COVID has been the best thing to ever happen to Bitcoin, nearly every developed country relied on "borrowing" in order to mitigate the short term economic effects of COVID to provide relief, but at some point, you have to end up paying back the money you printed. You will see countries default and their currencies crash.
The most speculative tech stocks have risen in just about the same proportion as bitcoin since the start of the pandemic. There's been nothing inherently special about bitcoin in this regard. The money printer is raising the tide of all speculative assets at about the same rate. Also, countries don't have to pay back the money that was printed. That's kind of the whole issue with central banks. |
|
|
|
|
Why would you need insurance for crypto? The whole point of crypto is that you don't need banks to custody your assets and you don't need insurance to cover loss because you're the only one who can control it. If you're putting significant assets in crypto, you're assuming the risk you won't lose your keys.
|
|
|
|
It doesn't make sense. FUN is (or was) already a dead shitcoin without any trading volume. This is pretty much an exaggeration of your own statement. Here is the screenshot for the daily trading volume of FUN Fair on 1st November 2020 - 7th November 2020 taken from coinmarketcap. It has decent volume although it is not that much compared with other alts but atleast it is not dead [snip] You don't need a whitepaper to become a legitimate currency nowadays. You can create your own on the ETH blockchain and nobody will care if it has a whitepaper or not. I dont say anything about having whitepaper to get your own token. For me shitcoins would be coins / token that has nothing at all besides their splendid whitepaper. Thats literally what shitcoins means for me Which means it was dead. DEAD. I wasn't alive. It never was. It had no audience or whatsoever.
Its not, its struggling but atleast it is not dead. Anything with over few hundred thousand of daily volume is pretty much decent when there are tons of other dead coins in coinmarketcap's list Having trading volume doesn't mean it has utility, it just means people are speculating in it. So that doesn't mean it's not a shitcoin. Also, having a whitepaper doesn't mean it's not a shitcoin either. Since it's a vague term without a universal definition, you'll probably get variations from person to person, but I would consider a coin with no utility or no problem to solve to be a shitcoin. I.e., it doesn't need to exist, or someone just created it to enrich themselves. That's 99% of all coins on coinmarket cap. There are only a handful that wouldn't fit this definition, and I'm not exactly sure FUN is one of them. Does it need to exist? No, not really. It's not currently doing anything bitcoin doesn't already do. Faster and cheaper aren't exactly breakthroughs anymore when there are other tons of other coins that do this too. Guess we'll see if FB can grow it into anything more than what it currently is. I'm not sure yet how advantageous FUN investment could be, but it's not like 99% of altcoins in the market, because it actually offers some exclusive benefits to holders, such as free wheel daily spins and increasement in bitcoin interest income for FreeBitco.in's investors, depending on the amount you hold and on how long you are holding. So it's not a token which relies in speculation to grow. The calculation someone should do is if extra free spins and bonus interest worth the investment in FUN coin. It does have some utility because FB is using it, but still the question is why. What's it accomplish you can't do with bitcoin already? That's the crucial difference. It's like how JD used/uses CLAMS. (Dunno if they still do, haven't followed that site in a long time.) But that's another instance where CLAMS was a worthless coin, but it gained utility because it was the only coin JD would take for gambling. The use-case for the coin outside that site was virtually 0 though, and the overall question remained, why that coin specifically? It wasn't doing anything you couldn't do with bitcoin, so it was just useless differentiation. And I've done the calculations on FUN and took a pass on it because I didn't deem it a worthwhile investment, based solely on the math. Everyone has to make their own determination about that though. |
|
|
|
I am starting to believe that Satoshi created Bitcoin for what’s coming next, or might come next. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, I’m not sure about the rest of the countries, but the United Stated Federal Reserve prrrrinted inordinate amounts of U.S. Dollars to stimulate the economy, with plans to print trillions more under President Biden. All the prrrrinting and a falling GDP MIGHT be the seeds for the worst situation of an Economic Crisis. HYPERINFLATION.
Bitcoin has been criticized as a medium “for speculation”. Big test. Is it just merely “for speculation”, or an actual “safe haven”? Will Bitcoin crash together with the rest of the economy, or will everyone run to it as a Store of Value?
Considering how everyone was running away from bitcoin in March 2020 along with every other financial asset, I'd say it's not there. That was the closest thing to the big test we've had sine Bitcoin was introduced. Economic uncertainty, falling stock prices, capital flight to safety. And where did the capital flee to? Not bitcoin. Bitcoin suffered 30-40% drops from mid February 2020 to mid-March 2020 as lockdowns started and economic fear about the future was at it's highest and governments started talking about firing up the money printer. Under the theory that bitcoin is actually a safe haven, this should have sent the shares sky high, not crashing. But that's not what happened. Bitcoin has since undergone the same extreme asset appreciation we've seen in many other speculative assets like tech equities. The price growth has been about the same, with bitcoin up about 4.5x since the mid-Feb crash, the same ballpark as most speculative tech stocks which are also up 3.5x-4.5x since then. In this regard, the returns from bitcoin aren't even special, they just track a larger overall trend, yet bitcoin gets the majority of the attention because of how vocal the community is. However, objectively speaking, the conclusion is pretty clear- not a safe haven, driven by speculation still. Assuming that it is a fact that the printing of cash bills causes a great excessive inflation that is not controlled except to generate liquidity in the governments, the damage is experienced by the people who depend on this traditional economy, which will always keep them in debt, on the other hand, cryptocurrencies and bitcoin escape from any inflationary system, in the pandemic it was observed that all stock markets fell, even bitcoin suffered, but the Bitcoin market followed by gold, were the markets that recovered the fastest , The reason is simple, the economy was on the verge of a world crash, bitcoin and gold functioned as a safe haven for money, protecting value is not far-fetched in these times. This isn't true in the least. Bitcoin fell faster and harder than the stock market at the start of the pandemic, and has retraced the same shape as other speculative assets since. At no time was it functioning as a safe haven and you can't even say it is now because it's risen in the same proportion as other speculative assets. If its price movements are not unique, there is nothing to differentiate it from the other assets classes and no evidence it's being treated as a safe haven unless you're also going to argue that tech stocks are also a safe haven because they've experienced the same proportional price increase as bitcoin during the pandemic. (And that's ridiculous.) |
|
|
|
I saw this interesting tweet today.  source: https://twitter.com/Schuldensuehner/status/1361944837742874631As we can see, GOLD price is dropping the last 6 months (-10%), while Bitcoin is doing really well (-317%). Some of the gold market cap might be moving to BTC.  Would it be an interesting idea to take some profits from BTC recent gains and buy some gold? Gold is the oldest asset I know of, and it will certainly hold value over the next years to come. I am still accumulating BTC, but to accumulate some Gold is always a good idea. Nobody who wants to make money accumulates gold. Gold is only for people who have immense wealth and want to protect against the unlikely scenario where there is mass economic upheaval and you want to lose as little money as possible during it. Gold returns are inferior to just about every major asset class- real estate, the stock market, etc. Gold has returned about 75% since just before the housing crisis while the S&P has returned more than 300%. |
|
|
|
Hello just for better understanding i want to know some terms that are used in bitcoin price websites like coinmarketcap.com or coingecko.com , some of them are clear but i want to understand a little deeper with example. some terms like : - Market Cap
- Fully Diluted Market Cap
- Volume
- Trading Volume
- Market Dominance
- Circulating Supply
Thank you. Market Cap- total amount of money in one coin- for example bitcoin just hit a 1 Trillion market cap recently ( 885 Billion right now). Fully Diluted Market Cap- "Fully diluted market value is what a digital asset's market cap would be if all the coins or tokens in its total supply were issued. ... finance allocated its total supply of YFI tokens within a week, which means that its market-cap-to-FDV ratio is equal to 100%" okex.com Volume- total value of coins traded Trading Volume- this measures the total coins traded/exchanged hands for a certain period of time Market Dominance- the market cap of one coin over the total market of all coins ( example- bitcoin has market dominance over all coins) Circulating Supply- As for bitcoin, this means currently there is a circulating supply of 18.5+ million coins that have been issued, with a future total circulating supply of 21 millions coins Circulating supply should probably be broken down further. What you've described is the total amount mined so far, but that's different from the amount "circulating," which is definitely smaller. Coins are lost over time, irretrievably. And Satoshi has about 1 million coins that have never been moved and some expect may never be moved. Those aren't part of the circulating supply for any practical purposes. |
|
|
|
I saw this interesting tweet today. source: https://twitter.com/Schuldensuehner/status/1361944837742874631As we can see, GOLD price is dropping the last 6 months (-10%), while Bitcoin is doing really well (-317%). Some of the gold market cap might be moving to BTC. Would it be an interesting idea to take some profits from BTC recent gains and buy some gold? Gold is the oldest asset I know of, and it will certainly hold value over the next years to come. I am still accumulating BTC, but to accumulate some Gold is always a good idea. Gold is an inferior investment in almost every regard. It's a hedge against extreme economic upheaval, which makes it a conservative investment. The market has absolutely destroyed gold since 2008 (before the financial crisis). Since 2008, gold has returned 77% while the S&P has returned 261%. The opportunity cost of owning gold over long periods of time is very high, but you are more protected in the case of extreme volatility. |
|
|
|
I am starting to believe that Satoshi created Bitcoin for what’s coming next, or might come next. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, I’m not sure about the rest of the countries, but the United Stated Federal Reserve prrrrinted inordinate amounts of U.S. Dollars to stimulate the economy, with plans to print trillions more under President Biden. All the prrrrinting and a falling GDP MIGHT be the seeds for the worst situation of an Economic Crisis. HYPERINFLATION.
Bitcoin has been criticized as a medium “for speculation”. Big test. Is it just merely “for speculation”, or an actual “safe haven”? Will Bitcoin crash together with the rest of the economy, or will everyone run to it as a Store of Value?
Considering how everyone was running away from bitcoin in March 2020 along with every other financial asset, I'd say it's not there. That was the closest thing to the big test we've had sine Bitcoin was introduced. Economic uncertainty, falling stock prices, capital flight to safety. And where did the capital flee to? Not bitcoin. Bitcoin suffered 30-40% drops from mid February 2020 to mid-March 2020 as lockdowns started and economic fear about the future was at it's highest and governments started talking about firing up the money printer. Under the theory that bitcoin is actually a safe haven, this should have sent the shares sky high, not crashing. But that's not what happened. Bitcoin has since undergone the same extreme asset appreciation we've seen in many other speculative assets like tech equities. The price growth has been about the same, with bitcoin up about 4.5x since the mid-Feb crash, the same ballpark as most speculative tech stocks which are also up 3.5x-4.5x since then. In this regard, the returns from bitcoin aren't even special, they just track a larger overall trend, yet bitcoin gets the majority of the attention because of how vocal the community is. However, objectively speaking, the conclusion is pretty clear- not a safe haven, driven by speculation still. |
|
|
|
It doesn't make sense. FUN is (or was) already a dead shitcoin without any trading volume. This is pretty much an exaggeration of your own statement. Here is the screenshot for the daily trading volume of FUN Fair on 1st November 2020 - 7th November 2020 taken from coinmarketcap. It has decent volume although it is not that much compared with other alts but atleast it is not dead [snip] You don't need a whitepaper to become a legitimate currency nowadays. You can create your own on the ETH blockchain and nobody will care if it has a whitepaper or not. I dont say anything about having whitepaper to get your own token. For me shitcoins would be coins / token that has nothing at all besides their splendid whitepaper. Thats literally what shitcoins means for me Which means it was dead. DEAD. I wasn't alive. It never was. It had no audience or whatsoever.
Its not, its struggling but atleast it is not dead. Anything with over few hundred thousand of daily volume is pretty much decent when there are tons of other dead coins in coinmarketcap's list Having trading volume doesn't mean it has utility, it just means people are speculating in it. So that doesn't mean it's not a shitcoin. Also, having a whitepaper doesn't mean it's not a shitcoin either. Since it's a vague term without a universal definition, you'll probably get variations from person to person, but I would consider a coin with no utility or no problem to solve to be a shitcoin. I.e., it doesn't need to exist, or someone just created it to enrich themselves. That's 99% of all coins on coinmarket cap. There are only a handful that wouldn't fit this definition, and I'm not exactly sure FUN is one of them. Does it need to exist? No, not really. It's not currently doing anything bitcoin doesn't already do. Faster and cheaper aren't exactly breakthroughs anymore when there are other tons of other coins that do this too. Guess we'll see if FB can grow it into anything more than what it currently is. |
|
|
|
OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT - FreeBitco.in Has Acquired FUN Token!
Recently, we introduced the FreeBitco.in community to the FUN Token through our Premium Membership Program. Now, we're going one step further...
Wow, definitely didn't see this one coming. Gotta say that I haven't been too interested in FUN to this point because this seemed a little pumpy, but FB taking over FUN lends more weight to FB's belief in the future of the token. Definitely paints this all in a different light now. |
|
|
|
I am paying around 35% of my salary as tax, while some of my poor neighbors don't pay any tax at all. On the other hand, I am not eligible for any welfare handouts from the government, while the non-tax paying neighbors are automatically eligible. I hardly get anything in return for the taxes I pay. This is how the system works. And in the end, the welfare rats always cry that the rich are not helping them.
So if that's actually happening its good for the society I think. As long as the society is working towards bringing some kind of equilibrium between poor and the rich, I think we are moving in the right direction. Being a rich as you said you pay 35% taxes, you might feel that there should be more taxes on the poor and its being unjustified for you to pay the high taxes. On the other hand I think this does encourage the poor to relax and be even more lazier, because not every poor person is in that situation because they are unfortunate instead a lot of people are poor because they never respected the opportunities presented to them and never wanted to work hard. This is such a lazy generalization. When you can guarantee equal access to opportunities, then you can make overly broad generalizations about how poor people are poor only because they don't want to work. But only the privileged classes are so ignorant of reality to have such a misconception. |
|
|
|
JP Morgan is a company filled with idiots. I am not even joking if I was CEO or basically running it as a whole, I would do a much much better job, and I would definitely not need a board to tell me what I can do or can't do.
This isn't a way to say that I am a great investor, because I am not, I am just a "fine" one that makes not that bad amount of return yearly, and it is a small amount anyway, no, what I am trying to say here is that most of us here can do a better job than JP Morgan executives, whoever you are reading this right now, there is at least 50% chance you are better than them. Why? Because these idiots never have a problem, they take other people's money, invest with it, if they have a problem of going bankrupt they take "cash injections" or even bail outs from central bank and continue their way, there is no money they put themselves, and there is no way they could go bankrupt so they just do whatever they want and always fail but saved by the government.
Lol, yeah I'm sure some internet rando has the macro economic knowledge to run JPM better than Dimon, who's considered one of the best investment bankers of this generation and grown JPM into the largest bank in the free world. Further, JPM didn't need TARP money during the 2008 housing crisis, so your criticism about government bailouts isn't even applicable to JPM. |
|
|
|
You may want to know that Covid-19 had rather a positive effect on one hand in cryptocurrency. Aside the lost of jobs and people having to stay at home, the pandemic created a surge in demand for cryptocurrency, given the money from the air stimulus packages most countries had to embark upon was open doors for inflation. Fiat money was losing it's value here and there and people had to turn to cryptocurrency for safe haven. I can't agree with this statement. In March 2020, when the pandemic started spreading to countries outside China, there was a sharp drop in Bitcoin prices. The exchange rates plummeted from $10,000 to around $5,000-$6,000. On top of that, everyone was expecting a spike from the block reward halving in May 2020. That never happened, probably because of the economic downturn that was resulted from the pandemic. Now the current spike in Bitcoin prices is partly due to the fact that the stock markets are doing good and the economy has rebounded. Yeah, on a macro scale this just isn't true. Bitcoin was decimated just like the stock market in March 2020. It's because despite what the majority on this board believes, it is not a safe haven during times of economic upheaval and the capital flight from stocks and crypto proved this when the pandemic shutdowns were starting. |
|
|
|
 "You will own nothing and you will be happy." This is what they are planning for your future. sears, JC penney and sam's club be rendered obsolete and put out of business by emerging retailers like walmart and amazon. This illustrates fears of ruling elites. They're concerned someone new who is hungry, smart and determined will dethrone them. The way walmart and amazon dethroned sears and jc penney. Their solution is to create a system where only the rich and powerful are allowed to own and control things. When they say "you'll own nothing and you'll be happy". This could describe a future system where the status quo of rich and poor is maintained. To guarantee new inventions and emerging technology which could threaten and depose those on the top of the hill, never happen. A good example of this could be the inventor of the AK-47 who was not allowed to patent or claim credit for their invention. The USSR and state took credit and ownership of everything. That could be one possible future they envision for the rest of us. You apparently aren't aware than not only is Sam's club not out of business, but it's owned by Walmart. Sam's Club is named after Sam Walton, the founder of Walmart. The_more_you_know.jpg. The conspiracy theory doesn't really have a leg to stand on, even less so when it's coupled in a message that gets simple facts wrong. |
|
|
|
WTF are you writing? Im own Tesla card because i have 1 tesla share? Its not working like this, man. Clickbait ant nohting more
Thank you for your articulated reasoning. It indeed exactly works like this. A share is a fractional property right on everything the firm owns. Bitcoins included. If you can't control the bitcoin, it's not accurate to say you own a fraction of any bitcoins because you own shares of the company. Owning shares of a company doesn't give you a fractional right to everything the firm owns, this isn't even theoretically true let alone actually true. |
|
|
|
Another difference that has been neglected is that being a rich white asshole is not a protected class like being gay. As for the actions of the bakery and the bank, I don't agree that either actions are wrong. I don't think a business should be be forced to do business with someone they don't want to. But you have to look at who the "left wing nuts" (as you term them) and the "right wing" (apparently not nuts?) target with their actions. The "left wing" is always acting to protect classes that have historically been marginalized, and the "right wing" is always punching down against marginalized groups. So while I don't agree the bakery should have been fined, I understand the impetus to protect a class of people that has historically been marginalized and not had equal protection under the law.
OK.. let me traslate that to simple words - discriminating against "gays" is not OK, since they are a "marginalized group". On the other hand, discriminating against Trump is OK, since he is a heterosexual white man. You could have posted this in simple words rather than beating around the bush. As far as I am concerned, if discrimination is bad, then both the cases are bad. I don't give preferential treatment to any group just because they claim that are "marginalized". Being marginalized doesn't give anyone any special privileges. Law should be equal to everyone. I didn't beat around the bush, I was quite direct. And the great thing about marginalized groups is it's not dependent on your opinion. It's an objective fact. When laws discriminate against a group based on sex, nationality, sexual orientation race, etc., that's marginalization. "Laws should be equal to everyone" is exactly the point, the fact that they weren't is what made the group marginalized. Regardless, I said I support the bakery in not doing business with anyone they don't want to, the same as the bank. Hope that was simple enough words for you.  |
|
|
|
Bitcoin has no intrinsic value.
What intrinsic value did a bunch of servers running a page-ranking algorithm and a plain webpage with a single input had until it started to be used by people. The value of bitcoin is its network effect, being permissionless and unmatched record. That is not something you can simply recreate. Are you referring to Google? Cuz that's a bad comparison. Google's intrinsic value is the cash the business generates. Bitcoin isn't a business that generates cash, it's value is entirely dependent on outside sources (what people believe it's worth). That's the exact definition of not having intrinsic value. I agree with you that the value of bitcoin is in the network effect, but that doesn't change where value comes from. Because there is no cash generation, value comes exclusively from external sources. Don't confuse people agreeing to ever and ever higher value with intrinsic value, because the source of that value is still extrinsic. To differentiate with Google, people could all agree that Google's business is worth $0 and everybody agrees that because it's worth $0 not to buy the stock for any amount of money, however because the business would still generate cashflow for the owners, that is the intrinsic value because it's not dependent on outside forces or everybody's consensus about value. Bitcoin doesn't have that, it's only worth what a large group of people agree it's worth. |
|
|
|
No...he won't be.
His plans involve increasing the tax rate and expanding on Obamacare, which Trump should have repealed honestly. It also includes 1.9 trillion dollars in COVID spending which is overall bad for the economy if you pay attention to inflation rates.
You might consider his 15 dollar minimum wage catastrophic for the economy too. Big corps will do well, because all politicians are in the pockets of large companies, but the small businesses end up getting the short end of the stick.
Considering republicans cut taxes primarily for the wealthy and ballooned the deficit to over a trillion dollars per year before the pandemic, this sounds like a great idea. You're not wealthy enough to have your taxes go up under the Biden plan, in fact the vast vast majority of Americans aren't, so there's actually very little reason not to repeal the tax cuts on the wealthy the nation already couldn't afford. trump couldn't get the ACA repealed because Americans don't want it repealed. Having a pandemic resulting in mass unemployment and millions of people losing health insurance has only demonstrated to the public how stupid having life-sustaining access to healthcare being tied to employment is. America is the only major western nation to live in the stone age like this. |
|
|
|
Like all things science and health related, trump's opinion on bitcoin shouldn't be taken seriously. Economics in general are a weakness for him (e.g., tariff wars are easy to win, or I'll pay off the national debt before I leave office). He just says things without the slightest inkling of meaningful thought. He's not gonna move bitcoin; he's no Elon.
I would disagree with your observation. Trump received more than 70 million votes during the 2020 POTUS elections. He is perhaps the most popular GOP presidential candidate to this date. With such a huge support base, he can do wonders to Bitcoin and any potential impact would be much larger than what Elon Musk had. And I don't want to argue much about economy. But you can't ignore the fact that the stock market jumped by 70% under his presidency. And this happened despite the pandemic. He knew what he was doing, and the evidence is there. At least his approach was much more logical and sensible compared to the one from Biden, who is busy increasing the taxes left, right and center. The stock market is not and never has been a good indicator of economic growth. When you look at actually growth in the economy, Trump was below average and nothing special.  Also, Biden hasn't been in office long enough to change taxes. I'm afraid your maga side is showing through. That is not the full picture. The GDP growth during Trump's term was seriously impacted as a result of the COVID 19 pandemic (but it is still noteworthy that it ended up in positive). As you have mentioned, the annual GDP growth during Obama's term was 1.6% and during the term of GW Bush it was 2.2%. But in 2017 (Trump's first year at office), the GDP growth was +2.4%, which is much higher than what Bush and Obama managed. In 2018, this went up to 2.9%, slowing down to 2.2% in 2019. Everyone were expecting more than 2% growth in 2020, but the COVID pandemic destroyed those expectations. What you have done is distorting data and that is not going to work. Yeah, there's always an excuse for the trump crowd. Now you want to strip out the effects of covid and only count the good years, but don't want to strip out the effects of the financial crisis from Obama and Bush? And if you strip out the one-time negative effects, you have to strip out the one-time positive effects, like the temporary boost to GDP due to the tax cut and the boost to businesses racing to get ahead of the tariff war he started. Be consistent. If we look at only the best quarters, trump loses there too, beaten by Obama and Bush who had much higher quarterly numbers: Skeptics noted that the numbers may have been bolstered by a temporary surge from the tax cut passed at the end of last year, and by farmers buying soybeans to get ahead of Trump's tariffs.
While Trump has taken a victory lap over the significant growth, he raised the bar with his prediction of 5 percent growth. Such a figure is not unprecedented, but is uncommon.
The economy expanded at a rate of 5.2 percent during the the third quarter of 2014 under former President Obama. Prior to that, it had not topped 5 percent since the early 2000s.
Interestingly enough, trump himself promised 5% economic growth, numbers reached by both Obama and Bush and never by trump. No matter what way you slice it, he was never as good for the economy as he duped you into believing. |
|
|
|
It is if you wait long enough, I wouldn't put too much effort into it but just as a page that loads on browser open is hardly a big ask. If we went back to 2016 era it might be that the faucet payout was 1000 satoshi or even double that or more and that's now half a dollar. We didn't know but its pretty much the same for all of crypto that it doesn't add up to much at first. Take the faucet and gamble it on slim odds the event nobody thinks will occur but might, then nothing is lost but maybe a gain; depends how people want to play it. People lack imagination and patience to wait, I think the site now with event bets is far broader interest.
If you look at it that way you could have go back to first days of freebitcoin where you could have made maybe 1 bitcoin in a year if you worked for it, and 50k dollars for a years' work is more than enough for most people, not just third world countries neither, we are talking about the biggest and richest nations in the world, if you live in USA, UK, Germany, France etc etc those places are still fine and great for 50k a year. But, the point is you would be doing it 5-6 years ago when bitcoin was unknown, and of course the price went up when it became more known, but the same amount of increase can't happen now, we are talking about bitcoin at under 100-200 dollars and now it is 50k, that is 250 times the increase and for that to happen again we would need the 50k to become 12.5 million dollars per bitcoin and let's be honest that is not going to happen anytime soon, not in this decade at least. Nah, this is grossly overstated. I've been on this site since 2013 I think it was. My UID is in the low 100,000s, so definitely very early compared to most users. I'v also been an above average user activity-wise. At no point in the 7 years of usage have total earnings neared 1 btc, let alone per year. The only you'd even have a shot at that is to have thousands of referrals, and there's probably a very small handful of people in that boat. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
