The role of government in crypto should probably be no different from its usual role as regulator, however the devil is in the detail: how is crypto going to be regulated without hindering innovation, what is going to be considered crypto, how is that control going to be implemented and perhaps we could even go as far as saying what is going to be legal and what is not. Obviously, governments need to act on this promptly for fiscal reasons and to avoid the already thriving scandals.

This is rarely mentioned but one of the keys is patience. It has been said that the stock market is a voting machine in the short term and a calculating machine in the long time. Thus, the first bit of being and investor is "to be right", that is, choosing wisely and successfully the assets you buy, however you also need to allow enough time for the rest of the market to realise that you were essentially right. This may take from a few days to a few years. The later may require plenty of conviction on your ideas.

Certainly, +1 on that. Again, not a defender of communism as a viable and likeable way of governing and tbh I do not think Venezuela is truly communist. But, beyond that, you will certainly admit that Erdogan is not a communist leader precisely, and you may see how the Turkish Lira is in hyperinflation. A few countries in Africa y, this is me guessing, Afghan currency are on the same path and none of these could be classed as communist regimes.

Inflation is a hidden tax from an irresponsible government to their citizens.


"That people" of which I happen to know a few do not need fixing. They are mostly tired of their government and what they are doing to the country. Venezuela was one of the best LATAM economies not that long ago - a place that anyone would like to live in.

In other circumstances, I would congratulate all Nigerian nationals and residents for achieving that marvellous record. The reason why I cannot do that is that usually bitcoin is mostly used and traded outstandingly or in a larger proportion compared to the economy of the country, in countries where the governments are acting so irresponsibly in monetary and fiscal terms that people just choose to accept the volatility of bitcoin rather than just experience the volatility of their own currencies.

The opposite of the title of this post is actually true: Most altcoins do not even stand a minimum chance of success - not even of the most modest success and not even by any measure you ever try to use. The fact is that most coins lack a serious use case that is actually demanded by a community of users. Those that could potentially have a use case are obscured by a million stupid proposals and some are simply an idea with the wrong people behind it.

A simple question to the forum - I hope that people can provide sensible answers, since it would be way too easy to preach rather than to reason.

It has been mentioned many times in the forum that banks can be killed by bitcoin and that crypto is a threat for central banks, etc... One of the reasons that make me doubt about that possibility is the worldwide need of having a strong lending and borrowing system. I think that currently DeFi does not offer a realistic solution and that lending eventually has to rely on an intermediary. That, in some way or under a different name, is a bank.

How is this problem addressed currently and how could it be solved at large scale without a "bank" of shorts?

Do I hold dead coins? You can bet your ass that I hold probably a dozen of those I do not think that anyone that has been around crypto trying here and there for enough time could answer that question differently. What surprises me is your question about how to manage these. You do not need to manage them, what you need to do is print a list of dead holdings and stick it in a visible place near your cryptoworking place and take a look at it everytime an ICO looks too good to be true.

Poker is a game in which math is heavily involved in weighting odds and understanding the risks and rewards on a certain situation, particularly Texas Hold'em has been studied over and over and many of the great players are also kind of chess masters in terms of ability. However, the OP saying that poker has been "solved by algorithms" does not make any sense. An algorithm can estimate odds probably better than any person, but estimating odds is not enough to win systematically.

I agree, sometimes is just better to keep your coin rather than keeping a player with a short contract and even Mbappe is not as good investment from a marketing perspective than other players with which the Spanish public may better identify themselves. That is quite important on these time in which the teams use much less their own home grown players and tend to overstretch. Real Madrid could start looking overseas... meaning the Americas, as Europe is a far too expensive market today.

It seems that Barca was not able to defend Messi after all, or perhaps it no longer made sense to do so. I think that at least they are keeping a good war chest, but, as I understand the situation, they are not going to be able to solve their strategy for this year. I think that the problem should not extend further. Madrid however is less dependant on an specific player, not that Ronaldo was not excellent.. it is that he was mostly excellent at selling t-shirts.

Barca is still trying to find itself and failing miserably. Messi has left a space that seems impossible to fill, even if they get someone half-decent in the market, the shock is too big and I think that is quite safe to overload the bets against Barca for now and I think that will keep being so for at least the first half of the season if not longer. You can surely bet that it won´t win La Liga and we will see if they are even able to have a chance next year.

NTFs make sense only under certain conditions. The "art" NTFs that do not confer exclusive use of anything, just a proof of "ownership" are, in my view, worthless. NTF that confer use of in-game items and skins are valuable, but only while the game is in trend and games typically have a limited life span.

DeFi is a problem on itself. The "dividens" for staking are the cost of keeping the net safe, and usually those networks are not being used sufficiently. P2E... I have not a view.

I am not aware of these existing for bitcoin nor for any other asset to be honest. However, it is mostly a question of how much money would there be to be made, since you can potentially encapsulate any formula on a CDS contract and start playing with it. One of the keys to actually create a market is to have a use case that goes beyond speculation: example, the futures contract on oil are used by companies to stabilise their costs or income regardless of the price.

Would there be a use case for this derivative?

When these people speak I always tend to "translate" what they say. For example, "stock X will raise a lot" means that they are loaded and they would like you to buy to pump it. If they say bitcoin will replace the USD, they mean: "we are loaded of bitcoin and our clients have bought big time, so now we want you to buy a pump". Most of the estimate and forecasts that are made public are so simple to read that I am still amazed that people fall for these over and over.

It seems that in the UK now there is a labour shortage - not for all jobs, but for those that were usually taken by the Eastern Europeans and the Polish. With BREXIT, you need to have a Visa to work in the UK, so many people who took seasonal jobs without any friction now are in their countries while UK farmers and hospitality business owners are having to raise the prices to pay for the increased salaries for retaining the workers.

There were comments of "foreigners taking up English jobs"... it seems that the English never wanted those jobs anyway.

You could put together any number of names and it would not look as unlikely as this union which lacks any strength or meaning. There is nothing that would make this stick together to be honest. You may want to check the history of economic unions and particularly what makes these worthy of that name. The old hanseatic union or some other trade alliances were not very strong, but there were clear interest aligned on these and clear limits to the union.

Despite the idealistic view of Havana, keeping the ruinous unpainted buildings from the view, there is an underliying system that is happy to keep the people poor. Some people would argue that while someone is looking for food and money, they are not planning a revolution - at least that´s a friend of mine theory. Anyway, Cuba is a lot about control, bitcoin is a lot about self control and self sovereignty etc... I do not see these two things matching and the government there has a fresh supply of strong currency from turism.

There is a case for a Master on blockchain, crypto and all the ecosystem. To be honest, to properly understand bitcoin and crypto you would need to dig into psychology, history, economy (micro and macro), computer science (particularly cryptology), electronics and perhaps a few other disciplines. My take is that most of the formation out there is going to be focused on programming and computer science, so if you have studied BA or and MBA, you would not need a full master, but rather and understanding on the inner workings of these systems from the programming and logic view to complement your understanding of the microeconomic and finance side of it.

I was more in line to people saying socialist and communist to anything that implies redistribution, perhaps not your case. About how much is redistributed, who pays for it and what is "included" (obviously paid with taxes, I did not even think that had to be said), that would be where I would focus a discussion and the adjustments that different economic cycles may require.

RE thin states, please notice that I said they cannot provide safety and stability on a continuous basis. If you look at an initially very thin state (US) a few of the first things that had to be setup was the ability to collect taxes, the centralisation of money emission, a pan-state law,... It was simply impossible to run a country if you had to ask all the states for permission and money to, for example, pay an army to defend it.

State structures cost money and, I believe that there is enough proof of these being required.

There is a general misunderstanding about Capitalism and Socialism governments. The fact that a state provides some free services does not make it communist. I am afraid that the precise definition is quite fluid and there is a grayscale of possibilities.

Particularly, there is a tendency to confuse economic liberalism and the Austrian School of though with Capitalism. I my very humble view, that is only a version of Capitalism. The basis are right to individual property, free enterprise and the possibility of  investing for a return. This has nothing to do with the liberal versions that propose a thin state or zero intervention.

For me, there is clear proof that those "thin states" cannot provide safety, continuity and opportunity for all, just as communism cannot either.




Yes, just as Capitalism sell the paradise of material goods, the "opportunity for all", the self-made millionaire dream... Is there a system that is not promising utopia?



And that may happen only thanks to your marvellous version of Capitalism has failed millions of people. on the promise of milk and honey. You do not get the moral high -ground on undelivered promises. N



That is not true. Imperialism  and expansionism of the capitalist countries has killed more people that any other ideology. Kaiser´s Germany was not communist, Hitler was certainly not Socialist and  Japan was not communist nor the US was socialist when dropping Fat Boy on Japan, nor UK was communist when setting Hamburg in fire. I do not mean to make a  competition of this, and I am certainly not a supporter of tyranny in any manifestation,  but I am tired of  propaganda and the  attempts to compare and elected government with authoritarian  despots.