Are you aware that there are a lot of central banks that said that they are working on stablecoins?
So, what are you going to say about the central banks’ stablecoins? Cryptocurrency exchanges are not banks, they are just exchanges and they are even relying on banks to do their Businesses, they are just businesses and can’t be doing the work of banks, they won’t be the one holding their business money and holding your money as well, nah all those money goes to the bank.
So, why are you saying that banks will be no more? If it’s going to be a death battle you already know that crypto exchanges especially the centralized ones are more likely to lose the battle.
Banks will never be closed and become extinct but exchanges might do. Majority of the people still prefer to put their savings in traditional banks rather than trusting in new and unsecured crypto exchanges. Crypto exchanges might give fast and more convenient services but we all know that they are more prone to hacks and scams and knowing its decentralized, no one is responsible to answer the damages. This is the reason why people still feel more secured doing banking transactions. There's a reason regulations on banking and traditional exchanges exist. It's not just government deciding to insert themselves in unnecessarily. Each banking regulation was designed to cure a problem that caused risk to the system and to create accountability for bad or negligent actors. There's no reason to trust an unregulated crypto exchange for the same reason. We've seen enough of them go under to know that they're plagued by more problems than unregulated banks are. |
|
|
|
summary of post: sorry for fud, here's all the fud
No, the USA dollar is not on the verge of collapse and war is not inevitable. The Fed is more concerned with a total lack of inflation than inflation running above 2%. In fact, the Fed has announced its goal over the long term is to have average inflation of 2%, and since inflation has been running below that for so long, it will necessarily have to run above that in order to reach the goal of having inflation average 2%. If the dollar was in any trouble, inflation would be minimum double digits, and even then it wouldn't be extremely dangerous unless it was high double digits. |
|
|
|
It's unbelievable how MSTR has performed since this thread started at the beginning of August:  Admittedly, the stock market is on a tear in general, but I'd say the market either likes MSTR in general or their decision to buy up all that bitcoin. it's clearly because of their investment in bitcoin. the nasdaq top 100 is up 15% since microstrategy first announced their bitcoin position. MSTR is up a whopping 160% in comparison! it's like night and day. it sure looks like stock investors are using MSTR as a channel for bitcoin investment exposure. It's not even necessarily because they believe in bitcoin themselves, it's just the arbitrage that the market demands. The balance sheet assets (because of bitcoin singularly) have ballooned significantly, which will cause the price of the stock to rise necessarily because the book value rises as the value of assets increases. The stock price appreciation is an indication that investors see "money on the table." Doubtless some portion of these investors are likely btc bulls, but I wouldn't guess that they're investing in MSTR for their bitcoin exposure. For one, if you just want exposure to btc, it dilutes the value of the btc exposure by investing in a business that could potentially drag the performance down (counter-point, investing in a business that generates cashflow and isn't based solely on speculation hedges risk), and secondly, gaining exposure through a medium you can't control puts you at risk that the company books profit when you wouldn't. If you wanted btc exposure, it's very easy to get it yourself, without dilution and without a potential loss of control. For these reasons, I view the price appreciation of the company stock as primarily a case of arbitrage (i.e., the stock price rises to match the rise in book value), not as people trying to get exposure to bitcoin. |
|
|
|
James Todaro head researcher of Tradeblock is correct when he is mentioned that after the halving the price may increase around $12k to $15k which we are currently experiencing now. In fact, for some reasons which I'm not really sure we were able to go beyond it. Most likely because the price appreciation has very little to do with the halvings at this point and are about the level of institutional adoption. People keep trying to force the explanation onto the halving because the halving is predictable and people want to believe that they can profit off of it because of that. In reality, the price appreciation is caused by the level of adoption, which is not predictable. Looking forward to May 12, 2021, where Bitcoin's price will pump to $387,000 I'm hesitant to claim that this will come true though global adoption is faster than what we are expecting but still a lot of factors or obstacles that may hinder us to achieve this prediction. Optimism is fine until it's ridiculous. Whoever's taking bets, I'm coming in hard on the under on this one. If bitcoin is at even 1/10th of this on May 12, 2021, I'll be extremely surprised. |
|
|
|
There is some misunderstanding going on in the cryptocurrency sphere ever since the day Paypal announced the integration of Paypal and the last time I checked most of the crypto done on Paypal was operated by another crypto company but people seems to believe every positive trend posed by the market was the role of paypal whereas Paypal was not among the holding big amount of Bitcoin.That's because people misunderstand what is going on. PayPal isn't buying bitcoin, PayPal's users are. The bitcoin treasuries site tracks companies that buy and hold bitcoin for themselves as company assets. When you buy through a service like Coinbase, Cashapp, or payPal, that doesn't apply as they're not owned by those companies but by those company's users. |
|
|
|
i found something interesting: likely if we will open all world now then the currency might be hyperinflated.
So we cant open economics full around the world if we do that the fiat currencies will be like zimbawen dollars in one month.
This doesn't make any sense and you haven't presented any source for people to independently assess whatever materials you came across. It sounds like whatever you read was from a crackpot conspiracy theorist or you grossly misunderstood whatever was being discussed, because there's no reason that opening the economy would cause hyperinflation. If nothing else, it would bring back economic activity to help support all the fiat currency that has been created during the pandemic. Hyperinflation is possible, but not because the economy is opened up. |
|
|
|
|
Inflation is necessary. Money is just a representation of value and a medium of exchange for unlike goods/services. At any given time, the value of money is how much goods/services there are in the world available for consumption right at that time divided by how much money there is in the world at that time. If you grow a bushel of apples and sell it at market, you receive money for that. But once those apples are consumed or spoiled, they're no longer available for consumption, so why would you expect the money that was related to their production to continue to have any value? It makes sense that over time, the money that represents consumable goods to be inflated away because they're no longer available for consumption.
|
|
|
|
(snip)
Now that there is already a vaccine , could it be the end of covid- 19 virus? How are you after one year of covid-19 pandemic?
There is a saying," Behind the Clouds the Sun is still Shining".
There is a long way to go before the vaccine has reached enough people to make a difference, probably 6-12 months in the most easily-reached populations and longer for those that aren't easily vaccinated. On top of that, we don't know yet if the vaccine will give us lasting immunity or if populations will continue to be vulnerable to variations of the virus like the flu every year where despite vaccines, mutations in the flu virus still infect millions of people every year. Bottom line is we're not close to returning to normal life like pre-covid. |
|
|
|
If by chance bitcoin hits $20k before the end of the year, I predict you'll have another sharp fall like last time, because just like last time, this is nothing more than momentum chasing and people FOMOing into bitcoin. This type of price appreciation is not sustainable, and once confidence falters, it falls a lot faster than it rises. (That's not a bitcoin thing specifically, all assets follow this same rule This time may be different from the last time If we assume that the 2017 highs happened because of Bitfinex relentlessly pumping Bitcoin via unbridled issuance of new tethers (we don't know that for certain but still), today's prices have very little in common with 2017 prices, apart from being nominally the same In other words, it is entirely different forces that are at work these days and pushing the market up now. Consequently, we can't reasonably expect the price to crash after reaching 20k because it crashed in 2017. It is not impossible per se, of course, but if it will, it will crash for other reasons I don't attribute it to that at all. I see the same circumstances now that I saw in 2017. It's anecdotal, but when you have people who aren't into finance and don't understand crypto asking your opinion on whether they should buy bitcoin because the price has gone up so much, that's a sign that you're in bubble territory. It appears to just be momentum seekers FOMOing into an asset they don't know anything about and won't have the stomach to hold for long periods of time. Whether that proves out I suppose we'll see, but that's my view on it. |
|
|
|
...
if only based on claims, the vaccine has not been approved... Just as the news of this epidemic is said to be just a 'fraud', and maybe as well as likely unilateral claims made by many drug companies, their main goal is only to increase the value of shares. I welcome this news but also remain skeptical. If they were announcing that their vaccine was effective when it wasn't, it wouldn't be long until we figured it out and the stock price would be absolutely decimated for the fact that they were dishonest about it, so there's absolutely no upside to lying. No drug company is going to risk saying they have an effective vaccine when they don't. |
|
|
|
The difference between an open society and an authoritarian one like China is that an open society like a democracy removes their leaders peacefully through elections when they're bad shepherds of the economy. It's part of the social contract. That doesn't exist in China. The only way to remove the leaders is through violent revolution, so the stakes are much higher for them personally.
Well.. it is a bit complicated. How can you define an open society. Take the example of Vladimir Putin. He has been the president of Russia, for the last two decades. His opponents would say that he is an authoritarian ruler. But his supporters would like to paint him as a democratically elected politician. Also, we can't ignore the fact that the "open society" forms the biggest supporter base of the most authoritarian dictators (Mohammed bin Salman for example). It's really not complicated. Russia is not an open society. Saudi Arabia is not an open society. Any society where you can be jailed for opposing the government is not an open society. That's kind of the most basic test. China, not an open society. All of these countries are authoritarian. If Trump had his way, America would be just like them. And what's truly frightening is how many Americans support Trump despite his every attempt to subvert America's democratic institutions at every turn. |
|
|
|
No widespread adoption is exactly what makes it a bad currency. It makes it a young currency, not a bad one. Bitcoin is slower than every current electronic payment (credit card, ACH, wire transfers are accepted in seconds vs. 10-60 minutes for bitcoin) I can broadcast a bitcoin or a credit card transaction instantly. After 10-60 minutes, I can no longer reverse a bitcoin transaction, whereas I can reverse a credit card transactin for up to 180 days depending on the provider. The recipient can spend the bitcoin instantly without waiting for a confirmation if they choose, whereas it will take several days for the credit card company to pay them the fiat they are owed. lower fees is a big nope for credit card and ACH. Credit card transactions cost 2-3% in fees, which could be hundreds or dollars. Bitcoin transactions cost a few cents. People using bitcoin for actual commerce are the vast minority of people involved in bitcoin. Glad you find use in it as a currency. I'm not expecting that to go mainstream any time soon.
And yet, if nobody used it as a currency then it would have zero value and nobody would be speculating on the price. Using it as a currency drives adoption, and adoption drives price increases. It doesn't matter why there isn't widespread adoption, the fact that it isn't there makes it a bad currency. You are probably of the opinion that will change. I'm undecided, but the fact remains that while there isn't widespread adoption, it's a poor currency because the use-case is extremely limited. Immutability doesn't make something instant. You can't reverse credit card transactions without cause. There are enough safeguards in place that people who attempt to abuse that system won't be able to very long, and as the middleman, the credit card company takes on the liability of being in the gray area. Payment reversals are not so prevalent that bitcoin becomes a superior payment method because of it. I've never paid a transaction fee for using a credit card or ACH. Assuming that bitcoin transactions only cost "a few cents" (which in the vast majority of cases is not true), zero is still less than that. We've seen plenty of evidence to disprove your last point. Bitcoin is overwhelmingly not used for commerce and yet there is immense interest in it as an asset class. These things are definitely not related in this case. There is a not insignificant number of people who FOMO buy it at this point cuz they want those sweet moon gains. (Or so they've heard.) |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
I would say as long as you beat the index you are doing decent enough and there is nothing else you should look at. Almost all hedge funds and other places that people invest for a bigger return than regular savings interest rate, usually makes about 10 to 15 percent return, some make as much as 20 but those are good ones. Sure there has been some wildly successful and huge return places but they are usually not sustainable with those returns.
So two things, A) Check what the s&p 500 did or whatever index you are trading in, if you outperformed that it means you did very well, and B) check if you made over 10% return, that is the base in most cases for a "good" return, it is not shocking or anything but 10% return is lowest point for being good in stock market world, under that and you are not really that good.
Statistically, the vast majority of hedge funds fail to beat the market at large, and the ones that do for a stretch can be attributed to luck. There are very few hedge funds that have a track record of beating the market consistently over long stretches of time, and the fees hedge funds charge to manage assets are exorbitant considering the mass under performance. |
|
|
|
With the recent covid, it has greatly affected economies around the world so that the role of the government is highly expected by the community for the sake of welfare and in fulfilling their daily needs because of the limitations in interacting it becomes difficult to create income and they tend to be confused when it all applies for a long time.
In the US, most of the metro area hospitals are now at capacity and the rural hospitals are over-capacity. There are make-shift morgues in parking lots where they're storing bodies in refrigerated trucks. For how bad things are, there is still a significant portion of the population that refuses to heed medical advice on masks and social distancing. God forbid people can't go out to bars and get trashed. |
|
|
|
But this covid vaccasines is not for ever so at some point demand Will end.... The USA need new thing then what the whole world will need from them? Oil might not be since OPEC use euro and Russian rubles currency! USA is exporting more food and beverages than they do oil and the world is changing as we will be migrating to cleaner energy in the near future and we might not need oil in the next 10 to 20 years as all the vehicles will be migrating to electric and we will use much lesser oil. Another big selling point is their aircraft manufacturing sector as well as the weapons sector and then the Pharmaceutical industry. Experts say the future will be in gas-powered vehicles. Gas engines are more environmentally friendly and the combustion of gas produces fewer harmful substances to the atmosphere. In colder climates, battery life is greatly reduced and therefore requires expensive equipment to recharge vehicles. Now in the world electric cars are less than 1%, but what will happen when the number increases to 20-30%? I'm not convinced of this at all, and I'm invested in a company that produces LNG and CNG for vehicles, so I would love for natural gas to have a bigger future for vehicles. Unfortunately, I just don't see it happening. The future will be electric. There is almost no market for passenger cars to use natural gas. The future is electric for sure. Natural gas is cheaper and cleaner than diesel, and just about the only types of vehicles that use it are heavy duty trucks. Due to battery range limitations, this may be the only advantage it has over electricity for trucking, but if we get big advancements in battery range this will be a big a big threat to the only place that natural gas is currently used. |
|
|
|
As it's very well said, never tell some method is not good enough unless you have another better than it to replace the same. Same goes with Modern Monetary Theory, which states you can print as much as you want if you are sovereign country and keep inflation in check you will never face issues. The problem is when inflation reaches double digit, stopping it becomes very difficult.
So what is the alternative which could be used or what are the possible modification or combination which can be used along side MMT?
MMT has never really been tested and is a controversial model because it violates the consensus on how economies work on a macro level, and there is some pretty compelling evidence that MMT doesn't work. Zimbabwe, the Wiemar Republic, Venezuela. If MMT was a foolproof as proponents think, these countries wouldn't have been hit with hyperinflation. |
|
|
|
And when someone complains about bitcoin's energy consumption, it can be argued that energy consumption is as low as possible, and if bitcoin didn't exist all that energy would be wasted in less productive ways, since any industry other than bitcoin mining is less energy efficient!
I don't think this bit is true. If Bitcoin didn't exist, the energy wouldn't be used for something else, there would just be less energy consumed and less energy generated as a result of the decrease in demand. Whether or not you buy the argument that generating bitcoin is a waste of energy is one thing. But there would definitely be less energy consumed without bitcoin. |
|
|
|
At this point grayscale is not using bitcoin as a cash reserve but more like an investment. It shows the world that they are not afraid of buying at 16k neither, when they first bought it at 10k people were saying "of course they would, it went up 50%+ so they made a good decision to buy early" but these guys are buying even at the 3 year all time high as well, ever since early 2018 we haven't seen anything above 15k ever and right now we are at 16k and they are still buying as much as they can.
This is not just cash reserve type of situation, this is literally putting all your money into crypto and I feel like they are going to reach to a point where they will be biggest bitcoin owners in the entire world, since we don't know satoshi and no idea how much Craig Wright has, grayscale could be known biggest in the market.
Grayscale isn't using bitcoin for anything. Grayscale holds bitcoin for investors. Grayscale does not (to my knowledge) hold any bitcoin itself. Drawing any conclusions about how good Grayscale thinks Bitcoin is an investment based on how much Bitcoin they're holdings is erroneous because it starts from a false premise that they bought the Bitcoin themselves, which they haven't. Grayscale holds bitcoin for institutional investors, and charges a ridiculous fee for it. |
|
|
|
While this is outdated data, the US is now the largest oil producer in the world. The shutdown will very greatly affect US employment numbers, as a ton of jobs have been created through the new energy boom, and this has ripple effects of creating more jobs around that industry that further ripples throughout the economy. A loss of jobs in the single biggest employment gainer will have far-reaching consequences for employment numbers in unrelated industries even. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
