Sounds like another Swedish experiment. In general, they love to experiment with the population. But in general, I think this will be a good experience and new knowledge, on the basis of which one can draw appropriate conclusions about the use of cryptocurrencies by the population. Again, I repeat, everything is heading towards the popularization of cryptocurrencies, there is no getting away from this. The price of cryptocurrencies will rise, and the cryptocurrencies themselves will be used in many areas of our daily life.
The Nordic countries in general are fond of social and economic experiments. I thought Sweden also tried universal basic income, but it turns out it was their neighbor Finland. Even though they didn't expand it after a two year pilot program, at least they're trying innovative things that have the potential to make a difference. In the United States, you couldn't get a program like this even on a trial basis to study the effects because republicans would foam at the mouth and soil themselves with rage because something something socialism. |
|
|
|
There is no signs that Bitcoin will slow down! The risk/ratio reward telling that If the loans are cheap with low% its good to invest in risk assets like Gold btc and even property. Even better If you can do day trading swing or intra day even you make just 1-3% daily. If you have job and income and money to borrow its cheap now its not bad at all  This is a surefire way to get yourself in financial trouble. There's no such thing as a sure bet, and people thinking there is is what gets them into trouble. Thinking they've found a sure bet and then taking out a loan to chase their "sure bet" compounds the risk and the potential trouble even faster. Remember: having zero dollars isn't what causes bankruptcies for individuals or businesses, having debts they can't pay is the cause. |
|
|
|
If you have a few bitcoins, or a large amount of bitcoins, of course you will not get fake wealth anymore, but you are really rich. The bitcoin price currently hitting $ 19,000 is a fantastic price. all that happens is that you have an invisible asset. real not fake
The dollars in your bank account are (for the most part) invisible as well, so I don't see much a difference here. There are not nearly as many physical dollars in existence as there is electronic dollars in the system, so either way you're relying on faith that what you consider to be a valuable asset that others will as well and accept it as a barter exchange, whether it's bitcoin or dollars. With bitcoin though, it's not completely invisible as you can transfer the value in the ledger to others who can accept that as payment. |
|
|
|
All payments for this campaign should be processed no later then <24 hrs from this post And there will be a bonus Has there been additional delays from this post? It's been more than 5 weeks since a payment in this campaign. |
|
|
|
Real problems with inflation will be after several years. This money printing will be punished
While I agree with this sentiment in theory, we've been hearing this since QE started more than 10 years ago and we have not seen the rampant inflation that was promised as a result, and there's been more than enough time for it to manifest by now. I do think that taking runaway inflation as an inevitable given at this point is more folly than it was previously considering the repeated failure of the doom-sayers who were everywhere after the housing collapse. |
|
|
|
Honestly, I hope Microstrategy completes these leveraged buys and then BTC immediately crashes 40%.  That's the kind of test this guy needs. Everything is hunky-dory while the market is trending up. Let's see what happens to that exuberance, and how MSTR's shareholders feel, when Bitcoin brutally shakes the trees as it historically always has and people begin to question his price predictions. From the perspective of spectacle, this would be would be fascinating to see his demeanor and the tone of his messaging through such an ordeal, especially one that persists for a stretch of time. I would also be interested to see the MSTR investor response seeing as how 1) they have very little recourse with so little control of the company, and 2) I would say that the risks of investing in MSTR stock have been adequately disclosed to them through SEC filings at this point that nobody buying MSTR has a reasonable basis to say they weren't aware of the risk bitcoin volatility played in the stock valuation. I don't think that an actionable claim could be established as long as they continue to disclose those risks prominently, although I do think that a shareholder lawsuit would present enough trouble to the company that settling would be the most likely result rather than trying to litigate it out. But on this second point, this is far, FAR from the reality at this point. It would take a hard crash that persists for several quarters that really drags on the stocks value before this ever enters the realm of possibility. Maybe Michael Saylor sees this as a challenge. He might be thinking that because he was the one to start all this then he needs to be leading the one and only company which is going crazy about bitcoin.
Honestly, I do not know if he is a sort of dictator who is surrounded by yes men but the amount of power that requires doing what he is doing must be very high.
One day he will be either recognized as somebody who made MSTR super wealthy or a fool. I do not think there can be a middle ground.
There is no need to be a dictator when you own almost all the CLASS B shares that gives you 10X the voting power.  When you own the 67% of the voting rights in the firm, you can basically do whatever you want. Lol, I would posit that owning 67% of the voting rights of the firm and having the ability to do whatever you want is exactly the definition of a dictator. Whether or not you think he's a benevolent dictator is another matter, but still a dictator by definition.  |
|
|
|
The following chart shows the volatility in the price of a bitcoin since the beginning. Each point shows the coefficient of variation for the year surrounding that date. Note that it is beginning to rise again as the price has shot up to a new high, but the overall trend is clear -- the volatility in the price of a bitcoin is falling.  The coefficient of variation is a measure of volatility. It is the standard deviation relative to the average. Edit: Fixed the graphI think this is the law of large numbers coming into effect. There are a couple ways this factors in. 1) the amount of holders is now much larger than it was last time bitcoin was at these levels, and so with bitcoin be spread around a larger number of actors, the current whales have less ability to move the price as much as the whales of the past have had. 2) With the market cap materially higher at the current price levels than the market cap the last time the price was at these same levels, it takes a lot more money to materially move the price. So again, we see the ability of whales to move the price in a dramatic fashion to be diminished. Both of these factors reduce price volatility overall. |
|
|
|
So such situations should not increase the price of "classic" cryptocurrencies in principle. After all, States do not create their own analogues of BTC or ETH, but they move from one process of money turnover to another.
When you stopped using cash because you carry a card with you everywhere , it definitely doesn't mean that you started using some completely different money, you just started using a different exchange process.
I also do not think that digital state currencies will compete with cryptocurrencies simply because there are completely different areas of application and the principle of distribution and control. A complete transfer from cash is more good than bad, if only because it is convenient. But you can’t say that digital currencies will somehow directly affect cryptocurrencies
I think one difference is that certainly the control aspect. Sweden's blockchain-backed digital currency would still be centrally controlled, vs. bitcoin's decentralized system. I think the pluses and benefits of that are well-known and so I won't belabor them now again. Another aspect to consider here, as you allude to, is that modern western economies are already largely digital. We've had electronic payments in some form for decades already, and they are not the predominant means of commerce in these economies. Would a blockchain-based system represent an improvement over the current digital system we already have given that both systems would still be centrally-controlled? I have my doubts about that, but perhaps that is part of the study Sweden is pursing for the next year will look at. |
|
|
|
As we enter the digital realm due to the effects of COVID-19, the process of central banks phasing out physical cash from existence might take place soon. Before the outbreak, we've been accustomed in using credit/debit cards and contactless payments greatly eliminating the need for physical cash. Now that we're in a "COVID Era", things have accelerated quite a bit. Banks and governments are in talks of adopting CBDCs which could completely eliminate the need to pay for things with physical cash. Now the real question is, how long will it take banks to start the transition from physical to digital cash (CBDC)? Do you think that physical cash will still be used right after governments adopt CBDCs in their entirety? Or will it take decades before every single person in the world stops transacting with physical cash, paving the way for a full-fledged cashless society? Your input will be greatly appreciated. Sweden is currently looking at the possibility of moving to a digital currency (announced just recently) with an analysis they expect to be ready by November 2022. Their central bank already runs a pilot program to introduce an electronic krona based on blockchain. I don't think it would be too hard to implement these days. The vast majority of money in the US is already digital. Far more digital fiat exists than physical at this point, so in some regards we've been moving to a digital currency for decades already, ever since electronic payments started. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-11/sweden-explores-the-feasibility-of-moving-to-a-digital-currency |
|
|
|
Hahahahaha
I agree with a lot of what you were saying jaysabi, and I was about to send you a merit for outlining the situation like that, until you started beating up upon so called "bitcoin maximalists."
I don't know that I'm "beating up on them" unless identifying their motivation to believe what they believe is beating up on them. If you disagree, say why. I note that you only seemed to disagree but didn't say what in my assessment made it wrong in your opinion. I'll hear it out. I already said what I was going to say.. it was my response, and I believe that I backed it up or explained myself sufficiently. You do not need to agree (and of course, it appears that you do not). I'm just trying to square what the maximalists say vs. what their actions would show if they were true believers. Because if you were convinced that bitcoin was going to make you rich, like guaranteed rich, and it was only a matter of time, you would want to be buying as much as you can at as low of a price as you can.
Not necessarily. The future is based on a series of probabilities, and also individuals have cashflow concerns as well. Sure some people might be able to lump sum invest, but others are better able to manage their investments by figuring out their individual circumstances and then dollar cost averaging and attempting to reach their investment target with the passage of time - and hopefully as their wealth (or net worth) increases. That would require NOT spreading the gospel to keep the price as low as possible for as long as possible.
Maybe, maybe not. People have all kinds of ways of communicating their own strategies and their beliefs. But that's not what they're doing, so then I try to figure out why they're evangelizing if it's against their own economic interests if they're such true believers, and the conclusion I've reached is the one I already stated.
Your further explanation sounds more crazy than your earlier post. i was all with you on the overall theory until you got into specifics. Perhaps I find that you are trying to lump too many people into some kind of similar category. It's not about being right, it's about convincing others they're right because that's the only thing that sustains or increases the price. I see the same behavior and motivations with short sellers. Being "right" about their bet isn't the point, what causes price movements is other people agreeing they're right. That does not mean to say that I think bitcoin holders are in a desperate situation, as you characterized my point, so let me dispel that notion. I'm only making a comment on motivation and likening it what I see in other (non-bitcoin) markets, because no matter the medium (bitcoin, stocks, etc.), economic motivation dictates actions.
There is some truth in what you are saying, but still seems like you are trying to take one angle too far when price is affected by a multitude of factors, including some of the ones that you are pointing out. I don't feel that I need to say anything more than what I have already said on this particular topic... at least not at this point. It's nearly impossible to have a spirited discussion with you because it's never clear you're understanding my point you're responding to (which could entirely be my fault for expressing it horribly!) but also because your responses are so vague and abstract that further response wouldn't be intelligible. For example, You: "Maybe, maybe not. People have all kinds of ways of communicating their owns strategies and their beliefs." I know what this means generally, but how does this respond specifically to the very specific point I'm raising to which you are responding? That being, that if you think Bitcoin is going to the moon, how does having it go to the moon NOW benefit you in the long term when keeping the price as low as possible so you can buy as much as possible over time would ultimately result in you having far more money in the future? This specifically is what I'm talking about when I say that the "evangelists" are working against their own economic interests if they actually believe what they say. Earlier mass adoption = higher prices sooner = less bitcoin you could have bought at cheaper prices = less future money for you. This is a very specific premise I've raised, so how is the vague response you answered with even addressing the premise? Without a specific example to illustrate your counterpoint, it looks like you're just dismissing it without a basis for it. I don't mean to be rude, I just can't have a conversation about such vague ideas when it's clear we're both talking past each other. |
|
|
|
US Wholesale prices are up just 0.1% in November, 0.3% in October and 0.4% in September, trending towards deceleration over this period. Overall, wholesale prices are up just 0.8% from a year ago, which is far below the Fed's target annual inflation rate of 2% and despite the unprecedented amount of money creation during the pandemic. The core inflation rate, which excludes volatile food and energy costs as a means of measuring attempting to more accurately measure the inflation rate that isn't subject to short term volatility, is up 1.4% in the past 12 months. (It seems the more volatile segments of are weighing down overall inflation currently.) Source: https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/US-wholesale-prices-up-0-1-in-November-food-and-15794160.php |
|
|
|
Sweden's government will start exploring the feasibility of having the country move to a digital currency. The country expects the review to be completed by the end of November 2022. Sweden is among the first countries in the world to consider introducing a digital currency, where it's central bank already runs a pilot project to introduce an electronica krona based on blockchain technology. Before everyone starts circlejerking all over how great this is for bitcoin, you should recognize that such a system would be a competitor to bitcoin, not necessarily enhancing bitcoin value. It's built on the promise of digital currencies and blockchain generally, not bitcoin specifically, though bitcoin has demonstrated the use-case invariably. I don't know that it would bring any tangible benefit to bitcoin specifically, but I think it would bring further legitimacy to digital currencies as a whole, of which bitcoin could potentially be a beneficiary in some capacity, though how much specifically would be hard to gauge. Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-11/sweden-explores-the-feasibility-of-moving-to-a-digital-currency |
|
|
|
Another day, another institutional buying: MassMutual Joins the Bitcoin Club With $100 Million Purchase
Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. bought $100 million of bitcoin for its general investment account, the latest sign of mainstream acceptance for the upstart digital currency.
The investment is a tiny one for the Springfield, Mass.-based insurance company whose general investment account totaled nearly $235 billion as of Sept. 30.
If a 170 years old institution buys 0.04% of his assets in Bitcoin I can’t see how any other institutional cannot have 2% of their total asset on Bitcoin.Lol, easily, because just because a small minority of people are doing something doesn't mean that everyone else should also go do what they're doing, especially when it involves specialized knowledge, which I would consider bitcoin to require. Most successful businesses are successful because they stick to what they know, and it's not reasonable to expect other people to go out and gain specialized knowledge just because some people are making money with it, especially when it's not germane to what they do naturally. For example, my neighbor has made a very significant amount of money buying and trading baseball cards and has a collection that is a significant portion of his net worth, but that doesn't mean that everyone else on my block is eager or even thinks it's a good idea to go out and start buying a ton of baseball cards. None of us have the knowledge for doing that successfully and we'd lose a lot of money if we tried. |
|
|
|
This is typical agency jobs. Such models will likely increase cost for customers but can be really beneficial if the company is specialized in the business to serve and make things more convenient/easy/safe for customers.
Pro: convenience/ease of having the agency companies meet customer's specific needs and such companies would normally help customers meet important requirements (esp in legal areas) to have secure deal.
Con would be paying agency fee and getting poor services
Any time you have a company increasing costs for the end consumer, that just creates an opportunity for someone to come in and underbid you. These middlemen aren't necessary in the example provided, so if all they're doing is facilitating as between two groups as a service, that presents a market opportunity for one of their vendors to move up the chain and offer those services without the cost of the middlemen. Jeff Bezos is famous for saying: "your profit margin is my opportunity," meaning if you're making a profit off something, Amazon is willing to make less profit doing the same thing in order to steal market share. Middlemen are the very definition of trimmable fat. |
|
|
|
I figured we'd be almost back to normal life by now, but in the US at least it looks like everyone is freaking out even more about COVID-19. There have been several local businesses that have closed for days--and for unknown reasons. Masks are starting to be enforced in stores, and people are getting really salty.
back to normal!! It is true.. In my country, COVID-19 is not even feared anymore, many people even say "does Covid-19 exist?". Many citizens are no longer wearing masks and government enforcement of health protocols is loosening.. This description makes it sound like a hellhole, but about half the United States fits this description. Imagine running out of hospital beds in the richest, most technologically advanced nation in the world and still having a significant portion of people and politicians attempting to downplay the severity of the pandemic. Sometimes I'm sure that America doesn't deserve first-world status and it's because of things like this. |
|
|
|
Many people are always telling btc will die. But look btc is still standing strong. Everything has its end. But I think btc will stay in the crypto world for a long time.
For the years I am here, I am not new to reading these kinds of topics or threads. Scam or Ponzi, they can call whatever they wanted to, they didn't know they are wrong. With a strong community that would take advantage of every drop or dump that would happen, I don't think it would even die. The value might fall but it will just come right back up. If we do try to count on the threads that been saying about bitcoin is going to die or doesnt really last then those negative thinkers had probably changed up their mind or sentiments towards bitcoin specially that it had proven out for a decade already when it comes to market recovery on a certain period of time.It might not be guaranteed to last forever but we can presume that it will surely stay. Let those people do think and say all of the things they do want because later on they would realize that they are believing on the wrong thing. Adoption is on the move and its hard not to believe that it would really be progressing out even more on future years to come thats why when we do talk about for it to die then its hard to believe on and let adoption grow and strong all over on upcoming years. Hope I can upvote this. I know that it is been a long time since we are seeing this kind of price movement and the other thing is that as you've said, adoption is on the move and we will be seeing a lot of them next year, I hope so. Instead of thinking about how will it die, we people should brace ourselves to what may happen next year. It is the nature of large companies, institutions, and technologies to be upended and replaced. Remember Sears, the now-failed retail giant? It may shock you to realize just how big that company used to be. Back when they came up with the revolutionary innovation of ordering through a catalog through the mail, they accounted for $100m in sales at a time when the entire US GDP was only $36.5 billion (the year was 1914). A company that large and important, you'd have though it was unsinkable and would last forever (everyone at the time certainly thought so). If you go back and look at the list of Fortune 500 companies from 1955 compared to 60 years later in 2015, only 12% of those companies still existed ( https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/fortune-500-firms-in-1955-vs-2015-only-12-remain-thanks-to-the-creative-destruction-that-fuels-economic-growth/). Will Amazon last forever? The odds are against it. Will bitcoin last forever? The odds are against it. |
|
|
|
Hahahahaha
I agree with a lot of what you were saying jaysabi, and I was about to send you a merit for outlining the situation like that, until you started beating up upon so called "bitcoin maximalists."
I don't know that I'm "beating up on them" unless identifying their motivation to believe what they believe is beating up on them. If you disagree, say why. I note that you only seemed to disagree but didn't say what in my assessment made it wrong in your opinion. I'll hear it out. I'm just trying to square what the maximalists say vs. what their actions would show if they were true believers. Because if you were convinced that bitcoin was going to make you rich, like guaranteed rich, and it was only a matter of time, you would want to be buying as much as you can at as low of a price as you can. That would require NOT spreading the gospel to keep the price as low as possible for as long as possible. But that's not what they're doing, so then I try to figure out why they're evangelizing if it's against their own economic interests if they're such true believers, and the conclusion I've reached is the one I already stated. It's not about being right, it's about convincing others they're right because that's the only thing that sustains or increases the price. I see the same behavior and motivations with short sellers. Being "right" about their bet isn't the point, what causes price movements is other people agreeing they're right. That does not mean to say that I think bitcoin holders are in a desperate situation, as you characterized my point, so let me dispel that notion. I'm only making a comment on motivation and likening it what I see in other (non-bitcoin) markets, because no matter the medium (bitcoin, stocks, etc.), economic motivation dictates actions. |
|
|
|
The deciding factor will be what actual law makers do to it. ICO bros thought they were magically exempt from that boring old law stuff because 'it's on the internet' and then the last few years have been spent slowly hunting them down and mopping them up. It seems regulators are already catching up. According to this thread from Brian Armstrong, there are rumors of new Fincen regulations in the works that could force KYC on Defi counterparties. https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/1331744884856741888This could also make WBTC or stablecoins much harder to use, and could affect regular medium of exchange use cases. I'm not looking forward to seeing what comes out of this. I would expect anyone attempting to be in the finance space to be required to abide by current finance regulations, including KYC and AML. If this renders stuff like defi untenable, that's not a big loss in my book. From this twitter thread, points like this: Finally, many recipients (in the U.S. or abroad) who value their financial privacy, may simply not want to upload more identifying documents to various companies, which could be hacked or stolen. don't really sway me. Yeah, a lot of people would value privacy in all manner of their financial lives, but you're not allowed to open a bank account anonymously for some pretty good reasons. A decentralized system just isn't compatible with our society because there are too many bad people doing too many bad things, and this would be far worse without accountability. |
|
|
|
I start questioning MicroStrategy nature here. What are they? A software company or a bitcoin hedge fund? I never saw anyone issuing debt to buy...their treasury asset.
They are leaning more towards the later at this point. I was actually very speculative about their intentions from the beginning; it would have been difficult to hold bitcoins for at least hundred years and remain only a holder even though they already had a good investor base. Also Saylor has dedicated his social handles to discuss Bitcoin and its fundamentals, very little else is talked about in relation to MSTR, so it makes sense to switch into hedge fund or add it as a branch of the company, while creating competition for Grayscale. It's however still pretty early to judge with certainty the direction the company is going, looking in from outside. It make sense to be a bitcoin hedge fund, but let’s make it clear for all your stakeholders.
I would assume stakeholders and board members have a say in some of these decisions and would probably be aware of the long term plans of the company. The company is entirely controlled by Saylor. Board can't even check him, he can appoint anyone to the board on account of his control of voting shares, so he's naturally only appointed yes-men. If you're buying in, you're buying into Saylor's leadership specifically. Investing in MicroStrategy in order to invest in Bitcoin seems dumb. If you want to invest in bitcoin, just invest in bitcoin. The more middlemen you put between you and bitcoin the more things can go wrong. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not about sending money fast or cheap, but about sending it freely: Immutability, censorship-resistance, and permissionless.
All "fast" blockchains are just centralized and slower than visa. If you don't care about decentralization and just want to make fast transfers, you should use Visa.
A lot of the early use-case for bitcoin was absolutely that it was fast and cheap. I remember because I was constantly arguing with those people that bitcoin was neither faster nor cheaper than centralized transfer methods. The only "improvement," as you pointed out, is the immutability of transactions. But I put that in quotes because I don't really consider that to be an improvement. Bottom line is that Bitcoin is pretty trash as a currency, I'm not decided on it's future as a long-term store of value but it's certainly a lot brighter there than as a currency. The problem lies only with the foundation of Bitcoin, since there is no one to manage it, so it cannot be upgraded. But also because no one is managing it, it is the type of asset being held by many large financial funds. In general, it's quite similar to gold, and it makes sense to be expensive to exchange. So don't complain about BTC, there is a reason for whatever happens. We should pay attention to the value of Bitcoin instead of criticizing its technology. It's decentralized, but there is certainly somewhat of a centralized group trying to manage it ( somewhat). Remember the consensus wars a few years ago when they wanted to change the code to increase the block size? It tore the community apart and spawned a bunch of competing bitcoin chains. There were the coders and the "leaders" who came down on both sides, trying to convince everyone what was needed for bitcoin to continue to grow, or warning what would happen if their particular vision wasn't followed. Bitcoin can be changed through consensus. It can be "upgraded" through consensus. Not trying to improve it is pretty stupid when a clear weakness is identified. Systems that don't change to accommodate market desires invariably die. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
