Esto es una trauccion aproximada de un post que he puesto en el foro general, economia. Creo q contribuye a la formacion financiera tambien aqui.

Esto puede ser muy util para aquellos que hayan ganado dinero con bitcoin y otros activos digitales pero eventualmente quieran crear un portfolio mas tranquilo. Quizas mas adelante escriba sobre como el bitcoin podria ser parte de este portfolio.

Harry Browne , estadounidense, poitico, escritor y asesor financiero.

Su trabajo mas influyente fue el desarrollo del "la cartera permanente" - una herramiento para construir una cartera q funcian bajo cualquier circunstancia previsible de mercado. Como cabe adivinar, la tambien llamada "cartera para cualquier clima" no funciona tan bien como las carteras especificas para situaciones de mercado concretas. El desarrollador del metodo estaba principalmente interesado en preservar el capital con retornos moderados.

Las bases:

- Hay cuatro escenarios basicos: prosperiad, inflacion, recesion y deflacion. Necesitas activos q lo hagan bien en cada uno de esos casos.

En prosperidad - acciones para proporcionar fuertes rendimientos. Los bonos tampoco lo haran mal.
En inflacion - El oro es el activo de eleccion. No el unico.
En recesion - el dinero o equivalentes preservan bien el valor porque suele haber falta de liquidez.
En deflacion - Los bonos lo haran muy bien.

Y eso son las bases, Simple? Si, esa es la belleza del metodo. Esta cartera ha sido probada en distintos paises y epocas y no es especifica de USA u otros.

Todo los activos q carecen de valor intrinseco dependen de la fe / confianza. Las monedas fiat en ese sentido tienen una ventaja y es q son medio de pago oficial del estado correspondiente mientras que bitcoin es solo medio oficial de pago en Tesla

Bromas aparte, es una gran diferencia el respaldo oficial frente al respaldo de una comunidad. Quiza ese es uno de los motivos por los cuales bitcoin es muy volatil - no el unico.

Gambling business and activity has increased heavily during COVID. No wonder, more free time (forced sometimes), less social life and a bit of you only live once.



Add campaigns were also heavy on TV, internet and other. Do you think that this trend is here to stay or people will gamble less once COVID is better solved.

Yes it is different. Many people think that the stock market is a casino - and you can certainly play it as such. Most retail investors from the new generations are using low cost trading platforms such as "Robinhood" to place bets and play it as games.

However, once you get proper financial education and you bother to understand the principles of investing, you will see that there is some order in the chaos. I guess you could argue that it is also true in games once you get to know the teams and understand the sport, but then you should say that "gambling is like investing" not the opposite

Any Japanese sumo competition has been proven to be doubtful at best. While not exactly arranged, it seems that he who needs to win to be on the official "first division" actually does it. I know is not a team, is more like a whole martial art or sport if you will. Unless of course you decide to bet that the "right thing" will happen. This was described on Freakonomics. BTW there is an interesting web.

Do you really believe that infrastructure is really a problem for a government? There are currently many chains that can run on limited nodes and the infrastructure for a PoS coin is really minimal. Just imagine 300 nodes run by trusted financial institutions, which do not only stake but also have contracts in place to make all legal.

The infrastructure, choice of chain or type of system (does not have to be a chain) is not much of an issue.

I think you are quite right, this is not a futuristic situation nor system. The technology is there, the need is very clear and the market is really huge. Not only can be done from a satellite capable phone, but even from a more land-based system, much less sophisticated, you can perfectly launch a transaction. For what I see here, is just a very basic piece of kit.

Only drawback is possibly that it can be traced.

 

This can be very useful for people who have made money with bitcoin and digital assets but eventually would like to create a calmer portfolio. I may write later about how bitcoin could be part of a permanent portfolio reviewed to today's possibilities.

Harry Browne was an US financial advisor, writer and politician.

His most influential work was de development of the permanent portfolio - A tool to build an asset portfolio that is able to perform under any foreseeable circumstance of the markets.  As anyone may guess, the also called "all-weather" does not perform as well as specific portfolios built for special market conditions. The developer of the method was mainly interested in preserving capital with a moderate return.

The basis:
- There are 4 basic scenarios: prosperity, inflation, recession or deflation. You would need assets that do well in each of these to keep a good balance.
- In Prosperity - stocks, to provide a strong return. Bonds will do well as well.
- In Inflation - Gold is the choice (not the only possibility though).
- In Recession - Cash or cash equivalents do well, due to low liquidity in recessions.
- In deflation - Bonds will do great.

This is how the basics look like. Simple? Yes, that is the beauty of it. This type of portfolio have been tested in different countries, so it is not specific to US or other.

Warren buffet tiene muchas citas interesantes, casi todas sobre el dinero, pero esta vez va mas alla: Si tu empresa u organizacion necesita personas excepcionales solo para funcionar o si require de "heroes" q vayan mas alla del deber, tarde o temprano se ira al garete. Esto va en especial dedicado a esos "directivos" de medio pelo q construyen a su alrededor un sistema q solo funciona - al menos en su imaginacion - porque ellos estan alli microgestionando todo.
Dirigir asi es un signo de fracaso, de falta de confianza en si  mismo y, con ello, en sus colaboradores. Es algo q se retroalimenta:




Warren Buffet, rico.


Michael Gerber, tipo cabal.




Obama, ex-presidente.




Steve jobs, guru "new age". R.I.P.




Iacocca, rico.

The problem with bitcoin and coins that are limited by nature - or should I say software is that they cannot use the fiduciary money creation system. As most of you probably know, banks can lend more money than they actually have in reserves. That is, they actually are entitled to multiply money. Simplified example:

Bank "A" has 100 in deposits from clients.  The regulation in that country requires a deposit of 20% in the federal or central bank account. Thus this bank can actually give mortgages for 400. (20% -100 so 100% is 400%).

This comes from the centuries old lender's system in which the first "letters of credit" were issues. Lenders soon found out that they could issue more that they had in reserves. You cannot do that on limited issuance digital assets can you?

Since I have been banned from their telegram, I can only but use this forum to express my opinion. I will do so simply by reporting what they are doing, accurately:

- During the ICO they stated that they wanted to build on top of ethereum.
- After the ICO the KYC was delayed and the transfer of tokens only happened after a steep token price drop.
- The project informed that they were now going to build their own chain.

I lost interest in the project, so it was only recently that I bothered to look again. apparently the tokens have some value... like 1/100th of the original price. I wanted to sell these and they told me that I could no longer swap these to new chain. Not that I had much, but you know... it is mine.

So basically, they took my money and run with it. As usual in these cases they tell you "you should have done this... you should have done that..." but the fact is that they took the money, made up the rules afterwards and.. that is the end of it.

Another guy in the group was saying that he or she had 15.000 NZD on it. Another one jumped int.

I will keep people posted here, as it is not possible to do so for me on Telegram.

This is the original thread

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2237916.msg22574793#msg22574793

Una reflexion que queria compartir tras leer un hilo de DdmrDdmr: Me meti en bastantes ICOs y bounties en el 2017 y 2018 y la verdad es que no me arrepiento porque he aprendido mucho sobre como detectar aun tramposo, que estos pueden estar en cualquier parte e incluso ser gente my respetable en una comunidad y, no menos importante, a aceptar la volatilidad.

Sobre todo esto ultimo, la volatilidad de los activos financieros tradicionales es muy inferior a las de criptodivisas (casi siempre) y la posibilidad de lo q Warren Buffet llama "la perdida permanente de capital" es altisima. Warren da por supuesto q las acciones fluctuan y que no toda inversion es positiva, pero una de las reglas es:

[/b]

La perdida permanente de capital no es que tus tokenes or cryptos bajen, o q tus acciones de una empresa bajen, es que se produzca una perdida o situacion en la cual sea imposible recuperar el capital invertido, ni ahora, ni nunca. Por ejemplo, si una empresa quiebra o un token se va a cero y el equipo desaparece.

Las posibilidades de perdida permanente de capital son extremas en el caso de las ICOs, ITOs o flotaciones directas de tokenes. No es solo que el proyecto pueda ir mal, eso le puede pasar a cualquiera, es que tienes unos riesgos extremos:

- Falta masiva de regulacion, los promotores no responden a nadie ni durante ni despues de la ICO.
- Equipos normalmente inadecuados - por decirlo suave. Son gente q si conocieras en persona no les prestarias ni un satoshi.
- Resuelven problemas q no existen aun... ni existiran.
- Usan estrategias de marqueting q serian ilegales en cualquier otro contexto o pais.
- A veces simplemente son estafas sin mas. Dame tu pasta y adios.
- Posibilidades de ser estafado por el camino por hackers, fraudsters...

Con todo esto, aunque hagas un x2 en 2 meses en 1 de cada 100, es mejor que lo pienses o al menos sepas q estas cosas pasan y aprendas todos lo posible para q no te pasen.

Nothing new under the sky, it is very usual that people want to show their best image and looks and that they spend money, sometimes borrowed money in doing so, call it a Tesla, a Rolex, jewels, ... most of the luxury industry is built on that. i do no see that as unusual.

Is bitcoin part of that? Nah... it may be for some people but bitcoin is something you cannot go a show around (or at least you should not if you know what you are doing) and yes, it is digital, just the money you hold in your bank: an electronic record and nothing else.

I just do not find anything worth in this argument. BTW you do not own a piece of code.

Actually they have, frequently they just rebrand the coin as an acknowledgement of that. The fact that it does not reach "absolute zero" is meaningless. In practice "0.00000000000001" is zero and that is happening in Venezuela, about to happen in Turkey and happened no more than a few decades ago in Germany.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zpctyrd/revision/6#:~:text=The%20German%20currency%20lost%20virtually,million%20marks%20by%20November%201923.

Since it reached Microsoft is as wide as the Earth and possibly as wide as the Earth and Mars if the below runs on windows:

The best traders mindset is: I know that technical analysis is crap so he only thing that can make me earn money is opneing 20 accounts with 500 USD each, play with them with a variety of crap-strategies an show to the public only the one that has thrown profit and do not forget to make a youtube video selling my "method" to those gullible enough to believe that I am going to teach then how to be rich on a zero sum game.

Did I get it right?

Edited to add: Add a referral link to a dubious trade platform whose add reads in fine print "80% of retail accounts loose money with us".

Even on-line they can see if you have a pattern, and the problem is that sometimes you are not conscious of your own patterns and you own body reactions to your cards and other's moves. I believe serious players do look carefully into these things. So a "poker face" can be good, wearing sunglasses as well but apart from training, is there anything else out there?

I find the information given in the link quite biased. The bitcoin with lighting network is not "struggling" to get transactions through, in fact if there was a desire to make it cheaper and faster it is as simple as increasing block size, and a second layer is not the same in terms of safety as a single chain (layer 1 if you want).

Binance is obviously keen on increasing its own blockchain usability, but, at the end, is private and most of the projects build on top are just copies of each other: DeFi, NFT over and over again.

Don't get me wrong, I really hope some succeed, it is just that it seems difficult and "layer 2" is not solving a problem that we have today.

There are a lot of expectations about artificial intelligence and robotics. These seem to pair up quite well and we seem to be still far away from the cyberhumans - actually mixing electronics with humans, perhaps up to the point of creating a new especies.

But for now, this has a lot to do with UBI (universal basic income) and how we distribute the newly created wealth that may (MAY) come out of the advance of these technologies. For those young among us, they will not remember how the AI was also a buzzword a few decades ago with IBM's Deep Blue "beating" Kasparov at chess.

Are we again on the hype cycle slide?

Powel recenlty made a series of statements around digital currency. Among the declarations:



Effectively, the issue for government backed digital currencies, which are not anything like a decentralised crypto, is regulations. To elaborate, the world has seen massive changes in the way money moves around. Banks are in general interested in putting some friction and cost to money movements, and a digital currency would probably create an environment to that middleman to disappear or be much less relevant.

Governments are mostly concern about what does means to the control they currently have on the flows of information about money, money laundering and taxation. So we should read any comment in that light and translate: "We do not have the regulations in place to allow for a digital dollar". On a side comment, China may use this opportunity to get ahead and has shown some movement towards it.