Negative interest rates turn everything we know about economics upside down.
Under what scenario would anyone lend $1,000 to receive $900 in return at some point in the future?
Only when the alternative is to receive $800 back instead, due to the predicted interventions of central
banks and governments. Only then would locking in a set rate of capital loss make sense.
By "capital loss" I mean just that; when there is, no positive interest paid, the principal itself must be consumed.
If as your tone seems possibly to imply "when there is, no positive interest paid, the principal itself must be consumed" is a bad thing, I am disappointed that you do not seem to have been around here lately so might not return to throw more light upon why it is bad and what is bad about it.
In particular if you are in fact suggesting that it is bad then I worry that, in turn, my own thoughts about using a "dividends" mechanism whereby efficient markets would be expected to manifest "sawtooth waves" of price as "dividend payment day" approaches and recedes in time, be deprecated, might not be the best conclusion as to whether or not to use "dividends" mechanism.
Maybe trying not to deliberately build-in such sawtoothed waves is too trivial a concern if doing that, intending thereby to force shares to be sold to "realise" their earnings rather than being "hoarded", would result in some worse "bad" that hopefully you will someday return and cast light upon.
Although I’ve studied north of 100 whitepapers and scanned 100s more, imo not 1 among
them is on the path to becoming an Apex class competitor. Sure a few will prosper as a result
of some incremental market advantage, always at risk from the next disruptor. 99% will falter
on the rocks of reality as have the thousands of me too projects already deceased.
It would be interesting to explore; what would be quality use cases?
I'll leave your final question to dangle in hopes it will be returned to, meanwhile...
Could it possibly be that BiTCoin is one of the components of the apex class competitor you are seeking?
That in reality such an apex competitor already exists all around us, maybe even almost as if the "invisible hand" intuited by Adam Smith were itself such a competitor, or at least one of its manipulative appendages?
What it occurs to me to wonder is whether I ought to be intuiting that we are only seeing components, like the proverbial blind folk in the room with the elephant in it. Maybe bitcoin
could be a component of an ecosystem such as you describe, and if so maybe we should be looking for the rest of its components, not being able to see the apex competitor forest (ecosystem) for its components (trees) so to speak?
Metcalfe’s Law, which measures the value of a network, can
calculate a cryptocurrency’s value, assuming the key measure
of value for cryptocurrencies is the network of entities who use them.
The original law is based on the idea that the value of a network grows
in proportion with the number of all possible connections. In other words,
it assumes that all nodes can connect with each other.
This can happen for short periods of time because of factors such as herding
behavior. But without an infinite number of people it is not sustainable. For this
reason alone, a crash or correction is inevitable.
It might not matter whether an infinite number is sustainable because infinity is also (in finite time) unreachable.
Meanwhile, until actual infinity is reached, maybe simulated people will suffice?
Stop trying to make "bots" an underclass, a people who are not people due to being
Jews blacks other etc etc etc (the proverbial "who are they coming for next").
If an ever-growing number of nodes would be a good thing, "let there be" such a thing (aka "make it so").
Maybe that even goes along with your bullet-point about massive rapid cheap scaling up or similar concept.
-MarkM-
