I heard people said that Bitcoin's profit is higher than profit of drug dealer, weapon dealers or profit of real property or any kind of stocks. Is that real ?
Years ago, there was a study done on the wage scaling of drug dealers. The official numbers of the study concluded drug dealers who roam the streets are paid less than minimum wage in the USA. Only big boss drug dealers reap the profits. I think arms markets are dominated by russia, the united states and other world powers. Donald Trump made an arms deal with saudi arabia that was reported to be worth $300 to $500 billion a few months ago when he visited them. Russia's S-400 and S-500 missile interception systems are in high demand as russia's interception technology is known to be superior to USA equivalents. I think that's where most of the supply and money in the arms and weapons sectors come from, with nation states primarily being suppliers and consumers. Real estate could be overvalued at the moment due to demand and the number of consumers who have large enough paychecks to qualify for real estate loans declining over time. In places like the USA, a big chunk of demand comes from rich foreigners from china and other countries. If not for that foreign demand real estate prices could easily be falling. There is certainly money in bitcoin & there probably are people who made a lot of money. Satoshi Nakamoto would be ranked #247th richest person in the world, on forbes list, with bitcoin priced @ $6,000. That could be the best way to put things into perpsective. |
|
|
|
Cryptocurrency has been widely criticised for lack of regulation. Do you think it is possible to come up with a regulatory framework around Bitcoin?
In the united states, the cost of healthcare regulation under the affordable care act (so called: obamacare) was more than 20 tax hikes and $1+ trillion dollars. The website setup by the federal government to allow americans to sign up for healthcare subsidies cost $1 billion dollars & contained many errors which prevented it from functioning properly when opened to the public. It is possible that creating a regulatory framework for bitcoin is 100% impossible. Taxes would need to be hiked substantially to pay for the cost and maintenance of the program. Deficits being large, and budgets strained, makes funding a project like state imposed crypto regulation a virtual impossibility. Bitcoin regulation could be like a manned mission to mars. People talk about it but there isn't anyone willing to spend big money to make it happen. Normally taxpayers would cover the bill. But that source of revenue has been depleted. |
|
|
|
Does anybody else think Namajunas can win vs JJ? I think she has a better chance than the 5.74 odds Nitrogen has given her. I also think she has the edge mentally. JJ could be leveling herself with all the psychological warfare she's doing against a person who just sees thru her. My thoughts exactly. Namajumas is showing maturity and wisdom in the way she carries herself. Joanna's antics appear more immature in contrast. I have Namajunas winning the talking battle. What happens in the cage can often be an entirely different story, though. There have been many fights where one person dominated in the talking and promotion, then got KO'ed in the 1st round of the actual fight. One point no one is touching upon is, one of Thug Rose Namajunas' training partners is Valentina Shevchenko. Joanna and Shevchenko have fought 2-3 times in muay thai kickboxing and Shevchenko beat Joanna every single time. Shevchenko could know Joanna's game very well and be able to teach Rose counters that might allow her to win. That theory is farfetched, Joanna's technique has changed a lot since she first came to MMA. Still it is possible that having Shevchenko as a sparring partner, someone who already beat Joanna 3 times in kickboxing, could give Rose an advantage. Cody vs TJ is similar. TJ predicted Cody's team would say a lot of bad things about TJ during fight week & TJ turned out to be right. TJ might be a little better spoken than Cody in the talking part of things. No one's giving TJ a chance but the fight could be a lot closer than many realize. Bisping vs GSP also. Bisping is probably winning the talking part of things. While GSP looks very relaxed and confident. Its possible we'll see that talking doesn't matter at all, the only thing that matters is what happens in the cage. Or maybe it will show that the talking does matter and can serve as a valid indication of how the fight will go. |
|
|
|
|
I think a high percentage of amazon customers opt for the free shipping option which can take 2+ weeks. Waiting for bitcoin to confirm, on top of a 2 week shipping time may not be that much of an inconvenience.
The "scaling problem" could be a good problem to have. One way of viewing it is: "bitcoin can't be used to buy a cup of coffee and isn't ready for a prime time, mainstream, role". The flipside of that might say that if bitcoin's network lacks the transactional volume to cover all transactions, retailers might expand their platform to include support for other crypto to fill the vacuum. One perspective is likely over-optimistic while the other is the opposite. The likely outcome could be somewhere inbetween the two.
Bitpay green lights transactions on the 1st confirmation which isn't too bad.
Amazon accepting bitcoin would be similar to an official endorsement. If the public sees amazon endorsing bitcoin while banker CEO's condemn bitcoin it will create a divide, a conflict of mainstream opinion as opposed to the typical unified front the media is often able to maintain. That could encourage the public to research and learn about crypto more rather than believe the mainstream media angle of it being a bubble, which could be a good thing even if transactions aren't instantaneous.
|
|
|
|
|
I've been asking myself the same question. Bitcoin may not have been a bubble @ $6,000. If it ventures higher into the $7,000 to $10,000 range without adequate support it might venture into bubble territory, eventually. High growth has a potential to become unsustainable if it outpaces the underlying fundamental metrics by a significant margin. Crypto being a grey area and an emerging technology there isn't good data on what the best method is to calculate a fair price for btc much less what proportion healthy support/price ratios might represent. In a sense we're in uncharted waters and with that increased risk comes a higher potential for profit.
On the plus side, I can't deny it feels good to see gurus like Warren Buffett and CEO's of banks being proven wrong in claiming bitcoin's price couldn't go higher. Buffett and bankers could be in full damage control protectionism mode here as they attempt to trivialize bitcoin's success to deter people from pulling money out of stocks/banker investment vehicles and placing it in crypto instead.
|
|
|
|
Bumping this as I can't find major news to explain the recent increase in btc price, other than this. The 100,000 trader sign ups on coinbase within 24 hours mentioned here could represent a spike in trading volume, which in turn translates to a sizable increase in demand. This pattern of cause and effect could propel the price of btc upwards from $6,000 to $7,000. Not long ago I made this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2326081.msg23644613#msg23644613It illustrates how silver ETF values are falling at the fastest rate since 2011. There was a chance that precious metals investors were dumping silver (cause a big downtrend in the value of silver) to buy bitcoin instead(causing the big uptick in btc price). It is not confirmed that silver traders are where coinbase's 100k new sign ups came from. But it is possible that there is a connection there. The timing is about right for it to be plausible. |
|
|
|
Can installing altcoin wallets on the same PC that has bitcoin wallet breach the security of bitcoin wallet?
Is it possible that someone actually designs such an altcoin wallet that breaches or somehow harms a certain bitcoin wallet installed on the same machine?
Any software, even browser extensions might be potential avenues of coins being stolen. Anything can be a keylogger which records keystrokes (copied & pasted info) to learn passwords or private keys. Thieves typically focus on easier methods like phish websites which resemble official websites to capture data. The path of least resistance is by far the road most taken when it comes to identity theft and scams/thievery. But it is possible that a determined attacker with good resources could use other methods/software to do the same thing. To give you an example of what a phish website is, http://electrum.org is the official site of electrum wallet. There have been many websites with similar URL's like http://electrum.is which fooled users into typing their private key which was used to steal coins. Its a good idea to check to see if its the official website when downloading things or entering important data. |
|
|
|
|
One point which could be publicized more is if the system collapses there won't be any bailouts for anyone.
Banks were deemed "too big to fail" & bailed out the last time there was a minor collapse.
Next time that may not be the case. Even banks and large corporations rely on customers to survive. If a big collapse occurs and many lose their jobs similar to 2008, while economic metrics slide, a lot of large businesses and banks could easily go under on decreased demand and sales.
This implies banks and the private sector have as much of a vested interest in ensuring a major collapse does not occur as we do.
There are many wealthy elites who have safehouses/bunkers prepared if worst case scenarios occur. But those are not practical solutions and their standard of living would greatly diminish under those conditions.
|
|
|
|
The Securities and Exchange Commission has issued a statement warning celebrities that they may be violating the law if they make paid endorsements of cryptocurrencies without disclosing the payments.
Just a few months ago, there would have been no need for such a warning because there were very few celebrities endorsing blockchain products (though Mike Tyson has been endorsing Bitcoin products since at least 2015). But with billions of dollars flooding into initial coin offerings, celebrities like Floyd Mayweather and Paris Hilton have begun promoting new cryptocurrencies on social media.
Readers of Ars will be shocked to learn that these celebrity-endorsed blockchain technologies have not exactly been the cream of the crop. A September investigation by Forbes reported that the Hilton-endorsed currency, called LydianCoin, was founded by a man "being sued by at least four former employees for harassment and discrimination" and who is facing possible jail time related to domestic violence allegations.
Last week, The New York Times dug into Centra, one of the cryptocurrencies Mayweather has given a paid endorsement. Centra's website listed a president who seems not to exist—his photo was of "a Canadian physiology professor who had no relation to Centra." Centra claimed it would offer a Visa- or Mastercard-based debit card for spending the cryptocurrency, but Visa and Mastercard say the company has never approached them about the project.
Now the SEC is firing a shot across the bow of celebrities who do paid endorsements of cryptocurrencies.
"Any celebrity or other individual who promotes a virtual token or coin that is a security must disclose the nature, scope, and amount of compensation received in exchange for the promotion," the SEC wrote in a Wednesday statement. "A failure to disclose this information is a violation of the anti-touting provisions of the federal securities laws."
Promoting token sales could also lead to "potential violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws, for participating in an unregistered offer and sale of securities, and for acting as unregistered brokers."
This analysis depends on whether the tokens in question meet the legal definition of securities—something that's far from clear right now. Some cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, are likely to be classified as "utility tokens." While a utility might go up in value over time, their primary intended use is not as an investment vehicle. Bitcoin, for example, was designed as a new kind of payment network.
Unfortunately, the SEC has only made one significant ruling on the topic, writing in July that a blockchain-based investment scheme called the DAO amounted to an unregistered security. The SEC declined to press charges in that case, and it hasn't ruled on whether any other coin offerings have run afoul of securities law.
But that might change. "The SEC will continue to focus on these types of promotions to protect investors and to ensure compliance with the securities laws," the agency wrote on Wednesday.
While SEC regulations are specific to the sale of securities, the Federal Trade Commission has broader regulations governing paid celebrity endorsements on social media more broadly. Guidelines first drafted in 2009 require celebrities to disclose when a product endorsement is the result of a paid endorsement deal. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/sec-warns-that-celebrity-cryptocurrency-endorsements-may-be-illegal/... It seems this falls under new legislation passed in 2009. Unfortunately it doesn't require anyone to disclose whether they're being paid to condemn a product. It might be nice to know if Jamie Dimon and others labeling bitcoin a bubble were being financially compensated for their efforts. There are many cases of celebrities having endorsed gold or silver. I don't remember the SEC ever flexing its muscles at people this way before for giving out endorsements. It is possible the SEC is invoking a double standard here where its only wrong to endorse bitcoin. Endorsing everything else is ok. |
|
|
|
The total market value of a currency, its "monetary base", is driven by two things, transactional demand and reservation demand. 1. Transactional demand - Daily transaction volume. 2. Reservation demand - Hoarding/long-term investment. It is expected that with more merchant adoption the transactional demand would increase. 3. Hurdle rate - Rate of return required to compensate for the risks associated with holding Bitcoin. Yeah, technopolitical hurdles or backlash from a country can have an impact on Bitcoin's expected value. Theoretically, the fair-market value of one BTC should simply be the dividend of its predicted future monetary base (total market cap) and BTC in circulation, discounted by a "hurdle rate." For further illustration, it might also help to consider how a venture capitalist could determine the net present value of an investment that he never expects to generate positive cash flows during his firm's investment period (e.g. a high-growth tech company that reinvests 100% of its earnings before it ultimate sells to Google). In the absence of earnings, that VC might look at revenue multiples to determine the company's terminal value, and then discount that figure by a rate of 40 to 60%.
With Bitcoin, the thinking is the same. Except Bitcoin's terminal value is actually its future monetary base. This framework relies on assumptions only, but backed by Bitcoin having all the attributes of money, its scarcity and underlying technology. A rational market price for something that is expected to increase in value will already reflect the present value of the expected future increases. In your head, you do a probability estimate balancing the odds that it keeps increasing.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/050914/easy-way-measure-bitcoins-fair-market-value-doityourself-guide.asp?Good post OP. There are many similarities drawn between bitcion and gold. Are there parallels which can be drawn between methods utilized to calculate the fair value of gold (precious metals) and the fair value of crypto currencies due to both not being applicable to the typical Price/Earnings(P/E) model which many equities investors favor as a method of calculating valuation? Here's another potential method for calculating a fair value for btc. #1 Size estimate of current btc userbase : Current btc price. #2 Expected size of future btc userbase : (Projected future btc price via proportion) If the size of bitcoin's population doubles roughly every 12 months, that rate of growth could be relatively stable similar to how moore's law guidelines the number of transistors able to fit on a die double approximately every 24 months. Not to imply that the price of btc should double annually. Some of the growth we're experiencing now could be due to btc being undervalued for a long time relative to the growth of its userbase. |
|
|
|
Ethereum was crashing. Its chart resembled a textbook anatomy of a bubble. The only thing saving ethereum is bitcoin's recent uptrend in price which stabilized eth temporarily, as eth's value was pulled upwards with btc. I don't think there's any real excitement, interest or hype surrounding eth at the moment and there may not be any for a long time. After the hoax incident about their CEO passing away I think people lost faith. There's a chance the people behind ethereum saw a big crash coming and invented a fake story to fool people into thinking there was a reason for ethereum's crash that wasn't related to it being overvalued. Here's a textbook diagram of a bubble.  Here's a chart of ethereum up to around july of 2017.  Notice how ethereum's graph almost perfectly mirrors the diagram of a bubble? It is possible that ethereum was crashing (as bubbles do). The only thing that might have saved it are the story about its crash being due to a CEO hoax and the price of bitcoin increasing drastically which may have stabilized it(at least temporarily). Eth having a variable supply puts it at a major disadvantage against other alts, which could be one reason savvy investors will avoid it. |
|
|
|
Back in the summer of 2015, one tracked the euphoria of the Chinese stock market bubble by the number, usually in the hundreds of thousands, of new brokerage accounts that were opened on any one given day. And while that bubble has long since burst, the tradition of measuring new account openings has remained, and nowhere more so than in the biggest momentum instruement of the day, bitcoin. Following a 7x increase in the price of bitcoin this year alone, which earlier today topped $7,000 for the first time ever (before sliding as much as $600) the broader public is now truly on board, and as one of the world's biggest US cryptocurrency exchanges reports in its daily usage update, there were 11.9 million Coinbase users as of November 1, shortly after the CME announced it would introduce bitcoin futures by the end of 2017.  This number is notable because according to data collected by Alistair Milne, an investor in the Atlanta Digital Currency fund...  ... the number of users was 11.8 million yesterady, meaning that in one day Coinbase added a record 100,000 users, i.e., bitcoin traders.  Such a parabolic shift into bitcoin will likely raise some eyebrows, not least because as Bloomberg reports, Coinbase’s GDAX platform drew scrutiny from the CFTC last month over the June 21 flash crash that erased most of the value of ether, the second-largest cryptocurrency, in a matter of milliseconds. And another consideration: Fundstrat’s Tom Lee, who has previously called for bitcoin to hit $6,000 by the middle of 2018 and $25,000 by 2022, today turned cautious after the recent rally "on contemporaneous fundamentals." The uberbitcoinbull says the 60% surge in the past month to over $7,000 is a result of multiple factors, including CME announcement to offer futures on bitcoin and Amazon acquiring crypto domains. As a result he recommends waiting for a pullback, and buying bitcoin in the $5,500 range. He is less concerned about the long-run, however, and sees the cryptocurrency hitting $25,000 by 2022. ... The growth of bitcoin's underlying metrics is one of the best arguments for it not being a bubble. More than 100,000 new users per day is a decent statistic implying growth. Hopefully there will be a follow up article in the future with more information if coinbase is willing to release data on how many of those 100k new accounts are active, how many bought crypto and what percentage were accounts that were created to satisfy someone's curiosity about what the GUI and UX experience was like. Part of bitcoin's uptrend in price could be linked to arbitrage plays across http://golix.io (african exchange) where btc hit a high of $13,000. If african exchanges are legitimate, it could be possible to sell bitcoin for $12,000 on golix.io then cashout in fiat. Then use that fiat to buy bitcoin @ $7,000 on other exchanges. Move bitcoin back to golix.io to sell for $12,000. That type of inter exchange arbitrage could be one of the best strategies when it actually works. |
|
|
|
|
There are a million articles about "the system collapsing" Practically zero articles or information on what the history of collapses look like and what the specific details or living conditions are likely for those who live under a collapsed system. If anyone writes these articles please include how living conditions are likely to change in a post collapse era. I don't think the public gets the message on how living standards will decline and how many of the basic rights and freedoms they enjoy now are likely to be lost.
There could be a fundamental relationship between money and political influence. Living in a rich country gives citizens a degree of political influence under their respective system. In a post collapse economy where nations that were once rich become poor, that political influence tends to evaporate. There are historical precedents for it in russia post USSR.
For those who remember the economic crisis of 2008, a collapse might be similar to that except far worse. Under a collapse a large number of people might be laid off from state jobs for awhile due to the government defaulting on debt. A large percentage of people could lose their welfare, food stamps, pensions. Healthcare funded by the state would be likely be gone. Even subsidies, tax cuts and benefits for big oil companies and the rich could dry up. I'm not enthusiastic about the prospects of living under such conditions but they may well be inevitable.
Hopefully those in power will make responsible decisions to avoid the worst case scenarios.
|
|
|
|
|
I am an early adopter. I may not have been intelligent enough to recognize bitcoin's true value. And so I dumped all of my coins back when one btc was worth $10. I don't feel like I have an unfair advantage over anyone. I'm certain there are many early adopters who thought 1 btc priced @ $50 would be bitcoin's all time high and sold everything they held. There are likely many early adopters who sold all their btc when the price hit $2,500 thinking it would not go higher.
On the surface it may seem as if early adopters have an unfair advantage but the truth is a good portion of btc and crypto's gains have come within the last 16 months and so there has been plenty of opportunity for anyone to do well in crypto if they had only been around near to a year ago. They say the grass always looks greener on the other side of the hill and that could apply to btc where everything seems to favor early adopters in hindsight. But being an early adopter doesn't guarantee someone would hold their coins long enough to reap the rewards some of them are enjoying today.
|
|
|
|
The yuan is not well established internationally yet, so as an incentive, China will offer its exporters the option to convert their yuan into gold. This will essentially result in a new source of gold demand, one not currently present in the market. That is an interesting development. The yuan isn't well established due to a lack of trust in china. There are entire ghost cities in china that are built for no reason other than to artificially inflate china's GDP numbers. Chinese regulators ban bitcoin exchanges one day and reinstate them the next. There's no reliable consistency or methodology behind the actions chinese take in regard to how they manage their finances or economy. There have always been concerns of china imploding due to the sheer amount of corruption & inefficiency exhibited by the state, which will be flexed as the size of china's middle class grows and average wages and living conditions increase. These factors lead to the yuan not being viewed as being reliable or having much value. To introduce a gold standard however, where the yuan can be exchanged for gold, could be a shrewd move on china's part. It might also be a desperation move made to counteract a lack of demand in precious metals which may be reaching a peak with the unveiling of crypto. With these types of policies implementation and details can be all important. The specific terms of exchanging yuan for gold will matter. There's a chance they could place a cap on the maximum exchange amount. And then stack a big tax on top of it. What on the surface seems like a good idea could easily turn into less than what people expected it to be. |
|
|
|
What do you think why bitcoin is the best investment than real-estate?
There are many threads covering comparisons between bitcoin and gold, btc and stock markets, etc. Real estate is a new angle not covered much, I'll try to focus on that. The primary issue with real estate is declining demand. Due to middle class to poor earners not receiving the wage hikes they would normally have, demand in real estate and housing markets is decreasing. Banks have tried to keep demand constant by lowering the standards a person must met to qualify for a home loan. Governments have tried to subsidize real estate markets to increase demand. Measures are in place to prevent demand from lowering the value of real estate in the USA. But it may be likely that demand will inevitably decrease and the prices of real estate will fall with it. On the flipside, btc is a growing and expanding market. Demand for btc and crypto are increasing. This means that it could be possible for bitcoin being worth more tomorrow than whatever its worth today. That may be one of the most glaring comparisons a person could draw between btc and real estate. |
|
|
|
|
Don't follow me on this but I have Bisping winning.
GSP might have broke mentally when he fought Johny Hendricks. Something happened to GSP after that fight where he lost his nerve and didn't want to fight anymore. I think its a long and hard road for GSP to climb back into the cage and the odds are against him.
GSP has also been a one dimensional fighter throughout his career. Either GSP jabs his way to decision wins or he takes his opponents down. That doesn't leave GSP with a lot of options if he someone shuts down the two ways he has to win fights the way Johny Hendricks did. Also I think MMA has evolved since GSP retired. Everyone has improved. GSP was always a small welterweight. There are pictures of GSP standing next to Conor McGregor and they're both close to the same size.
This my resemble and thorough and confident analysis but its really not. I could easily see GSP winning the fight.
There's an alternative analysis which says the reason GSP stepped away from MMA had to do with his former manager being awarded rights to big chunks of GSP's paychecks by a judge even though they had parted ways years ago. GSP might have quit MMA due to him not wanting his former manager to get a cut of his UFC salary. So there are a few competing theories for explaining why things happen and not everything is necessarily etched in stone.
|
|
|
|
|
With the US federal government being $20 trillion in debt, there's a question of what happens to companies like apple who hold $250 billion in dollar reserves if the state defaults on its deficit and the value of the dollar comes tumbling down.
The US stock market is tied to the value of the dollar. If the state defaults on debt and the value of the dollar plummets it could drag the US stock market down with it. The dollar losing 50% of its value could translate to the US stock market losing 50% of its own respective value.
There is a possible scenario where the US government defaults on debt. The dollar crashes, taking the stock market down with it. Everyone pulls their money out of the stock market/fiat and decides to invest in crypto instead. To a degree crypto isn't a trust based model unlike the fractional debt reserve system in place in most major nations. And so if catastrophic events occur which expose flaws in trust based systems, there could be an exodus and a major outcry for crypto based systems like bitcoin which are not trust based and do not share that flaw.
Perhaps its not difficult to imagine a scenario where crypto eventually wins out against alt systems.
|
|
|
|
|
The us dollar might devalue if the united states were the only country printing money en masse. As nearly every modern country is printing an excess supply of fiat, it may tend to cancel itself out as exchange rates tell the tale of a currencies value in relation to the currencies of other nations. The USA also is credited with having the largest economy in the world and the most expensive military. This influence in terms of economy and defense translates to the us dollar's value on an international scale. People assume the united states having money and military power will act as collateral against doomsday scenarios.
By and large the us dollar retaining value operates on a massive trust system where people have faith that the US government will make the correct decisions to avoid crashing everything. Then people have faith that banks won't steal everyone's money, that is held in trust, if that worst case scenario occurs. Everything is built on trust that those in positions of power will make responsible decisions for the good of everyone, rather than act in favor of special interests or hidden agendas. To a degree this could factor into some of the things Satoshi Nakamoto has said about trust based systems and humanity perhaps having a dire need for systems that do not operate on trust.
|
|
|
|
I don’t understand why is limited supply a stability for long terms? I mean that could actually collapse the economy of bitcoin due to the fact that in the the near future supply and demand will be needed on enormous amounts. What would the reserves will do in such cases? How they will contribute to the national needs. Limited supply greatly reduces prospects of hyperinflation/devaluation and also poor money management. For real world application the bolivar in venezuela hyperinflating, as it prints increasingly higher volumes of paper currency, might serve as an example. Venezuela's currency now worth so little shopkeepers weigh vast piles of notes instead of counting themInflation in Venezuela is expected to reach 720 per cent this year, with the largest bolívar bill now worth just five US cents on the black market. Some shopkeepers have reportedly taken to weighing rather than counting the wads of cash customers hand them, and standard-size wallets have become all but useless in the socialist South American state. Instead, many people stuff huge volumes of cash into handbags, money belts, or backpacks, in scenes analysts have said are suggestive of "runaway" inflation. In 2014, plummeting global oil prices decimated Venezuela's economy. President Nicolás Maduro responded by fixing the official exchange rate and ordering banks to print more cash, which ultimately devalued the currency further, while goods prices soared. “When they start weighing cash, it’s a sign of runaway inflation,” he said. “But Venezuelans don’t know just how bad it is because the government refuses to publish figures.” Oil makes up a staggering 95 per cent of Venezuela's exports, and accounts for a quarter of the country's economy, with oil-related revenues having historically supplied roughly half the government budget. This kind of over-reliance on a single export notoriously depresses all other industries in a country, in a phenomenon known by economists as "Dutch Disease". http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/venezuelas-currency-hyper-inflation-oil-crisis-devalued-shop-keepers-weigh-notes-a7443596.html Crypto currencies which have no limit on supply could choose to raise their cap by 5 million tomorrow, then reduce it by 10 million the next day. They could choose to adopt policies which increase the value of a currency, or do the opposite and adopt policies which devalue it. The reasons and motivations for changing the cap can be political or agenda based, or there could be no reason at all. Having a variable supply opens the door to all forms of manipulation and scams. This is why crypto coins which have limited supply are generally viewed as being more reliable and less prone to negative circumstances than coins which have no predetermined plan for handling supply. Currencies with variable supply operate heavily on trust. Currencies with limited supply greatly eliminate the trust factor from the equation. You know what you're getting which makes it easier to calculate how much something is worth and what the expected print rates will be. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
