|
Recently read a post/opinion of one analyst, which seams pretty interesting. Curious about what the Community here thinks about that.
BELOW IS THE TRANSLATED POST
Why financiers would never invest in bitcoin or in any other asset at all, including much less risky assets.
For that you have to understand that financiers are in the business of financing and investors are in the business of investing.
- The bank's instrument is a spread between how much money they acquired and for how much and for how long they sold that money to others.
- The tool of the investor is a profitable asset.
The above are completely different kinds of business, what is often forgotten. For the bank (I'll call it so broadly everyone and all businesses who work with money) in the first place is security, namely shifting the risk of funding on someone else's shoulders. In this case, on the shoulders of investors who get the money to work, but pledge the asset to the bank at a discount. The bank's risk is minimal, because LTV (loan-to-value) could be 65 or 50%, i.e. the money is given less than the market price of the collateral. All the risks are borne by the investor, and the bank finances them safely (for itself). In that sense, neither the Bank of New York, nor the Maker DAO, much less NEXO is any different. The business is to take money for the longest possible period, immobilize (make it unmovable) it as much as possible, and lend the same money at a discount to the risk. All risk is shifted to the borrower who decides to buy something as an asset. The investor is left with the asset but no money. The bank uses the money to make more money, including by refinancing the asset further to get even more money. Think of the resale of mortgage bonds through CDOs and other variations of repeatedly selling the same asset or risk on it. Who is safer in this process should be obvious.
That is the nature of the financial business. Banks and financial institutions are in the money business, investors are in the asset business. For a bank or financier, investing in an asset is dead money, in jargon, it's just not their business. For the money business, the most important thing is turnover, money velocity, not return on the asset. The bank is looking for yield, the investor is looking for ROI. What's more, you need to attract as much money as possible to immobilize it for the one who gave it to the bank, in order to get the maximum turnover of the liability. The bank simply shifts the risk of ownership and the market value of the asset to the investor. And it makes money regardless of whether the asset rises or falls in value. What cannot be said about a typical buy & hold investor.
Once I saw a table of institutional investors in Bitcoin as a proof that "institutionals are coming now and we will prosper now". Financiers will prosper indeed, but not all investors, because investing is still a zero sum game. The market is not in the business of creating added value, but of redistributing money among its participants. Some investors will lose money 100%, you have to understand that. But the financiers will never. The infamous Grayscale earns 2% on trust assets, but owns nothing itself. Galaxy Digital probably didn't take a performance fee when it was making 70% loss, but it took a management fee anyways which all investors were paying them.
Everyone is screaming that institutional players came into the Bitcoin now. Who came are the few players who could push a new asset to the investors, even though to the low quality ones, while they themselves will be sitting on commissions and transactional revenues. You must agree there's a big difference between the two businesses. Institutional investors are not gods pooping butterflies and rainbow-coloured unicorns. Many of them sit on unprofitable assets for many many years. Just look at the return statistics of most hedge funds. Especially it's interesting to look not at annualised returns, but at specific years (YoY). They also got enough idiots there too, who are driven by the banal greed in addition to diversification. Here you can pump a flat price out of nowhere, and get the absolute income higher. And you don't have to invest anything in the asset itself, - it's too risky! And the risk, as we remember, is what financiers pass on to others. That's their business. If it looks like a duck, walks and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.
END OF THE POST
|
|
|
|
Over the past 20 years, China has made a significant breakthrough in economic development! I am sure that China will be able to overtake the U.S. economy... By the way, one of the theories about COVID is that it emerged just to influence the Chinese economy...
Well it could, but unfortunately or fortunately we are not in the position to know about that for sure, therefore we only can speculate on conspiracies about the origin and reason for COVID emergence. |
|
|
|
I believe there is a time for us to earn millions in that way, especially if we can learn many lessons from Google or other sources. If you use paid groups, you should spend some amounts+use the other amounts to starts follow their suggestion, which I am sure that will not small. Imagine if we can use that all of that money for trading by ourselves while we learn trading lessons, maybe we can make a profit, and that can help us to improve our skills too.
Yes, that was exactly my point about the paid groups. |
|
|
|
@OP, what exactly is your intention behind asking this? Is it that you expect us to tell you whether BTC is for the fake rich or not? Or are you trying hard to prove whether it's already in the possession of such people who are solely wanting nothing but a number which multiplies every single minute, hour, day, week, etc. I know that it's not good to see BTC so high because it feels like we missed the train, or lost an opportunity, and now crying. But it's also true that we had a chance earlier, so crying now makes no sense at all. Same will be the case in future.
The intention was only to see people's opinion, nothing more than that. And I was happy to see and hear from all of you what you think about the analogy which I presented. But speaking of the "missed train" thing, I am sure after 5-10 years we will come here again, and many people will say that they also missed the train on BTC when it costed $30k, because by that time it might cost $100k or more. There are always chances and multiple falls and also ups of the exchange rate price of bitcoin for someone a reason to cry, and for someone a chance for wealth. The current rise in the price of bitcoin may lead to a strong correction again, because previous history has already shown us similar examples. About the fake rich. Such characters will always find a way to show their status, but to say that bitcoin is designed for this is stupid. Bitcoin is above that. At the bitcoin is a much more popular target for the application and purpose.
Well we have no way to know the true motivation of the creator(s) of BTC. People frequently say/write one thing, but have an opposite or hidden intention which we all will never know. Apart from that, BTC could be or could not be designed for that, now is being misused based on what we commonly believe is true from what we read about Bitcoin - that's something many others agreed about here too. |
|
|
|
I don't think I can define myself in this 1% because I don't earn a lot  just enough to pay the rent and some extra expenses, but I always return my investment and I can work comfortably from home.  My advice is to study a very small number of the alt's in the top 25 and then decide how much to invest, diversifying the portfolio. Buying at a minimum and waiting to sell are the two great secrets If you already can cover your life expenses with trading profits thats already a great achievement! Most of the people who trade even for a long time cannot do even that. So congratulations to you! The trader who maintains profitable after so many years are those consistent traders that lost their money, earns money, and learning every single day when trading. Trading is not an easy job to do especially when you don't have enough courage to start and risk your money. When you start trading just because your friend is trading, I'm sure you're going to lose a lot of money.
The key for a successful trading is to study first the basics, so you'll have your foundation, and then apply what you've learned using small entries only to see if it's effective or not. If the results is good, then try to increase your bet, that's how it works.
True, but many people will lose their all available-for-trading capital once they enter for the first time to try it out  |
|
|
|
In fact this topic is my one of the favourite, therefore will address several points mentioned here, as I lived in all 3 places mentioned (USA, China (incl. HK), and Russia), and have well knowledgeable friends from all these places. FYI, I am not Chinese, if that's something you might think about.The COVID19 has proven that the Chinese medical system is more resilient, and strong government control can take more directed and faster actions as opposed to the ones in USA which we can say more "decentralized" if you wish from the perspective that there are "checks and balances" on each stage of medical system. In Russia on the contrary it's way worse than in the U.S., I personally have married friends who were diagnosed with COVID19 and while they were in quarantine at home, their spouses (who obviously live together), didn't need to take any tests, and could easily go out from home for shopping, and afterwards were even taking some classes in large groups. But in China, even if 1 person was suspected to have COVID-like symptoms, the entire living complex would be blocked and isolated, and literally everyone would be tested and quarantined. As a result, China re-emerged from the virus faster and better than others. However, the CCP understands very well that it's disadvantageous in terms of BioTech innovation as compared to the U.S., therefore, if you have been in China recently and spoke with business community you will know that government is flooding the sector with billions of dollars and they decided to make Wuhan - the med centre of the country. Now in China you can clearly identify: Beijing as the political centre, Shanghai as the centre of international business, Shenzhen as the centre of tech (software & hardware) innovation, Guangzhou as the centre of trade, Hong Kong as the financial centre, and now it will be Wuhan for life sciences and pharma. You may like it or not, but CCP will do what it promised, because of million factors that are out of the scope of current discussion, but unlike in Russia where government is also has it's major disadvantages (including corruption), in China, having the same problems, the politicians and CCP has #1 priority - political and economic stability and wellbeing of the nation and country. Not of any single individual, businessman or minority community, but society, nation and country overall! That leads to patriotism which is not there in the USA overall (everyone got own opinion and will complain about the country's problems), and economic power which is not there in Russia (since politicians prioritise personal wellbeing over nation's). Understanding the above, China not only launches new targeted subsidies and foreign talent acquisition programs, and Chinese from abroad repatriation schemes, but many other reforms which people who don't follow the Chinese-Chinese news (but only Chinese from Western perspective / or Chinese financed by Western) will not know. So to conclude that part, China is surely developing super fast and many even don't notice that. But China is not yet #1 and it will take years to achieve that, and CCP understands pretty well their own problems, such as shadow banking (solving), p2p scams (solved), tech monopolies (solving), lack of true innovation but rather copy/buyout the western tech & improve (solving). Part of them hinder growth, part of them make China de-facto not able to overtake the U.S. position. But as you hear from news they are solving those part by part. However, as was correctly mentioned - there are other, more "fundamental" issues (about minorities, different ethnic groups, etc.) and yes they do pose big risks if exploited correctly by external powers. But that's unlikely to happen in the near future, because the USSR experience was studied well and taken into consideration. Same with Russia's chances for splitting, unlike the current Chinese leadership which puts its own interests first and above all, Russian leadership puts personal stability and interests first, and therefore has a strong power and motivation to silence and control those who pose external and uncontrolled risks to the power, therefore will not allow externalities to split the country. But if economic situation doesn't change - there might be other risks emerging very quickly internally. Besides, when Putin leaves (it will happen eventually) there might be left a huge power vacuum, which might blow the country from inside by the fight of elites, oligarchs and political opposition. Considering the point mentioned earlier by the forum member that Chinese like to manipulate in their order, well yes and of course - isn't that reasonable? Just like USA manipulates everything towards its own favour, and even international conflicts, just like Russia does so, so will China too. Only stupid country won't do that, no? Therefore China finances as much as possible of foreign sales markets with its own debt. It's like buying iPhone on credit - you take financing from the company to buy iPhone from Apple, and then you get the phone, but gonna repay the debt eventually. That's the soft power - lend to other nations who are happy to take that money, and if they repay debts - earn, if they don't (and most of them won't) - you dictate your own rules there. To summarize, my opinion is that in order to evaluate the future potential success of any country, you need to assess it among 4 core dimensions only: 1) economic power, 2) military power, 3) international political power, 4) innovation. Note that most of them cannot be evaluated by 1 single metric (GDP, or R&D spending for example), but you need to consider many related and sub-measures. USA: 1) economic power: #1, but that's under question for the future 2) military power: #1, army is indeed is the best and most advanced, but not so patriotic though 3) international political power: #1, as no conflict or international matter gets decided without USA 4) innovation: #1, both from commercial perspective and from state-level China: 1) economic power: #2, but increasing, and now average Chinese from 1st tier city who was born in that city is way more rich than average American (Russia is not even considered here ) 2) military power: #3, and strongly dependent of foreign technology which CCP doesn't have solution to, yet (at least not disclosed / discussed publicly) 3) international political power: #4-5, as China doesn't get itself into every single conflict, but in 2019-2020 that's changing 4) innovation: top10 at best, which CCP tries to solve with big money being thrown here and there, but I personally believe only money will not solve it, as that's more about education, culture, etc (and you can't have great innovation which comes from diversity, and great stability and patriotism, all at the same time) Russia: 1) economic power: top20, which is hardly imaginable to be changed any time soon, as Russia had good chances in 2000-2002, but... we know where we are now 2) military power: #2, as it indeed produces most advanced weapons and both China has to rely on it, and EU+USA have to deal with it by accelerating own spending, expanding budgets, etc. (in fact if gov would spend more on social wellbeing than on military, maybe it could be more stable and start growing too) 3) international political power: #3-4, which is achievable only due to its military power, otherwise nobody would take Russia seriously 4) innovation: not even top20, if speaking from the broad perspective, as even the Skolkovo project failed and all Russians are laughing about it (because the administrators as always just steal the budgets and "invest" in related companies which then get bankrupt (analogy with DeFis now which are hacked  )) In addition to the above, more numbers shared by one author (who is pro-Russian, yet seams to be objective): Food for thoughts: In 2020, the shares of the leaders changed as follows:1. In world GDP (in terms of purchasing power parity) almost unchanged: roughly, 15% for the U.S. and 20% for China (for reference, Russia, about 3%) 2. In R&D spending:U.S. 25% (-0.2%), China 23.2% (+0.7%) (for reference, Russia 2.7% (0%)) 3. In terms of the number of Nature Index first-state scientific authors:Although the U.S. is still in the lead, China's ranking since 2012 has increased from 24% to 67% of the U.S. ranking (for reference - Russia has 4.9% of the U.S.) 4. By the number of Unicorn startups (worth more than $1 billion):Although the share of unicorns in China (24%) is still half the share of the U.S. (48%), it is much higher than the share of third place India (5%) (for reference - Russia in 2020 has 0.6%, while previously there was a stable 0) 5. The share in the top 100 largest companies in the world:Although the numbers change every quarter here, the U.S. remains the undisputed leader, with 54-58 places in the Top 100. China has 12-14 places (for reference - so far Russia has stable 0 places in the first hundred) From these figures we can conclude: - China's technological dreams in 2020 are coming true, but they will have to work hard to win this "Olympics" with the U.S. in 2030. - Russia is left to follow the advice of its President, derived from a Chinese proverb - "imagine itself a clever monkey watching from a slide to see how the tiger fight in the valley will end" |
|
|
|
As was noted by @posi on another thread here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5300112.0, we are answering certain points here in order not to disturb other people with advertisements of self-promotion which they don't intend to see. Besides it might be useful for others, therefore, hope this helps  Etoro is one of the reputable exchange and it will hard for people to believe you. If thats you truly plan to offer it really a good idea but I have once went through your site but I dont anything that explained as part of your activities and what I saw is you guys to be the first OTC cryptocurrency derivatives marketplace which allow the creation of new instrument. However, it not easy to trust new exchange with anonymous team lolthat offer all that you said.
First of all I really want to thank you from myself personally, from the name of our CEO and from the entire team! We really appreciate that you took time to go through our website and check information about us. Secondly, this question has been asked before on our ANN page, and we disclosed part of the team on the 2nd page (here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5293103.20). And thirdly, you are absolutely right, and we all understand very well your argument - all the new exchanges that emerged recently either luck liquidity, so once you enter, you cannot get out, or simply scams to steal your deposit, or sell you useless tokens. I will address this part on our own ANN thread in order not to disturb people with advertisements who don't want to see it here, since the topic is not about this And last, but not the least, it's OTC only for now as the product is highly customizable to your own needs and wishes, however, in 2021 we will be launching the standard CEX which you all guys used to where you can trade standardized TVS as well, as trading OTC just whatever you personally. wish to trade. Thank you again for checking us out, and feel free to reach out with any questions you might have. The points mentioned in our previous reply are: 1) Yes, we understand very well that we are new, and thus it's very reasonable for some people not to believe us: by the end of 2020 we at as.exchange partnered with reputable PR agency to assist us with public relations & media relations in order to establish "social proof", which is obviously not there yet, as we went live just in December 5, 2020. Therefore, this issue will be solved pretty soon. Apart from that, we try to stay as active as possible in our social networks, and occasionally even the CEO himself takes time to reply to comments and feedback whenever possible; 2) Other exchanges scam people in most of the cases and/(or) sell the useless tokens/coins to raise funds/scam people: Absolutely correct, therefore, we made several commitments that were announced publically as you can see from comments here, which includes: 1. Never do ICO/TGE/IEO, 2. Never do DeFi, 3. If ever have to raise funds - do it through traditional ways of approaching VCs, or reputable crowdfunding platforms, but never just in public as done by other blockchain projects, 4. Before we have to raise anything from external parties, irrespective of who they are (professional funds or reputable crowdfunding platforms) founders and the whole team will spend all their personal money and savings for the company/project, because if we are not able to commit everything what we have, how we can ask people for any kind of trust? 3) Other CEX/DEX/...EX lack the liquidity: Very common issue for any new or recently emerged platform which is solved at as.exchange in several approaches: 1. We provide our own liquidity / funding, thus if there's nobody for you to trade with, we will help to settle your trade (if it's within reasonable amounts and not in millions or billions), 2. By now since the first day of as.exchange going live, we had nearly $1m traded (a little less) after we conducted several rounds of marketing, thus there are real people, traders and investors who are using as.exchange from different countries, and we are continually expanding the marketing activities to ensure that more people know about us, and more people can trade with each other via as.exchangeHope the above helps, and feel free to let us know if you have more questions |
|
|
|
Etoro is one of the reputable exchange and it will hard for people to believe you. If thats you truly plan to offer it really a good idea but I have once went through your site but I dont anything that explained as part of your activities and what I saw is you guys to be the first OTC cryptocurrency derivatives marketplace which allow the creation of new instrument. However, it not easy to trust new exchange with anonymous team lolthat offer all that you said.
First of all I really want to thank you from myself personally, from the name of our CEO and from the entire team! We really appreciate that you took time to go through our website and check information about us. Secondly, this question has been asked before on our ANN page, and we disclosed part of the team on the 2nd page (here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5293103.20). And thirdly, you are absolutely right, and we all understand very well your argument - all the new exchanges that emerged recently either luck liquidity, so once you enter, you cannot get out, or simply scams to steal your deposit, or sell you useless tokens. I will address this part on our own ANN thread in order not to disturb people with advertisements who don't want to see it here, since the topic is not about this And last, but not the least, it's OTC only for now as the product is highly customizable to your own needs and wishes, however, in 2021 we will be launching the standard CEX which you all guys used to where you can trade standardized TVS as well, as trading OTC just whatever you personally. wish to trade. Thank you again for checking us out, and feel free to reach out with any questions you might have. |
|
|
|
These merchants exchange when it is required - when the business sectors will take an action which is huge to such an extent that it can have a colossal effect when occurred. On the off chance that you decided to be more patient and consistently control your feelings when exchanging, at that point you can be those who stay to exchange effectively after long years exchanging.
That's hard to understand (not sure if it's my personal issues with ENG or I'm not the only), but I get your point and you are very correct You refer to patience and stability + self-control in emotions in order to avoid selling @ lows and buying @ highs when there's all this hype. All these traders make such a huge point to talk about all the profits they make during these crashes,,, but I bet you they hide majority of the losses they make.
I personally think the only money they make is from idiots who pay for their signal subscription. It seems the only way to make money from trading is not by trading;)
You don't need to think so... You can be 100% sure of that. This is the reality of those public "traders" who earn purely on their subscriptions/lessons/signals, and nothing more. All those screenshots & videos of their accounts can be faked without any effort, and that's what they do, and that's what common people don't know about and therefore believe them. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is risky, it is also very volatile, this also goes for all the other crypto currencies as well. You have to just learn to live with that and there isn't much you can do. Even if you do everything in your power and drop the risk as low as possible, it is still riskier than most other things. Which is why I think it is quite important for you to realize crypto will always be risky and get involved fully aware of that.
I am not saying people can go 100x leverage their positions and hope for the best, that would be riskier than normal, but even with DCA and buying periodically to drop the risk, you are going to still have big pumps and big crashes here and there, a DCA during 2018 would still be a loss, but would be a huge win right now. So basically you have to just drop the risk to regular standards and just wait for the price to go up.
You are right, but what about derivatives? For example by holding a portfolio of options+spot BTC, or futures/swaps+spot BTC, or even better - holding only tranched value securities, you can by yourself decide what amount of price risk to take, and whether it's upside risk or downside risk, or market-neutral risk. From my experience and to my knowledge, people who use financial derivatives can really fine-tune expected returns and without any hassle watch the price to drop or increase - they are in profit anyways, or at least don't lose anything. managing the risk so as not to experience a lot of losses in bitcoin is quite difficult,
that is by using the stoplose feature if you are a trader, and the second is to buy back when the price decreases.
Very true - many inexperienced traders ignore SL&TP features and just blow their accounts very quickly for no reason. |
|
|
|
I know a lot of people who have made a lot of money trading cryptocurrencies, stocks, etc. Perhaps many people lose money on exchanges and are statistically counted among the entire number of traders, hence such a low percentage of successful traders. Such people simply act at random, or follow the general trend of investing in something, mindlessly following the opinion of the crowd. If there is a sufficient amount of reliable information that gives grounds to draw conclusions about the future growth of an asset, then the chance that you will lose money after investing is low, so you should not rely on statistics. You always need to think with your own head and constantly analyze the situation, the same is true with investments.
True, but in the current world of 21st century the amount of information bombarded at all of us from every corner is so huge, that you probably gonna waste a pretty great amount of time by filtering it out in to find out what is good and what is not. That's why most of the rich people don't even read news (at least they say so), because it will take too much time and efforts to read it all and filter for reliable sources. |
|
|
|
That is why I never believe if someone tells me about he has good trading skills because I think I better to learn more lessons and trade by myself than depend on their analysis. But besides that channel, I admitted that there will be real traders and other people who really have skills in trading and they share what they know with the public without any fee. It is difficult to find that person because they will not say that they are pro traders, and they will be hidden from others.
Lol, you indirectly made a great point which can be an advise to anyone checking those sources. If anyone says s/he is a pro-/advanced-/expert-/super-/"add any other cool words"-trader - just run as fast as you can from such person or source You surely will be better off by spending the same amount of money which they ask, on FREE good educational lessons (all them are 100% free of charge btw if you are capable of using Google) and investing that fee asked by those groups/channels on directly investing/trading with real money. You might not earn millions with that, but you surely will learn a great deal of info and skills with real life experience which you would otherwise spend on paid groups, and then would lose again on your first time trades. |
|
|
|
All the public ones are pretty bad. All the private ones with actual big players you can't access.
So unless you've got a close group of people who want to chat on TG, there is no point of trying to seek out quality discussion there. All of the channels are filled with pests that try to promote their scam ICOs, pump and dumps or TG HYIP bots.
Not the case with RUS-language public groups, surely you will find that most of them are trash, but a good amount of them is pretty good actually. But, you are right, unfortunately I never saw good/high quality private ENG-language TG groups, so cannot judge on that. I think OP is looking for a place to discuss broader crypto topics, hence why he doesn't want DeFi recommendations.
Yes, you are very correct and this is what I was looking for. Not for DeFi/ICO/Airdrops/Trading Signals specific groups. If you have any good recommendations I would really appreciate if you would share some of them in DM. |
|
|
|
Thanks for your serious questions about the idea, I try to answer all of them, hope to convince you and the others may read these posts and are interested in. "people are people". That’s the point. People supposed to be people, with all their greed, passion, bias, good wills, morals and taboo, and if a solution supposed to work, has to work with the “people” literally. someone needs to create the code, right? Same was with the laws. They were created by humans for humans to limit the ones who are not creators of the code/law.This methodology follows old model of civilization where the elite (or who has power, or religious authority) makes the rules and the normal people had to obey. We have internet and useful tools (mainly cryptography and blockchain and many other handy tools). What about if we change the social order and make a system in which middle class people makes the rule and put it in practice and follow their own rules. They do not need the elite decide for them. Let alone the fact that nowadays even an average Joe can analyze and decide as good as a president if he has the enough unbiased sources. I mentioned this off-topic average Joe discourses by purpose, and later we probably will come back to him! Going back to our discussion about the “code is law” and “who” and “how” decides about that “law”? The answer is the “system population”. The middle class people, the average Joe, the worker and the professors as well are decider about rules. Lets re-explain the system. We prepare a “template” software. The software which is working and has too many parameters to configure it arbitrarily. Everyone (preferably non technical people) can download the software, tweak it, shape it, re-define some parts or cut the other parts or add new parts to it, and finally run it. Now s/he established a new realm which governs by her/his customized rules. s/he is the first population of this new territory. Obviously s/he starts to inviting others to her/his territory -As we know from our civilization history the more population means more powerful community-. Here are big differences between our new societies and the “early societies in human history”. In early societies the “ cost of disobedience” was too high, indeed it is still too high in our current real world. Meanwhile in our new territory it is almost zero cost. Our hunter ancestors had to be a part of society to be survived. They had no choice. The alone man would die because of outside dangers or because of not having food to eat, or both. The necessity for being a part of a society was underlying on lowest level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, whereas in our new societies people will join to a society because of their “believes”. Please do not misunderstood the word “believer” for its religious common usage. I will join to community in which they respect my opinions (whatever they are), and you will do the same. So everybody join to community or society which has much respect for her/his opinion. The people with same mindset forming a society in which there is no discrimination for sex, race, nationality or Geo-location – unless the community rules was being racist rules -. And what is the outcome of these different systems (aka communities, societies, networks, friends cycles depends on the population number and the rules they set)? I sent another short essay and explained more details about idea from another perspective. You can find it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5303276.0 overtime the systems, due to their nature…Absolutely true. That’s why we have to have many different systems (like many different version or distribution of Linux) with slightly difference in rules, monetary, etc. As long as we follow our principles we join some groups or leave the other ones. For example for me the maximum decentralization is important, so I support the community with high level of decentralization and as a member of a community, I strive for more and more decentralization. Each system supports (or tolerates) a level of decentralization due to its rules, and I always select the societies with better rules. Once our human natures be freed from old fears and refreshed by new mindset, we will not the slave of our old fears and stresses, that day we already established the best society on top of this software infrastructure. It takes time and too many systems will be born and be destroyed before that day (like too many civilization we have had before, but too accelerated in sense of time). Finally there will be systems which are good for human prosperity and will survive for ever. We may or may not see that days but we have to move on. What I am pretty sure is “we are making the world a little better place and it worth to fight”. Until the gov sees the thread and shuts down the internet?That day will be too late to shoutdown the internet. As I told before no one take us serious, and actually it is good. We will have time to prove our ideologies and governing models and… IMHO the government is nothing but a group of frightened people. Some of them are corrupted person as well. But the main point is the “fear”. One of our mission -in different societies and by different strategies- is “wipe out the fear”. It is a long story and I’ll explain it in another post. But for now let imagine there is no fear. If governments do not afraid about these networks why they should stop them? Obviously in short term there are “conflict of interest” and our mission is “resist the networks against all kind of adversaries”. It is about technical issues rather than philosophical matter. Every step of development (either the software itself or the societies around the software) has proper threats and solutions too, and As a technical I guarantee we can resist against all potential threats. Until the day no adversary exist “And the world will live as one”. wouldn't it be same as now but on a bigger scale? Like we won't have USA, China, Russia, UK, etc., but would have one global country / community where bad systems failed, the good one remained; where still will be left governors / (code developers in our case?)I think I already answered these, at the end of the day there will be “just some rules”. No government and no governors. Only people and their rules. Maybe only one society remains or a few societies, but I predict ALL of them will have same rules slightly different. BTW the rule maker will not same as what we have now. They are literally all. There will no monopoly for “Ruling class”. The “police authorities” most probably will exist just for immediate intervention in emergency cases for defense citizen rights and not for people suppression. The “ local sub-systems of the global system” and this kind of hierarchical structures will be substituted by a kind of flat distribution of power. It will be like different two dimensional shapes that have something in common or some are totally separated islands. BTW non of these communities has superiority on the others. Of course some of them are more excellence than the other one, and since it has no cost for people to join or leave one community in favor of the other community (unlike current national borders, political regimes, communities or even ideologies), people will immigrate to most excellent community ASAP. If the designed system is really that good and powerful and is able to change the world and status quo of the current elites, politicians, etc., they definitely wouldn't want to give up all what they got and start from 0 by earning credits for good actions... and with the resources they already have now, in materialistic world, I think they would have pretty good chance to stop it fairly quickly if they need to. While trying to take them and benefit them too in the new system, would gain create inequality as it is now, but in a different form.True, so we need a thought-out schedule. They definitely wouldn't want to give up all unless they "have to" or "convinced to". We just need to keep alive the system till the point the adversaries be convince to join or give up (depends on their wisdom). We can maintain the system without compromising our ideals. We do not need billionaires at all. We are establishing communities that have their monies which worth absolutely nothing and represents only the owner will of making world better place. Over time -if the community survive – they can get some materialistic benefits of those coins too. We will run our nodes on cheap laptops. We do not need funds, super servers, advertisements, etc, etc. No, all we need is minded people and their will for making a better world. Let me know if I missed some parts or some answers are insufficient. Meanwhile I'll prepare more stuff to share. I believe our long-essay replies might have scared rest of community members Addressing your points: As you correctly noted that people will forever be people with their fears, biases, etc. I think we can directly conclude that they will make any system, no matter how perfect it is, biased again, so again we will come to the point where we started. Giving the right and ability to the "average Joe" to make important decisions might be not the most optimal solution, as myself forexample being non-expert in BioTech, I shouldn't be making any decisions there, but if given chance - I will (who knows?) then depending on "who scream louder" the rest of the crowd will follow the wrong source. Or, alternatively, if the society is smart enough, they will abandon the "average Joe's" proposition, and will naturally concentrate power around the ones with real knowledge and expertise (say in BioTech for example) and those, being humans by nature, will start to abuse the system again via the use of their new power. I personally think that experts should make decisions on the area they are better than others, but if you let others make those decisions (including laws or codes) - it will be pretty. inefficient. Like if in simple terms - letting average person who knows nothing about tech and only cares about drinking beer in front of TV in the evening, decide about complex systems with consideration of advanced subjects from game theory, might be not the most optimal decision for the system population overall. That's partially related to off-topic discussion USA vs. China. In the US nearly every opinion was respected, while in China - not at all. And as a consequence, because too many people got their own opinion and scream very loud in the US, we have what we have, while in China government just silence the ones who disturb public order, and now it's on the way to become #1 economy in the world. Isn't that illustrative, that every opinion around the world, should not be respected and tolerated. Of course freedom of speech and self-expression is a basic human right and must be available to anyone, but not in the cases where it represents threat to the public order and social wellbeing. And based on the proposed software, it's will be same with current KOLs inviting their followers to other communities. Like IG KOL inviting all followers to follow them on YouTube, vs. "average Joe" inviting his FB friends to join his TG channel. The result with the new software will be same - effortless joining/leaving the community, and nearly same powers as they have in the current conditions. I wrote another longer essay on your thread, and was going to reply there, but since you mentioned will continue here About having many different systems / sub-systems where everyone can join/rejoin/leave any at any time, how would that be different from the current world? The strongest countries will make obstacles for you to leave them / join new ones (citizenship of USA vs. citizenship of Cyprus for example), while we have all these social networks and apps that are born and die nearly every year, where people make sub-communities and micro-communities based on interests and anyone can join or leave any at no cost? The only difference I see here is creation of token/coin/currency within those sub-communities (which is not that necessary after all), but the rest is pretty same. And about the gov shutting everything down - it's well possible any moment when needed. In the world there are only few trans-national cables that host the entire WWW, and governments have control over flow and can cut it off if really needed, though it's pretty extreme measure, but we have seen countries doing so in the past few years. As for the last point about running nodes from cheap computers, that again comes to the same issue with BTC. Yes, you can allow just anyone from anywhere to run a node. But if I have right now $1,000,000, and you have only $100 - I can buy 10,000 cheap PCs, and you can buy only 1, so I will be more powerful again - same as without the new system, but with old fiat / asset way. Yes, you can say that it's possible to limit somehow number of PCs or computing power per user, which might be possible to implement (I don't know how actually, but let's assume it's possible), I can ask all my friends and relatives to let me use their identity or computing power for my own needs (since they might be not so tech savvy they won't care about what they give to me), and then I could pay to other people to get their computing powers & IDs. So again - who got the deepest pockets will control the majority of network. |
|
|
|
Totally agree. That's why one of my personal rules when trading is to be patient not just when waiting for the value to rise but also when waiting for it to plummet and exhaust. If you want to earn money through trading, you have to take the time to monitor the changes. You can't just keep holding without checking the charts regularly, especially if it's already nearing the exhaustion point. Otherwise, you might as well just hire an investment manager, which will cost you a lot of money.
Great point. As to my knowledge that's how our CEO was able to buy BTC @ $1.6k and later in 2018 sell it @ around $19.5-19.8k. Without monitoring it could end at $10k already (nearly 10x return which is very good), but it didn't. And as you correctly noted, the investment managers nowadays are not that useful but super overpriced. For me it is not about holding, it is about understanding the charts. What if you do holding but the trend is against your bias then for sure you will incur huge losses. Remember that there are right time to do holding and it is only applicable when the market is trending. In order to manage the risk very well, you should have edge or what they called niche. The edge is all about mastery of a specific strategy for example you are a swing trader; do not force your self to do scalping or momentum trading. You should use the strategy that is suitable to you in order for you to have good risk management.
What you refer to is about investment horizon as well, which is dependent and relates to the investment strategy. Once could invest in BTC @ $10, and just hold until today... imagine how much they would earn but that's more from investment side I assume, rather than trading as it is. But my personal opinion (in line with EMH) is that by looking at charts won't give any advantage at all - you look at the same thing with everyone, and there are way smarter people who interpret what others think by looking at charts. And the smartest ones go even further by considering what others think what others think by looking at charts. But just looking and analyzing data/charts which is known literally to everyone in the world won't typically yield in sustainable alpha over long-periods of time. Yes, I really agree with you, because hiring an investment manager is an unpleasant choice too in my opinion, because besides spending a lot of money it also makes us a little complicated in knowing the assets we have, so it is very clear that you must always take the time to monitor chart changes and market conditions by ourselves.
True, besides as you might have seen some charts posted around that "smart money isn't that smart anymore" - professional IMs fail to outperform retail investors in 2020, which might be their beginning of an end. |
|
|
|
In fact this topic is my one of the favourite, therefore will address several points mentioned here, as I lived in all 3 places mentioned (USA, China (incl. HK), and Russia), and have well knowledgeable friends from all these places. FYI, I am not Chinese, if that's something you might think about.The COVID19 has proven that the Chinese medical system is more resilient, and strong government control can take more directed and faster actions as opposed to the ones in USA which we can say more "decentralized" if you wish from the perspective that there are "checks and balances" on each stage of medical system. In Russia on the contrary it's way worse than in the U.S., I personally have married friends who were diagnosed with COVID19 and while they were in quarantine at home, their spouses (who obviously live together), didn't need to take any tests, and could easily go out from home for shopping, and afterwards were even taking some classes in large groups. But in China, even if 1 person was suspected to have COVID-like symptoms, the entire living complex would be blocked and isolated, and literally everyone would be tested and quarantined. As a result, China re-emerged from the virus faster and better than others. However, the CCP understands very well that it's disadvantageous in terms of BioTech innovation as compared to the U.S., therefore, if you have been in China recently and spoke with business community you will know that government is flooding the sector with billions of dollars and they decided to make Wuhan - the med centre of the country. Now in China you can clearly identify: Beijing as the political centre, Shanghai as the centre of international business, Shenzhen as the centre of tech (software & hardware) innovation, Guangzhou as the centre of trade, Hong Kong as the financial centre, and now it will be Wuhan for life sciences and pharma. You may like it or not, but CCP will do what it promised, because of million factors that are out of the scope of current discussion, but unlike in Russia where government is also has it's major disadvantages (including corruption), in China, having the same problems, the politicians and CCP has #1 priority - political and economic stability and wellbeing of the nation and country. Not of any single individual, businessman or minority community, but society, nation and country overall! That leads to patriotism which is not there in the USA overall (everyone got own opinion and will complain about the country's problems), and economic power which is not there in Russia (since politicians prioritise personal wellbeing over nation's). Understanding the above, China not only launches new targeted subsidies and foreign talent acquisition programs, and Chinese from abroad repatriation schemes, but many other reforms which people who don't follow the Chinese-Chinese news (but only Chinese from Western perspective / or Chinese financed by Western) will not know. So to conclude that part, China is surely developing super fast and many even don't notice that. But China is not yet #1 and it will take years to achieve that, and CCP understands pretty well their own problems, such as shadow banking (solving), p2p scams (solved), tech monopolies (solving), lack of true innovation but rather copy/buyout the western tech & improve (solving). Part of them hinder growth, part of them make China de-facto not able to overtake the U.S. position. But as you hear from news they are solving those part by part. However, as was correctly mentioned - there are other, more "fundamental" issues (about minorities, different ethnic groups, etc.) and yes they do pose big risks if exploited correctly by external powers. But that's unlikely to happen in the near future, because the USSR experience was studied well and taken into consideration. Same with Russia's chances for splitting, unlike the current Chinese leadership which puts its own interests first and above all, Russian leadership puts personal stability and interests first, and therefore has a strong power and motivation to silence and control those who pose external and uncontrolled risks to the power, therefore will not allow externalities to split the country. But if economic situation doesn't change - there might be other risks emerging very quickly internally. Besides, when Putin leaves (it will happen eventually) there might be left a huge power vacuum, which might blow the country from inside by the fight of elites, oligarchs and political opposition. Considering the point mentioned earlier by the forum member that Chinese like to manipulate in their order, well yes and of course - isn't that reasonable? Just like USA manipulates everything towards its own favour, and even international conflicts, just like Russia does so, so will China too. Only stupid country won't do that, no? Therefore China finances as much as possible of foreign sales markets with its own debt. It's like buying iPhone on credit - you take financing from the company to buy iPhone from Apple, and then you get the phone, but gonna repay the debt eventually. That's the soft power - lend to other nations who are happy to take that money, and if they repay debts - earn, if they don't (and most of them won't) - you dictate your own rules there. To summarize, my opinion is that in order to evaluate the future potential success of any country, you need to assess it among 4 core dimensions only: 1) economic power, 2) military power, 3) international political power, 4) innovation. Note that most of them cannot be evaluated by 1 single metric (GDP, or R&D spending for example), but you need to consider many related and sub-measures. USA: 1) economic power: #1, but that's under question for the future 2) military power: #1, army is indeed is the best and most advanced, but not so patriotic though 3) international political power: #1, as no conflict or international matter gets decided without USA 4) innovation: #1, both from commercial perspective and from state-level China: 1) economic power: #2, but increasing, and now average Chinese from 1st tier city who was born in that city is way more rich than average American (Russia is not even considered here ) 2) military power: #3, and strongly dependent of foreign technology which CCP doesn't have solution to, yet (at least not disclosed / discussed publicly) 3) international political power: #4-5, as China doesn't get itself into every single conflict, but in 2019-2020 that's changing 4) innovation: top10 at best, which CCP tries to solve with big money being thrown here and there, but I personally believe only money will not solve it, as that's more about education, culture, etc (and you can't have great innovation which comes from diversity, and great stability and patriotism, all at the same time) Russia: 1) economic power: top20, which is hardly imaginable to be changed any time soon, as Russia had good chances in 2000-2002, but... we know where we are now 2) military power: #2, as it indeed produces most advanced weapons and both China has to rely on it, and EU+USA have to deal with it by accelerating own spending, expanding budgets, etc. (in fact if gov would spend more on social wellbeing than on military, maybe it could be more stable and start growing too) 3) international political power: #3-4, which is achievable only due to its military power, otherwise nobody would take Russia seriously 4) innovation: not even top20, if speaking from the broad perspective, as even the Skolkovo project failed and all Russians are laughing about it (because the administrators as always just steal the budgets and "invest" in related companies which then get bankrupt (analogy with DeFis now which are hacked )) |
|
|
|
I'm used to the bonds trading investment but there are some crypto exchange site like etoro etc that provide bond investment and about 1% whales have access to something common people cannot access is widespread in almost all investment setting and for this not to be a subject in crypto is the reason why Satoshi market Bitcoin decentralized.
Yes, that was the main argument I was trying to make that those 1% usually can trade something what most of us cannot. Even with etoro and others, they rarely bring something entirely new or something "from elites" to the common people. This is what we are doing now You are right but it good to count one blessing not to be ungrateful or blaming Bitcoin for their own mistakes.
Yes, you are correct. Bitcoin, same with nuclear power, and just hammer - was created to solve something specific, but got/getting misused by hummanity. They usually took profit from occasional pumps and dumps, it could be easily done if you trading short term because these pumps and dumps are like waves, there's time when it goes down but it will surely make a recover if the coin is good enough. By that, despite the bearish market they could still make some money and the rest of them more specifically long-term trader always bag holding and keeps buying when the coin is at its lowest point.
Yes, you made a great point. With short-term trading profits are typically more volatile, but if you invest and wait long-term and able to survive temporary price swings then can earn better ROI and take advantage of shorter term P&Ds. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not a status symbol. It is not meant to be something you'll be flaunting to people's faces everytime you got to a date. It is not something you'll be bragging your friends about in a bar. If anything, bitcoin is a means to earn more money for people who are wanting to get out of their tiresome 9-5 shifts and on to something that offers more potential to earn and be financially literate at the same time.
I would say you are correct, but I think with current hype over BTC not really. Just check the Twitter among others how much people now are bragging showing off how smart they were to buy BTC @$20k or higher. All assets that are in demand are inflated. Think about it. If everyone sold their stocks at the same time the price would crash. If everyone sold their bitcoin at the same time the price would crash. If everyone sold their gold at the same time the price would crash. If everyone sold their houses in a certain area the price would crash in that area.
This is why things like market cap are not an accurate measure of value. Value demands on the health of the larger economy.
Well true and not I think. What you said makes totally perfect sense, but with stocks - if everyone sold them and price crash to 0, you still own a company. The company can go bankrupt or go private via de-listing. With gold - you still own a metal that you can use for other means. With house - you can live in it or in the worst case make something from it (bar, club, restaurant, hotel, something). But what happens when BTC price goes to zero? Yes some people will want to buy all, but for what purpose if it stays permanently at $0 afterwards? And yes, the health of economy does define the market on funamentals, but at the same time, the fundamentals are also defined by the market. That's why market is (said to be) including all available information in the world in its pricing. Yes can be manipulated and inflated, but overall that manipulation from philosophical perspective won't take place if manipulator won't believe that s/he cannot benefit from it in the future which does in turn some future growth potential due to illicit reasons. Interesting that you mention the first iPhones. Back in those days it truly was a revolutionary product with more utility than a Blackberry (another popular brand at the time) as evidenced by the fact that no smart phone nowadays has a physical keyboard.
Btw the original white design was meant to mimic the style of kitchen appliances, bathroom fixtures, and laundry machines. It was a way of communicating that the high price was justified because it was like buying something permanent that would last for years. Kind of a genius marketing decision that flew in the face of the cheap disposable electronics popular at the time.
Also great point which I missed. From such perspective would you agree that first iPhones same with Bitcoin were created for the good reasons, however ended up being misused by the society for other reasons? Just like nuclear power wasn't invented for the purposes of mass destruction. (as for Tesla, sorry but I will not agree that it was a good product in the beginning ) |
|
|
|
First of all I have to admit I am a pessimist practical person. So if I tell the idea is feasible you should accept it The fact that you wrote me such a long answer denotes that even you hope for human prosperity. we all know how poisoned the system is and how hard will be changes, but we have to cope with it or just sit and wait for things getting worse until die. I prefer to “act”. lets try to solve issues one by one. You may heard “code is law”. Once we transformed our “good” rules and mechanisms to code and run our servers, the law will govern forever. Our good and fair law will dominant and defeat old mentality, like all “old mentalities” we missed because of technology dominant. This is the place that gradual changes takes place. The Bitcoin “ started for the good purpose and ended up being another speculative asset”. That’s true because it was first experience and Satoshi missed some points about its game theory. It doesn’t mean Bitcoin is must be the last experience. We can create a new better one. In fact we have to create a new one, to appreciate the idea of having center-less monetary system. We have to enrich this idea and enhance it to center-less governing as well. And we have to foreseen challenges. After one decade we are far mature than early Cypherpunks. aren't we? "As long as there's a living system - be it human organized system, monetary system or something else - there's going to be decreasing entropy, thus increasing centralization over time."That is true. The better way to say it is, all systems can tolerate a degree of entropy. If the entropy exceeds the tolerated level the system will collapse. Additionally all systems (either an organic system or a human organized system) tend to decrease entropy in order to increase its live. So we have to follow these strategies. 1. design a system that tolerate maximum level of entropy and decentralization. 2. design more than one system simultaneously. The systems are working independent and in parallel. 3. make it easy for people to enter and exit different systems with “no cost”. 4. the entire ecosystem (all different systems with different level of entropy and decentralization tolerate) enjoys the power of fragility and hardened by this fragility. 5. the last but not the least, at least one of these systems must start from super centralized structure and moves toward super decentralized system. This particular system is the backbone of the whole ecosystem. Day by day this system is more decentralized while the other systems can move toward more centralization or more decentralization. "people will end up gaming any system and eventually even one single individual will either find benefit to cheat the system, or entirely out of craziness (as you said there are possible tools to motivate even bad actors to act good by benefiting them) will try to revenge against the new decentralized system and fill find supporters with enough brainwashing power, thus just again - increasing centralization."Thanks for your insight and predicting these scenarios. So we have to deal with. That’s why we have to design more than one system simultaneously, and that’s why people must be able to enter and leave systems with no cost and that’s why the entire ecosystem is hardened by this “fragility”. People will be free to enter a system (accept a money) or leave a system (do not validate that money) with less cost. The insight is, the weak game theories or insecure protocols or corrupted societies, or cheating monies must be destroyed as soon as possible. Before their money obtains a fake price, before they scam average people and before they accomplish the fraud, their money and their community will be disgraced. It is “the power of fragility”. Meanwhile the honest communities and coins will grownup and increase their population (believers) and raise up the value of their coins. The idea of “new system with credit" context isn’t new and as you mentioned, they examined it before in different places and different times. Some of them were too successful and some failed. We already have different kind of “mutual” systems, reciprocate, parecon, time banks as well. We have also many local currencies -whole the glob- that are in action actually. BTW what they are all missed is they are bind to a limited Geo-location and have narrow market and they are all suffer from high centralized administration, since all are created before internet era. Some of our systems can pick the best part of them and armed them with decentralized protocol. In such a case the adversaries can't stop them. If we put enough incentives in our systems, people will abandon their common thinking, beliefs, history, norms, and systems and simply adapt to the new paradigm. I do believe that you are pessimistic and practical person, which can be observed from your tone and the level of details you provide to support your arguments, rather than simply "let's make the world a better place" So I really appreciate that. And yes, I do hope for human prosperity as you correctly noted. But I don't know, - unfortunately I don't believe that it is possible until we are all humans. That never happened in history, and I don't see it happening with us, until we are all humans in a common meaning. The things you describe are ally good and would benefit people overall, but "people are people". Addressing your points one by one: "code is law" - correct, but someone needs to create the code, right? Same was with the laws. They were created by humans for humans to limit the ones who are not creators of the code/law. And as long as it's created by a real person - that person almost certainly will leave some "back door" for himself or for others to reset/cheat/game the code and laws. There can be reasons as to why s/he would do that, but the most simple one (among others) would be that this will give god-like feeling to the creator. On the contrary, if the code/laws are created by machine for humans - humans might accept that idea temporarily, but very soon there will raise those "activists" who will be screaming for their own minorities' rights that they are being discriminated for whatsoever reason by the code (like now people complain they cannot mine BTC with their CPU anymore), and that we as humans should not be ruled by artificially created system. Therefore, if that code (self-improving and intelligent I assume) sees such danger to the system overall, which will emerge due to manipulative human nature, or due to simple personal craziness of someone, will start to take down the ones who threaten the overall system (sounds like China's CCP partially because they do care for the social wellbeing of society and country overall, but ready to sacrifice individuals for the general good - and you know how much they are hated now because the ones who are taken down, are screaming the most loud). And yes, Bitcoin is certainly not the best creation for now, but definitely was the #1 when it was the number one. It has issues with game theory, and with tech side as well, thus I think we both agree completely on this aspect. The parallel co-existing systems with increasing/decreasing decentralisation partially remind me of the early societies in human history, and now partially some states. While if we look into the future we might see similar thing with corporatocracy, where the state=corporation. They all experienced similar features at some stage, but the result is where we are now. Trying to create a new system within a system. And if/when the proposed by you system will exist, don't you foresee it repeating the history of early societies, when we were hunter-gatherers? They also were pretty well decentralized, didn't have a central body in a sense to govern them, they also could enter/exit the system nearly at any will, and were rewarded and punished for good & bad actions. But overtime the systems, due to their nature (and maybe we can say due to the definition of "system", irrespective of its decentralization?) started either growing or collapsing due to their efficiencies, and overtime started to limit the entry/exit barriers. And now we all got citizenship, passports, local taxes, etc., etc. From the description (please correct me if I misunderstood you), what is proposed might seam like we just repeat the old history but on a new scale with the use of new technologies. But as you correctly noted, all those societies and earlier experiments were mostly in pre-internet era, and were very tight to local geography. So with internet I believe yes, it can be overcome, yes - it can be done on a bigger scale, yes - people could join/leave it even more easily (until the gov sees the thread and shuts down the internet?), but in the result, wouldn't it be same as now but on a bigger scale? Like we won't have USA, China, Russia, UK, etc., but would have one global country / community where bad systems failed, the good one remained; where still will be left governors / (code developers in our case?), with the police authorities to monitor and watch and punish bad actors (irrespective if they are humans, robots or just some code), and local sub-systems of the global system, which will also function as the local countries do so now? And last, but not the least, if the designed system is really that good and powerful and is able to change the world and status quo of the current elites, politicians, etc., they definitely wouldn't want to give up all what they got and start from 0 by earning credits for good actions... and with the resources they already have now, in materialistic world, I think they would have pretty good chance to stop it fairly quickly if they need to. While trying to take them and benefit them too in the new system, would gain create inequality as it is now, but in a different form, as for example if I am multi-billionaire now, you offer me to join a new system, I would reasonably want to preserve my status and my resources and my wealth, which means I again will be significantly superior to the other people? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
