~
But now you've given an example of gold's intrinsic value- use in jewelry. The value comes from it's intrinsic properties; not people speculating on it's value, but actual use. That's not where bitcoin's value comes from, nor NFTs. In both cases, that value comes exclusively from speculation on the future value of them, based solely on a mass assumption of future worth. To differentiate, gold as a store of value is completely arbitrary, just like bitcoin. But gold still has a demand outside of store of value (the intrinsic value of gold) and bitcoin and NFTs do not. That's the difference between bitcoin and gold and why there's no difference between bitcoin and NFTs. And this time I'm really missing your point. Didn't I show that gold is considered valuable in jewelry only because many people believe so? Now, if many people believed that possessing 1 Bitcoin was necessary for your high status, the price of BTC could rise to hundreds of thousands USD only because of that. Why? Because there are more millionaires in this world than Bitcoin max supply. Wouldn't this be an intrinsic value of Bitcoin? No, this isn't an example of arbitrary value. Being demanded for jewelry is what gives it intrinsic value. The preference of gold in jewelry over other metals could be an arbitrary consumer preference, but the preference is the driving force no matter the reason, and that gives it intrinsic value. If gold stops being preferred over another metal or just loses cachet in general, the intrinsic value would disappear. If having 1 bitcoin was actually a requirement for having high status, that might give it intrinsic value. But that's not the case and I don't see a reason it would ever be the case. The actual measurement of high status is wealth, no matter the form. But now you've given an example of gold's intrinsic value- use in jewelry.
You forgot gold is used in circuity and motherboards etc and is a better conductor than either copper or silver from the same group of the periodic table. Gold (unlike silver or copper) does not corrode so it's use in electronics is more preferred. Scrap metal recovery from circuit boards is a thing now and may not make a person rich, but is far from being cost prohibitive (and usually only involves chemicals, not power consumption - a far cry from the labour intensive cultivation of crops, harvesting and transport to market that were needed for the manufacture and sale of Tulips) Yes, another reason gold has intrinsic value, utility in industrial applications. |
|
|
|
We have transactions fees, to avoid creating tons of transactions and increase the blockchain size to a extreme amount.
Those transactions fees are sent to the next user who is the miner.
How would the economy of a coin would change if instead of sending the transaction fee to be mined, the transaction fee was frozen and 1 year after it it would be sent back to the wallet. The user wont lose that money, but still can't keep making tons and tons of transactions to spam the blockchain.
The fees are an incentive to the miners to propagate and secure the network in a decentralized manner. If you remove the profit incentive from miners by returning fees to the transactors, there essentially is no reason for anyone to spend resources on propagating the network. The result is a less robust and less secure network, and if the network can't be trusted to be secure, the price of the crypto suffers because no one is going to spend a significant amount of money on an asset that might prove open to manipulation. |
|
|
|
I think that this is not necessarily a bad thing. If they wanted to invest in crypto they could do it themselves after cashing out their MicroStrategy shares. Overall a company is a pretty bad structure to be holding long term bitcoin assets with. Lots of regulation risk & probably not the most tax efficient. I don't think it's tax- inefficient. Because it's treated as property, as long as they're buying and holding (not moving, not selling) there is no tax implication until they create a taxable event (either selling or potentially moving). The bizarre thing is that GAAP accounting rules require them to book a profit or loss on the unrealized gains (it's called mark-to-market) on a quarterly basis, but as these gains are unrealized there is no tax implication associated with them. |
|
|
|
On the flip side, the ban on btc isn't going to hurt either. China's economy is so divorced from crypto it doesn't matter at all if it's banned. Virtually the only thing that matters to hundreds of millions of Chinese is the real estate market.
The vast majority of Chinese wealth is tied into the real estate market (around 75% of wealth is directly tied to the real estate market in China). Some of this is cultural (single men are expected to own their own home before women will consider them a suitable partner for marriage), some of this is dangerously presumptive (because so much individual wealth is tied into real estate, the belief by the people is the government will never let the market crash), and some of it is dangerous speculation (because the assumption is people believe the government will support real estate prices, people buy multiple properties assuming the prices can never drop or will never be allowed to drop).
The complex reasons for the current state however put extreme pressure on the government to support the real estate market, creating a self-feeding loop that pushes prices higher and the higher prices convince more people that the investments are safe. A real estate crash in China would create wide-ranging social unrest in China, and the party knows this.
If what you have posted is true, then I am 100% sure that it is not viable in the long term. China is a rapidly ageing society and right now there is a surplus of apartment buildings. The number of vacant buildings will rise further, as the population ageing progresses. During the last 3 decades, some of this ageing used to be neutralized by younger workers from the rural areas migrating to the cities. But now the number of older people retiring and moving back to the rural regions is almost as large as the number of younger people who are moving in the other direction. I have checked the apartment prices in some of the major cities. Doesn't make any sense. They are as expensive as the apartments in Europe or the US. But the average wages are much below the level of Europe. So the vast majority of those who need them can't afford these apartments. Real estate sector calculated that the wages would grow as fast as they did in the first decade of this millennium, but that never happened. Either the apartment prices need to come down, or the government need to provide subsidies to those who need them. There are a lot of things westerners have said about China that have not proven to be true. For example, that the free aspects of the economy would make the country more democratic as the wealth it created caused people greater economic and political freedoms. This was widely expected to be the case and it hasn't proven out. So the prediction that their current system is 1) unsustainable and 2) poised to collapse are just a couple more predictions that, like the example I mentioned, seem likely but for which history has warned us against assuming to be true. The aging population bit though you are absolutely right about. And the ccp knows this, which is why you've seen new initiatives like the relaxing of the one-child policy to two-child, and then the relaxing of that to three-child, and the urging of raising larger families as a point of national pride and importance. The government is trying to get people to have more children because the economy, and therefore the party's power, depends on it. |
|
|
|
Having said all these, is this a way that the Chinese government intends to keep many countries of the world indebted to them through this debt trap, knowing fully well that most of them would falter in repaying the loan leaving the Chinese government no other option but to seize some of their assets, I see this to be amongst China's plan towards being the country with the best economy in the world in some years to come, and just as is typical with the dictatorial Chinese government, they want to be the only ones at the advantage, leaving others at the receiving end.
I just don’t get what’s their motive behind all these borrowing of money to developing countries. Seems to me like they are just trying to render these countries useless by continuing to put them in debts that they can never be able to crawl out from, which is very bad. And knowing very well that all these developing countries are filled with corrupt leaders who are only good at extorting money from the country’s wallet, there is no hope that they are going to be able to pay back all these money that they have borrowed from the Chinese government. It's about aligning them economically and politically with China, the same way the US and USSR jockeyed for influence in Europe during the cold war. Aligning other countries with either of the two competing super powers helped tip the global balance of power, and that's what China is attempting to do now. |
|
|
|
China has been playing the long game for decades, and this is just another chapter in it. They're attempting to remake the world financial order by developing the satellite economies that will be tightly aligned and reliant on China, as a counterweight to the US-dominated financial system that the US has used to its geopolitical advantage for the last hundred years.
China is just doing what the colonial powers have been doing since the mid 20th century, when the former colonies got their independence. These newly independent countries need investment and China has been able to provide that at rates and terms which are much more attractive when compared to those offered by the western countries. Americans and Europeans are complaining, just because they can't get access to the natural resources from these countries at dirt cheap rates, like they did before. Most likely because the actors in China are state-controlled and imperialism isn't really a thing in the west anymore (compared to how it used to be) and the services are profit-driven by private enterprise. China can afford to undercut them because it's not actually about profit for them, it's about exerting control on their new "satellites" and reordering the global balance of power. Western actors are driven by profit motive and won't engage in contracts that aren't profitable, so China is able to completely undercut them and win the contracts. |
|
|
|
People are overlooking the other big piece of news coming out of China now - the collapse of the biggest property company within China that has huge debts. Either one of two things is happening, or possibly a combination of both. Banning bitcoin puts a lot of news out there to distract from this massive company collapse that could ripple through the whole economy and send them into a recession. Secondly, a lot of people within authoritarian regimes are always looking to keep their money out of the hands of the central government that might confiscate it if they fall out of line or they're looking for convenient scapegoats at any time. This is an attempt to stop money fleeing the country in the simplest terms.
China is the most manipulated economy in the world and what happened to Evergrande is just the tip of the iceberg. The Chinese economy managed to attain so much growth in recent times because the investors had no option to go for anything other than the overpriced assets that were locally available. The average P/E ratios for Chinese stocks stand at 40-50, compared to 10-12 in the other markets. Real estate prices make no sense and a lot people invested in them since they had no other option. I won't be surprised if the Chinese economy undergo a massive correction sometime in the next 1-2 years. The ban on BTC is not going to help. On the flip side, the ban on btc isn't going to hurt either. China's economy is so divorced from crypto it doesn't matter at all if it's banned. Virtually the only thing that matters to hundreds of millions of Chinese is the real estate market. The vast majority of Chinese wealth is tied into the real estate market (around 75% of wealth is directly tied to the real estate market in China). Some of this is cultural (single men are expected to own their own home before women will consider them a suitable partner for marriage), some of this is dangerously presumptive (because so much individual wealth is tied into real estate, the belief by the people is the government will never let the market crash), and some of it is dangerous speculation (because the assumption is people believe the government will support real estate prices, people buy multiple properties assuming the prices can never drop or will never be allowed to drop). The complex reasons for the current state however put extreme pressure on the government to support the real estate market, creating a self-feeding loop that pushes prices higher and the higher prices convince more people that the investments are safe. A real estate crash in China would create wide-ranging social unrest in China, and the party knows this. |
|
|
|
China can, A. BRRR-print, and pump their economy with Yuan to stop the crash, OR B. Let the economy fix itself by leaving it alone, and let it be through a recession. For Bitcoin HODLers, we can, A. Relax, OR B. embrace another golden opportunity to buy the dip and HODL.  You can rest assured that ever if China is presented with two choices between letting something resolve itself or staging a huge power-grabbing intervention, they will take the latter every time. The chinese party is obsessed with control, and they've turned their society into an Owellian nightmare that is only increasing the amount of control they exert over everyday life. |
|
|
|
Arguably one of the biggest mistakes Satoshi Nakamoto made was transferring things over to Gavin Andresen, the guy who worked with agencies, than with Craig Wright, and now he writes some grim sci-fi future for Bitcoin on his blog.
This guy become so irrelevant in Bitcoin crypto space that maybe his only fun in life now is writing stuff like this, claiming Bitcoin will be worth 6 Million USD in 2061, but most transaction won't happen on BTC network but on multisignature and other network tokens.
Andresen claims that only whales, big holders, exchanges and banks will hold this tokens, and in year 2100 network will shutdown after closing down bridges for this tokens and fees becoming unsustainable.
Price predictions 40 years away are invariably worthless, as people can't accurately predict what the price will be tomorrow and the longer the time horizon the more inaccurate the price predictions are. However the logic he's using to predict the btc blockchain slowly dying is quite sound. It is abundantly evident that bitcoin has major systemic problems that are only going to become more evident as fewer newer bitcoins are produced. Fees will become exorbitant, therefore transactions will fall, therefore the mining incentive will fall, therefore miners will drop out, therefore the network will become far less secure. It will be a death spiral, and without major structural changes to how the network operates, I believe he's more right than wrong about his prediction for eventual demise. The timing element is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Money or wealth is the dream destination of many people in the world
Religion is the total believe of a group people on a particular being.
Most or everyone in the world today in which I am included believe in accumulating of wealth and making money.
More than Half of the life span of the human race is centred on making of money or wealth.
Making money legally or illegally, accumulating of wealth is the believe of most people in the world.
I stand to be corrected or cencitize
There are three fairly common definitions of "religion" and none of them fit the pursuit of wealth. 1. The belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers, regarded as creating and governing the universe.
2. A particular variety of such belief, especially when organized into a system of doctrine and practice.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 1. In the pursuit of wealth, there is no reverence of the supernatural and nothing about the pursuit of wealth speaks to beliefs about the origin of mankind or the universe. 2. There is no organized system of doctrine or practice in the pursuit of wealth. 3. There is no spiritual leader people pursuing wealth follow. Therefore, no, the pursuit of wealth is not like a "religion." |
|
|
|
There's no news that "isn't true" in this case, which is why it's not FUD. China announces that all crypto transactions are illegal, but some crypto enthusiast tweets China loves bitcoin and it's not banned. Somehow, I think the actual government has better information on what is banned and what is illegal than someone who has a vested interest in crypto not being banned. I don't know what the opposite of FUD is, but if what you say about Justin Sun is true, then he's clearly spreading it by posting things that are demonstrably not true about crypto in China.
I checked his (Justin Sun's) Twitter account and all he said is ” not to be too pessimistic.” How you want to interpret this is up to you. He is claiming that there is no ban on "cryptocurrency possession". I am not sure about this. When they are saying that all the cryptocurrency transactions are illegal, my understanding is that it includes the storage of cryptocurrency as well. The writing on the wall is clear. The regime is quite determined this time and they want to wipe out the usage of cryptocurrency in mainland China (probably also from Hong Kong, if they are able to do that). Well sure, "don't be too pessimistic" when China is clearly signalling its intentions with regards to crypto is exactly what I mean by someone spreading the "opposite of FUD." It's the same degree of wrong, just in the opposite direction. In this case, China has told everyone point-blank what is happening, and this doofus is spreading misinformation that's directly opposite of what the first-hand information sources are saying. |
|
|
|
Again, the US Government has spent more than expected and now has to borrow more to pay the bills. If this was you, this is the closest to an overdraft on your account that a country gets. The problem is that the limit has to be raised by law, and it is not simple to do so in an age of exacerbated partisanship and little wide-angle vision about the needs of the country. Incredible as it may seem, the US could actually default in its obligations. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/26/business/economy/america-debt-limit-political-game.htmlI don't think anybody credibly believes the US would default; it would usher in an instant global financial meltdown and global recession, if not depression. Default is always a theoretical possibility, but extremely unlikely given the consequences which are well known. If investors believed it was more than a remote possibility, you'd see deep waves of selling in the markets, not these piddly 2-3% drops. |
|
|
|
I think this came out a few years ago as something China has been doing quite a lot to countries (especially in Africa).
It's been seen as a potential to be a strategy for invading/controlling countries, however it might just be a line between that and keeping countries in favour of them (to do things like not impose trade sanctions on China).
China has been playing the long game for decades, and this is just another chapter in it. They're attempting to remake the world financial order by developing the satellite economies that will be tightly aligned and reliant on China, as a counterweight to the US-dominated financial system that the US has used to its geopolitical advantage for the last hundred years. |
|
|
|
China has been against the existence of cryptocurrency for the recent time making the market to ranging with cost. No matter what happens now, I believe Bitcoin and the crypto market will still surge ahead the track. Bitcoin had been having similar attacks for the past years now and these had been making the crypto market more strong every single time the market recovers.
Countries have generally not outlawed bitcoin, so not sure what you mean by bitcoin having similar types of attacks for years. China has never been bitcoin-friendly, but they've only very recently been this hostile about it. It stems from their need to make the digital yuan an integral part of the economy. They can't have a digital currency they can't control competing with it if they want a digital yuan to work, and they very much want this. They've never been friendly ever since it did exist because its never been appealing to the government about being decentralized.How much more in a country like China? On where they do really love to control things up or would really be following on what they do really have in mind.Yeah it could slump or do make out some significant effect but we know that the market could really make out some recovery sooner or later. Which does prove out that bitcoin doesnt really always tied up nor greatly affect whatever sentiments or fundamentals around. China is exerting increasing levels of control over many aspects of their society, banning bitcoin is just another example. China has also implemented strict video game bans for children, limiting them to 3 hours per week and only 1 hour per day on the weekends at a nationally set time; exerted control over tech companies, both on levels of profitability and the offering of services in the country; and continues to exert tight control over the press in the country, among many other ways they control everyday society. In short, it's a hellhole. |
|
|
|
What China is doing doesn't fit the definition of FUD. FUD is trying to bring the price down by talking negatively about it, but China is just outright banning it from the country. They don't give a damn if that makes the price go up or down because they only care about getting it out of the country because they can't have anything challenge the digital yuan. Since their actions are based on getting rid of it instead of affecting the price, it's not correct to call it FUD, which is a grossly overused term by this community as it is.
But it's still categorize as FUD if the news is not true and just make fear to the investors. We heard about china banning bitcoins multiple times for the past years, but they don't really ban it actually. Recently i just saw the tweets from justin sun said china loves bitcoin and the news of bitcoin banning in china is wrong, so this means the media are spreading the FUD. If china is really ban bitcoin then it's not FUD, but the real thing happened there. There's no news that "isn't true" in this case, which is why it's not FUD. China announces that all crypto transactions are illegal, but some crypto enthusiast tweets China loves bitcoin and it's not banned. Somehow, I think the actual government has better information on what is banned and what is illegal than someone who has a vested interest in crypto not being banned. I don't know what the opposite of FUD is, but if what you say about Justin Sun is true, then he's clearly spreading it by posting things that are demonstrably not true about crypto in China. |
|
|
|
A football team isn't technically a bitcoin treasury, but if the question is should you include them in your list of entities that are using bitcoin as part of their treasury, I think the answer is yes. Whether you actively buy bitcoin or are paid in bitcoin and make the decision not to convert to fiat, the end result of each is that you own bitcoin as an asset. I think that makes it a clear case of using bitcoin as a treasury asset as you set out in your OP. We just don't know the amount in this case because it hasn't been revealed.
|
|
|
|
I feel Almost a year has passed and this year has been the hardest year for many people. Economically, many people have lost their jobs and have no other income. In many parts of the world the situation of covid-19 infection is getting more and more serious, the death rate is increasing and more importantly, it is becoming more and more serious. should be warned against the risk of economic collapse of many countries, the consequences of covid-19 are terrible, life is deadlocked, severe lack of food. Including my family, the past year has been a terrible time. And more importantly there is no end to this crisis in sight. Even in countries with very high vaccination rates, there are reports of increasing number of new infections and deaths. One perfect example is the United States. They were among the first countries to start the vaccination drive and by now more than half of the population is fully vaccinated. Despite that, they are now reporting >2,000 new deaths from COVID every day. The same goes for many other countries which have attained higher rates of vaccination. 99% of the hospitalizations at this point are unvaccinated people in the US, so the vaccines are clearly working as intended for those who get them and the pandemic at this point is largely relegated to a crisis of people who refuse to get vaccinated. We'd be a lot further along to ending this pandemic if people quit being so stupid. There are some places in the US where hospitals are rationing healthcare because they don't have the resources to treat everyone, so the regrettable decisions by the unvaccinated are now affecting people who don't even have COVID. https://nypost.com/2021/09/08/99-percent-of-covid-19-hospitalizations-from-unvaccinated-data/ |
|
|
|
But now you've given an example of gold's intrinsic value- use in jewelry. The value comes from it's intrinsic properties; not people speculating on it's value, but actual use. That's not where bitcoin's value comes from, nor NFTs. In both cases, that value comes exclusively from speculation on the future value of them, based solely on a mass assumption of future worth. To differentiate, gold as a store of value is completely arbitrary, just like bitcoin. But gold still has a demand outside of store of value (the intrinsic value of gold) and bitcoin and NFTs do not. That's the difference between bitcoin and gold and why there's no difference between bitcoin and NFTs.
The value of bitcoin comes from the network effect and it is described in the Metcalfe’s law, as an example if you had a telephone that could only call your own number then that network is useless as you are the only member of it, but if the network has millions and millions of numbers you can call then the network becomes very valuable due to its size, this is why social networks like Facebook and others have value and it is the reason bitcoin has value as well. I don't believe this is applicable at all. Relatively no one uses bitcoin as a currency, so the network effect of a currency that no one is actually interested in using as a currency isn't applicable. Bitcoin's real-life use case (not the theoretical one as a currency) is in speculative trading, and the primary driver of that is a good economic environment so people are confident enough to gamble on a speculative asset and excess capital to do so. This is why you see bitcoin drop so harshly when there is bad macro economic news. If the value wasn't tied specifically to speculation and was indeed a function of Metcalfe's law, you wouldn't see the price correlated so closely to macro economic trends. |
|
|
|
China has been against the existence of cryptocurrency for the recent time making the market to ranging with cost. No matter what happens now, I believe Bitcoin and the crypto market will still surge ahead the track. Bitcoin had been having similar attacks for the past years now and these had been making the crypto market more strong every single time the market recovers.
Countries have generally not outlawed bitcoin, so not sure what you mean by bitcoin having similar types of attacks for years. China has never been bitcoin-friendly, but they've only very recently been this hostile about it. It stems from their need to make the digital yuan an integral part of the economy. They can't have a digital currency they can't control competing with it if they want a digital yuan to work, and they very much want this. |
|
|
|
I’m personally invested in a mix of those assets, except gold and art, and kinda heavier on bitcoin(mostly because of privacy and self-sovereignty). I’d rather diversify a bit to protect myself from all sides; simply because we’re in uncharted territory economy-wise, and we can’t say for sure how bitcoin will perform in a really bad economic situation.
I feel like we have enough data to get an idea of how it would perform in a bad economic situation- poorly. Really poorly. When the stock market was crashing in March 2020 as the pandemic shutdowns were being announced, bitcoin actually fell much faster and harder than the overall market. The vast majority of bitcoin is speculation, and speculation by nature is premised on being economically comfortable enough to take the gamble. So when times are uncertain, speculative assets get absolutely hammered as people flee to safe assets. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
