Ну на счет ста лет, это ты погорячился

И да, я в курсе, когда была создана ФРС – в 2013 (зачеркнуто) 1913 году. Вот только баксу в его нынешнем виде, т.е. фактически той самой системе, построенной на долге, меньше 50 лет. Условным ее началом можно считать 1971 год, когда доллар потерял свое золотое обеспечение


Вообще-то сначала рынки падают, а потом уже Федрезерв заливает ликвидность. И здесь падение рынков –это всего лишь следствие, а не причина. Другими словами, если рынки сами по себе рухнут, то это отнюдь не значит, что туда польется денежный поток. И никто деньги на рынки напрямую не заливает, разумеется

For the inquiring minds, SatoshiDice was the first cryptocurrency online casino ever

However, I wouldn't call dice simple from a developer's point of view. I don't mean just the technical side obviously, i.e. implementing rolls and counting odds, but rather the bankroll management of the game, given its typically low house edge. The bankroll management seems to be the most important thing once the casino kicks off for real. And it looks like Wolf.bet handles their bankroll quite good as otherwise they wouldn't have lasted that long, even though you can't harness their most distinguishing feature, which is flashbet, to secure a steady cash flow into your account with an actually working martingale strategy (I already explained why)


That's the whole point about the proper bankroll management

This is not what this topic is about

But if you want to offer your services (provided I got you right), you should start a similar topic in this board. There are a few such services, so just look around and follow their example. Another way is to contact potential clients directly, either here or elsewhere. Put simply, you should carefully build your client base and have your name registered in their minds. That's what advertising and marketing are for

Well, that's not how "stableness" of USDT is defined

It should be stable with respect to its underlying asset, that is to say, the American dollar. It is a stablecoin whose value is pegged to the dollar, and as long as this peg is maintained, it is rightfully considered stable regardless of how much the dollar itself depreciates. Therefore, you can't say that USDT will be losing "value" along with the dollar. Fundamentally, you are implicitly trying to redefine the idea of a stablecoin but that only destroys it

Bitcoin is the safe haven for the poor

And if things massively go awry in the way you mean it, Bitcoin, as a speculative asset, will likely crash monumentally. I somewhat agree with Warren Buffet who says that there's no value in Bitcoin. What I disagree with, though, is his understanding of value. Basically, he sticks to a narrow definition of it, i.e. something which can create new value (for example, a car manufacturer). However, if something allows redistribution of existing value in one way or another, this capacity can also have value of its own, especially if you can leverage it

A foolish man complains about a hole in his pocket, a wise man uses it to scratch his balls

I mostly agree with this

But you should certainly remember the second half of 1970s when the dollar had been losing like 20% of its purchasing power every year, year in and year out. I don't know if this counts as inflating, but these rates can be felt pretty well by the general public unlike mild inflation around 2-3% annually, which goes mostly unnoticed. Further, who could have foreseen only a year ago what 2020 would pit us against? And what if we are not done yet, as some claim?

That's not set in stone at all

As there are lots of offsetting factors at play here. I guess we can safely assume that the dollar has been more or less on the decline all these years, I mean, during the era of cryptocurrencies, i.e. the last 10 years. And so what? Bitcoin rose to 20k, then collapsed to 3k, then collapsed again to 4k from 9k half a year ago. The obvious conclusion is that these other factors have much more influence on Bitcoin price that the dollar depreciation. It is also a factor indeed, but I wouldn't rely on it too much as it can be easily overridden and ultimately completely negated by more powerful factors

DAI is not the only pebble on the decentralized stablecoins beach

For example, there's EOSDT which seems more decentralized even though it follows the DAI collateralization model (as far as I know). But the question is (actually, two questions), can we have it any other way and is this the reason why we can't call them decentralized? BitShares employs a self-collateralized model, and I can't even imagine that you would ever call it decentralized. However, if we proceed with this assumption in mind, that no decentralized stablecoin is truly decentralized, then what is?

Из старой гвардии можно отметить, например, доги

Я про них писал еще два года назад, меня тогда насмех подняли. Как всегда, оказалось, что смех без причины – признак дурачины (зачеркнуто) хорошо смеется тот, кто смеется последним. Напишу в очередной раз, что доги нашли свое место в онлайн-казино и никуда из него уже не денутся. Еще добавлю, что это, наверное, единственный альткоин, ценник которого больше привязан к доллару, чем к биткоину, что, впрочем, и следует ожидать

There are effects of the second order as well, which we shouldn't discard

And their effect (pardon the pun) can be more powerful than that of the first order, in this case, the direct impact of the digital yuan on the Chinese economy. It can become stronger if its new currency will be able to edge out the American dollar a little from the global trade. This we should pay close attention to

So, while it is certainly true that the new currency is unlikely to effect a massive change as long as it stays within the Great Wall, this is not the whole picture. Moreover, this need not necessarily be how the Chinese commies themselves view their digital currency and its mission, whatever they might say aloud to the contrary if they say anything at all

Справедливости ради, это далеко не так

Ну или далеко не всегда так. Тот же эфир вырос более чем в два раза к доллару за какие-то пару месяцев (а к битку раза в полтора), в то время как сам биток прибавил дай бог если дюжину процентов за тот же период, и только потом стал догонять (и обгонять). По причины мне рассказывать не надо – сам знаю. Но факт остается неизменным – не все альты одинаково полезны (зачеркнуто) бесполезны

I'm curious if you seriously believe this stuff

I mean, best friends forever and that kind of thing? Seriously? Tyson was kinda friends with Lennox too when they were juniors, and what do you think it ended up with? So-called "friendship" didn't prevent him from biting (again) Lennox at the press conference in 2002 before Lewis beat the shit out of him

Tyson is the same old Mike we always knew and even liked, in a way, though he is a little rusty now. Regardless, I think he should be looking in the UFC corner this time around instead of selling us some pee-wee boxing bullshit if he wants to put up a good show and draw in some handsome money

You are talking about a different matter (aka "non sequitur")

Whether it is the worst thing or otherwise, inflation may help debtors as it devalues money and debts denominated in that money. In a more general sense, we can turn inflation in our favor because sometimes two evils or two minuses (debt plus inflation, in this case) can produce a good or a plus. Though I agree that it is not like everyone and his grandma can ride inflation to their advantage, through debt or other means

So Holyfield backed out from his similarly hyped fight with Mike, right?

That's what I expected since Evander is no one's fool as you wouldn't really believe Tyson's words that he is a different person now (and neither is Holyfield, for the record). So Mike found another victim, not quite of his league but still. What's next or rather who's next once Jones wisely bows out at the last moment? Is he going to fight Floyd Mayweather then or what?

I'm not sure about the number of "offline" casinos growing up

In these times of continual lockdowns and quarantines it is hard to expect the number of regular casinos to rise. Rather, we are going to see many of them shutting down. Online casinos, however, are certainly to see a boost, and this is kinda inevitable as the number of gamblers remains more or less the same, no matter the circumstances. Even in the case of an all-out war or some other global disaster, there would be enough gamblers sticking around and ready to roll. Let's call them career gamblers

That depends on your definition of DeFi

Do stablecoins count as DeFi? Pretty much, if you ask me. Does decentralized trading count as DeFi? Same as well. But there is value behind these endeavors even if there is some hype in it too. There are probably other fields of DeFi that have substance after all. It is like calling all cryptocurrencies shitcoins and ICOs scams, which is not correct. Even if true for the most part. Time will separate the good from the bad as it always happened in the past


I meant decentralized stablecoins, obviously

I'm not very good at push-ups or pull-ups, but when it comes to fuck-ups...

Well, some clarifications seem invited

First of all, inflation is generally useful for people living on credit. I'm personally aware of a few cases when a sudden, unexpected surge in inflation rates helped people to pay back their debts with cheaper money. Indeed, it is not always the case, but in general inflation is good for borrowers and bad for lenders, especially the type which can't be easily envisaged in advance and still more so for long-term loans

Then, rich people profit from inflation not so much because their wealth is in solid, inflation-resistant assets (as this can be equally true for simple people too) but mostly because they are the first to receive the money before it starts to lose value. Simple people, on the other hand, are the last to get their hands on the newly printed shekels and thus unwillingly become the target of inflation and have to bear all the nasty consequences of it

It doesn't actually make any sense

Okay, people are hurting Mother Nature. But our impact is incomparable to global disasters of entirely natural origin like a supervolcano erupting and freezing Earth for enough years to kill 99% of existing species (think Yellowstone). And I'm not even speaking about dangers of an asteroid smashing Earth to pieces. Ironically, in this vein humans can be considered a safety net or insurance for Earth as we won't let that happen even if right now we can't do much. In other words, the price paid is definitely worth it by any prudent investor's measure (read, such rhetoric is typical environmentalist bullshit)