This chart is true for any crypto currency, but I don't see all altcoins succeeding.

100 years ago, Great Britain was supreme. It was quickly surpassed by the US.
It wouldn't take long for the balance to tilt again.

Do you know what the word "indirectly" means, which I used in respect to ordinary people paying for the bank debts? What regards the real world evidence of debt socialization, Google is your friend (I hope you understand that you are presently not in the position of asking me to prove you anything).

the major problem everyone is discussing in this thread is that the swap volume has spiked up to 31 million $ at peak, but BTC
price has stayed in a sideways market. therefore all the long positions probably aren´t profitable and have to be closed at one
point in the future if BTC price doesn´t rise.

this could lead to a flash crash at bitfinex, because the first margin calls could trigger additional margin calls...

the best indicator for an assessment of the risk is probably the Total sum of active swaps.
You can find this information on:
https://www.bitfinex.com/pages/stats

(currently ~29.7 million $)

Now is the riskiest time to offer USD swaps imo.

The link is Argentina defaults --> Harder to get external credit --> More printing of pesos --> High Inflation.
In the end, people will have to look after themselves, if their pesos get devalued very quickly.

You might have noticed (well, you actually didn't) that I was talking about how socialization of debts works, and I specifically mentioned "in general". Regarding the FDIC, I don't know how much money they might potentially need, but if you insist, the answer is affirmative. In the worst case scenario, the sequence you described would necessarily lead to inflation (since the money "lost in debt" didn't disappear but just changed hands).

No, that was not my claim, you just see what your eyes want to see. I was not talking about QE "printing money". There is no inflation out of this, since the QE money doesn't leak into circulation. I was talking about how debts are socialized and the burden of them is passed on to the taxpayer in general (by means of inflation).

How dare you ask me questions now having not answered my own?

But never mind, I know that you can't answer anything coherent, so it doesn't matter. Regarding the taxpayers money, it is called socialization of debts, when ordinary people ("taxpayers") would indirectly pay for the bank debts by lowering their standard of living through inflation since the government would print money to cover the debts  (this is called seigniorage, i.e. "a right of the lord (seigneur) to mint money" from French).

If Argentinians could buy USD, they would.
Depends on whether BTC is easier to lay hands on, or USD.
In the end, it could be good for bitcoin.

From an accounting point of view, if they create 1000 loans for every 100 deposit, what is the liability corresponding to the loan of 1000 (which appears on the asset side)?

So, if the FDIC runs out of money (because of multiple bank-runs), the U.S. government will print as much money as necessary to cover the FDIC deficit, thus making the taxpayers pay all the debts.

wow. what a complete BS summary for the reason of the interest rate.

-total return swaps are insured, of high drop of price. see faq!

-the high interest of 30% a year is because the people borrowing dollars from you and buying bitcoin speculate that the grow of bitcoin in one year will be higher. when you lend dollars you cant hold btc. vice vers the interest for swaps in btc is about 3%.

You are right in what I think, a regulated market is not free. Either it is controlled by coercion, either it is not. The line is clear.

I did not know about the California electricity crisis, and I think your premise is that private companies did it on purpose or was provoked by speculation, and that state saved the citizen of such greedy bastard.
But the question to ask is why a private company would act against the interest of its customers, and thus loosing profit on purpose ? This is not a natural course of action of a market.

Let's talk about the "Megawatt laundering" problem of your link.
Cause : Effect :
My question is : who decided to control the price for electricity at the first place ?
My response is : government by coercion on prices... So how can you call this a market free ? It was not.

When gov imposes prices, there is 2 possibility.
Either the imposed price is lower than the natural price (the one without regulation), and in this case you provoke a shortage. (Because production go down)
This is what happened in this case.

I'll quote Milton Friedman :

Or, the imposed price is higher than the natural price.
This is what happens in some market like cabs, or even, minimal wages (that is regulation on labor's price).
And in this case, the demand drop, for minimal wages, you get more unemployment, and increased need in welfare.
In the case of Taxi, very few people are using cabs and preferring public transportation, and in the case of Ubber, lots of problem with legislation because it bypasses the imposed rate of taxi for the same service, which provoke injustice and stifle competition.

Let's talk about the "Overscheduling" problem.
Why does the state accepted at all of paying such fees ?
Are the congestion fees payed by power providers or state ? With those two sentences, if I understand correctly, it means that the state acted as a power provider in charge on power line.
So my question is : why the power line is handled by the state and not private companies ?
A private companies would have acted against such scam by making economically costly to reserve a line, preventing spam. But maybe law prevented that ?
If the cost of reservation would be too high, then another company, with its own power line would compete with it.

But no... the state, instead of acting as a rational economical agent, resort to MORE coercion of the kind that provoked the shortage in the first place. (price control)

Then one will say : what does prevent electrical companies to charge high price because of our dependence on energy ?
My response is: Competition by having multiple power providers. And if all abuse, the high price of energy would quickly fire economical forces to switch to alternative and less centralized source of energy.
Solar panel would become economically profitable and would spread very quickly.

This market was not free, and the failure of regulation, ironically provoked more regulation.
This is like the 1940 crisis... the fed created it with bad monetary policies, but instead of collapsing for its fault, it gained even more power by allowing to break the link with gold. (The failure of FED in 1940 was admitted by Bernake)
But during all this time, in all the school we were brainwashed to believe that greed of capitalism provoked the crisis, when it was not. There was no such thing as a free market when a central authority control the supply of money.