

Let's not measure how much is lost by whichever. They're both bad apples in the market. They both should be avoided. They're both losing people's money. Fake decentralization is no better simply because centralized exchanges lost bigger within the year. Last year alone, DeFi lost north of $10 billion.

Development is never discouraged. It's just that standards are set high.

I certainly agree. Cash is king. The moment cash is replaced with digital currencies, there is indeed no way money could be used directly. Everything would all go through a centralized platform. That's why a CBDC is definitely worse than cash.

But even with Bitcoin, there are often companies involved in the middle. There's BitPay, PayPal, BitcoinPay, and many others. There are personal wallets but are custodial. Even if not, you are still reliant on something developed by somebody else. Even in P2P, there is often still a need to use escrow. The money would still pass through somebody else's hand.

They must have a significant amount of influence. They're all influencers, after all. And if all of a sudden they're talking about the same project, there must be a larger effect. Their combined followers sharing the same decision to buy or sell could indeed affect the market. This is how a pump and dump scheme is created. They hype a certain coin or project causing many to buy. The price increases, as a result. People would then believe what they're saying is true. When the price reaches a certain point, those influencers, and whoever is with them or paying them, would secretly sell their coins causing the price to fall. They get rich, the flock gets poor. So be wary of these influencers.

Yeah, it's odd. And since you seem to know a lot, tell me more about it. This month, the US CPI-U has increased 0.1%. As far as all items are concerned, except food and energy, the increase is 0.2%.^[1] I also read an update by the Bitcoin magazine that the "Energy, gasoline, electricity and utility gas prices" in the US are in deflation, as shown by the same CPI release.^[2] So what now is your position in the Bitcoin market?

The current selling of crypto is an "aftermath effect of the PPI?" So shall we now forget about the rest of other factors and direct our focus on a single country's index? Is the fall of FTX even irrelevant?

Although by now Bitcoin or crypto in general is already widely considered as a risk-on asset, shall we be looking at the US' monthly CPI to decide on our Bitcoin positions? Shall the inflation rate in the US the basis for our Bitcoin positions? How about my country's inflation rate? How about your country's inflation rate?

In November, my country's inflation rate has increased to 8.0%. Whatever the data in the US says, I wouldn't sell my Bitcoin. November data shows inflation in the US has cooled down, but other countries still has double figures. Annually, some have 3-digit numbers. Shall we buy or sell?

---

[1] https://www.bls.gov/cpi/
[2] https://twitter.com/BitcoinMagazine/status/1602660521928540167

As to the poll's question, I am neither. I mean, I didn't turn into something else. I gamble but I am also an investor at the same time. Of course, my being a gambler started earlier than my being an investor, but I didn't turn from a gambler into an investor. I am both today.

As to which is highly possible, a gamer becoming a gambler or an investor becoming a gambler, I think it's the former. Although an investor is generally a gambler in that his/her positions are risky and yet he/she takes it nevertheless, there are certain rules, strategies, indicators, and others that are to be considered. In a gamer, it is easy to just risk and expect a certain reward if successful. That's nearer to gambling in its strict sense.

Since Tank will have to fight another Garcia first before facing Ryan in April, it's just right that Ryan will also have his own tune-up fight. He needs it. But I think Gervonta is facing a harder opponent for their tune-up fights. Gesta may be the more experienced fighter but he is already far from his prime. He's at the end of his career and he doesn't have the kind of power that Tank has. Hector, on the other hand, is both young and undefeated. Both of their opponents have low chances of an upset, though.

For the past months, I have seen how individuals are very much willing to go the extra mile in spreading Bitcoin awareness. It feels great to know that there is this strong initiative among certain individuals. I can still remember there is also this individual initiative somewhere in Africa where he asked permission from a church to make use of the time and the place after its services for sharing Bitcoin with the attendees. There was also this individual initiative coming from a country in Asia where he even made use of his house for Bitcoin learning sessions.

This is good. Perhaps this is even better if along with this is also the adoption of small shops and stores, whether online or not, in accepting Bitcoin payment. It would be perfect. People learn of this new currency while knowing that there are actual stores and shops that accept it as such.

I think it's a bit odd to decide whether to buy or sell Bitcoin based on inflation, especially CPI, most especially US CPI. I don't think I will ever make Bitcoin investment decisions based on this monthly data. For one, Bitcoin is global. I'm not sure if Bitcoin investors or traders are taking this data as an indicator for them to either long or short or buy or sell.

That Bitcoin's price fell during the times when inflation rates of countries across the world have gone through the roof, was more of a result of global macroeconomic factors. Nothing was safe at that time. The entire global economy was suffering. There was the ongoing pandemic and the invasion in Europe and all their implications. Bitcoin's price was as much a victim as the high inflation numbers of many countries around the world.

In the event that many of these centralized exchanges wouldn't be allowed to operate because they cannot pass the new standard, this kind of adoption might indeed slow down. But I guess it would be very temporary. This is only during the transition phase. For now, people are heavily dependent on centralized exchanges for their Bitcoin purchases. For many, this is probably not the correct way, but since this seems to be the convenient way despite all the KYC processes, this has become the trend, even if there are in fact alternatives.

If such platforms would be gone, I'm very sure a different kind would take over. Developers are pretty much aware that there is a considerable demand all over the world. New platforms, probably better ones, would come out in no time.

While I'm not really technical and cannot provide you specifics, I have read countless of times why this DeFi thing is full of flaws to the point that they're all but decentralized. The great majority of them have central points of failure. Proof of which is the massive number of so-called DeFi platforms that ended up hacked or being exploited. Billions and billions are lost because they're fake. That they are severely criticized for carrying the decentralized label is certainly justified.

That's allowed in the forum. I think you can also do that in various social media. You just have to make sure there is a way for transactions to be secured. Here in the forum, you can check the profiles of other users, especially their trust rating. With your current rank, it would either be that you will send the money first, provided the other party is a highly trusted member, or you will use a reputable escrow. I'm not sure what escrow mechanism you would safely use in dealing with clients through social media, though.

Proof or it didn't happen. In Bitcoin, we don't trust, we verify. LOL! So, how can we verify that the story you're sharing here is true?

Anyway, your definition of Bitcoin that it is a "a new method of generating income" after you claimed to have already learned and understood about it is probably unacceptable to a lot of Bitcoin supporters.

Also, how could your uncle entrust you "a sizable sum of money" to be invested in something he doesn't even know? And without a single penny invested, you were given a million by your uncle? Which particular currency is this? Is this a million in Indonesian rupiah or Cambodian riel or what?

I'm afraid it wasn't Satoshi's dream for people to get away with taxes. The freedom that Satoshi envisioned is the freedom from third parties like the banks, the freedom from being subjected to the unfair rules of fiat system, the freedom from those powerful few who abuse the trust that people give them as far as money is concerned. It wasn't absolute freedom.

I think Bitcoin is not designed to be a tool to shirk one's responsibility to the state, although one could make use of it somehow. It isn't specifically designed to be anonymous, either, although a certain amount of effort could also provide you a sufficient amount of privacy.