European central bank researcher paper implies bitcoin is a ponzi scheme

[aoluain]

It describes the situation as a “zero-sum game” where early adopters “increase their real wealth and consumption” at the expense of those who enter the market later or never at all.[/i]

Rather than read an article about the paper, you can read the paper directly here: The distributional consequences of Bitcoin

TL;DR: FUD, FUD, FUD, ...

I feel that their claims about the lack of fairness are ridiculous. They claim that the redistribution of wealth due to bitcoin is not really a redistribution of wealth because it is not redistributed evenly to everyone. They claim that increased spending by Bitcoin investors will drive up prices for the rest. On its face, it's a dubious claim, but made worse by omitting the fact that it would also be true for every source of wealth.

My impression is that they are complaining that Bitcoin doesn't fit their communist ideals. They seem to believe that people should not be rewarded for their ingenuity, intelligence, and work.

It is ironic that they also say that Bitcoin has no economic value. Time will tell, but their criticisms are moot if that is true. If Bitcoin's economic value never develops, then any wealth created by Bitcoin will simply evaporate.

FFFFFFS - TL;DR either.

Re-distribution of wealth - WTF, since when is the ECB concerned about that? or how they
indeed havent mentioned every other source of wealth.

When I hear stuff like this from the ECB I cannot help but think back to the case with
Christine Lagarde who is now the current president. She was convicted a few years ago when
she was the head of the IMF for:

approving a massive payout of taxpayers’ money to controversial French businessman Bernard Tapie

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/19/christine-lagarde-avoids-sentence-despite-guilty-verdict-in-negligence-trial

This paper would have had to be approved by the old bag when she is rotten to the core herself -
makes me sick.

The report about Bitcoin being a Ponzi scheme flies in the face of all the Spot ETC approvals
this year - it just doesnt make sense in 2024 [it never made any sense but they didnt refrain
from attacking it anyway]

[DeathAngel]

The ECB regularly tries to discredit Bitcoin but the facts are that the ECB are the real ponzi scheme protagonists. The Euro is getting eaten by inflation, it is a true ponzi. People lose purchasing power every year holding their shit coin. Ignore the noise, Bitcoin is far superior to fiat.

[Alpha Marine]

I don't fully understand all the dynamics and technicalities of the stock market but if I buy a company's stock when the company just listed for about $20 per share and hold it over the years till the company and its stock grow to about $500 per share would that be regarded as a Ponzi that favours early investors too?
For something to be Ponzi, it needs to have a central body that benefits from the scheme. There is none in bitcoin. Early adopters of bitcoin can be said to be visionaries who saw the potential in it and made use of the opportunity and privilege. Imo, I think they should be applauded.

Every day we see different reasons from people why bitcoin is bad, It's either it's a scam, bad for the environment or used for illegalities and now they say it's a ponzi that's meant to favour only early adopters.
We've seen bitcoin price go from $20k to $70k in the last 5 years or thereabout. So if a person bought held his coins till then would he need to be an early adopter to benefit? They'll say anything to discredit bitcoin, this is not new.

[SamReomo]

That researcher is out of his mind and wants to gain attention that's why he considered Bitcoin in that newbie kind of way. Well, early adopters of any new tech always get high benefits and profits as compare to late holders. Even if we consider the domain name sales the ones who were early adopters who bought single word domain names are the ones who made most profit with domain flipping, and similarly, the ones who bought shares of companies like Nvidia, Amazon, Apple, and others in their early days are the ones who made more profit as compared to late adopters.

[Sanitough]

That researcher is out of his mind and wants to gain attention that's why he considered Bitcoin in that newbie kind of way. Well, early adopters of any new tech always get high benefits and profits as compare to late holders. Even if we consider the domain name sales the ones who were early adopters who bought single word domain names are the ones who made most profit with domain flipping, and similarly, the ones who bought shares of companies like Nvidia, Amazon, Apple, and others in their early days are the ones who made more profit as compared to late adopters.

That’s what they had in mind since they see Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme, and that’s just how Ponzi schemes work. The only thing that could truly destroy Bitcoin is if its code gets cracked and someone messes with the system, but outside of that, there’s really no major risk. Some worry about what happens if the big holders start selling, but we’ve got Satoshi holding a million bitcoins. If he ever decides to sell, it won’t be all at once because exchanges couldn’t handle that volume. Even if Satoshi sells, it would be gradual and wouldn’t shake up the market too much.

[FortuneFollower]

That researcher is out of his mind and wants to gain attention that's why he considered Bitcoin in that newbie kind of way. Well, early adopters of any new tech always get high benefits and profits as compare to late holders. Even if we consider the domain name sales the ones who were early adopters who bought single word domain names are the ones who made most profit with domain flipping, and similarly, the ones who bought shares of companies like Nvidia, Amazon, Apple, and others in their early days are the ones who made more profit as compared to late adopters.

That’s what they had in mind since they see Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme, and that’s just how Ponzi schemes work. The only thing that could truly destroy Bitcoin is if its code gets cracked and someone messes with the system, but outside of that, there’s really no major risk. Some worry about what happens if the big holders start selling, but we’ve got Satoshi holding a million bitcoins. If he ever decides to sell, it won’t be all at once because exchanges couldn’t handle that volume. Even if Satoshi sells, it would be gradual and wouldn’t shake up the market too much.

Yeah, and we know for a fact Satoshi, of all people, wouldn't do that.. duh 

[Wind_FURY]

Anything to bring bitcoin down despite the plethora of growing positive benefits and evidence.

But a plethora of growing benefits for who? Because, Bitcoin as a breaker of Political Strongholds, the actual truth is it benefits the Cabal less, and the plebs like us more.

We can be confident that THAT's the reason why they keep attacking Bitcoin with FUD and negative propaganda. They don't want more people joining the network.

[Fiatless]

In a paper from European Central Bank (ECB) economists Ulrich Bindseil and Jürgen Schaaf, they argue that Bitcoin’s rise in value disproportionately benefits early adopters at the expense of latecomers and non-holders.

This argument is baseless because the early adopters of other assets like gold and shares also benefit more than early late investors. This is just a clear attack on Bitcoin to generate FUD. Late adopters can benefit from Bitcoin if they are patient enough to keep it for a long time.   

It suggests that governments enact legislation “to prevent Bitcoin prices from rising or to see Bitcoin disappear altogether.”
https://www.dlnews.com/articles/regulation/european-central-bank-paper-declaration-war-bitcoin-tax-ban/

This part of the article made me laugh. At this time when Bitcoin is receiving mass acceptance both in the business and political sectors, some set of researchers are giving obsolete and impossible suggestions.     

[m2017]

It appears that if there really opens a real regulatory implication for bitcoin in Europe, I reckon the government will do their best on where they can attack something that might be threatening to them. They do this by imposing higher taxes.

Regulation is inevitable: governments begin to regulate everything that arises.

I speculate that capital gains tax will be increased to discourage trading bitcoin.

Maybe it's not so bad, because then people will stop speculating on the difference in the cost of bitcoin, and will use it for p2p trading between themselves. In this case, you won't have to pay inflated taxes.

In any case, according to Tuur Demeester this research paper is a declaration of war against bitcoin.

This war has been going on for a long time.

In a paper from European Central Bank (ECB) economists Ulrich Bindseil and Jürgen Schaaf, they argue that Bitcoin’s rise in value disproportionately benefits early adopters at the expense of latecomers and non-holders.

They wouldn't be complaining about "unfairness" if they were early investors.

 

The paper claims that, in a scenario where Bitcoin’s price continues to rise, “the existence of Bitcoin impoverishes both non-holders and latecomers” as early Bitcoin holders accumulate wealth without contributing to the productive economy.

More talk of "bitcoin has no value".

Early investors contributed to the bitcoin economy by "supporting" it in the early stages. There is no need to belittle their merits. Because without them nothing would exist now.

It describes the situation as a “zero-sum game” where early adopters “increase their real wealth and consumption” at the expense of those who enter the market later or never at all.[/i]

How is this different from the stock market? Nothing.

[RockBell]

The ECB regularly tries to discredit Bitcoin but the facts are that the ECB are the real ponzi scheme protagonists. The Euro is getting eaten by inflation, it is a true ponzi. People lose purchasing power every year holding their shit coin. Ignore the noise, Bitcoin is far superior to fiat.

The ECB might not have their reason for regulation and is not only the European that are anti bitcoin a lot of banks have been frowning on bitcoin for a very long time and it is not somthing that is new and countries or nations that have believed in bitcoin don't seems to care what so ever will happen when it comes to bitcoin,  and no matter how the ECB tries or even give their regulation they can not stop people from participating in bitcoin and countries that are frowning are the once doing the most in the industry.

And all currencies are suffering in the hands of inflation and their is no currency thay will escape from it and they caused it so why are they acting as if bitcoin is the one causing the inflation and that is one of the things that bitcoin uses to pass, any form of currency. It as a unique factor you can spend it as a currency and you can hold it as an asset how many currencies have that features.

Their so many characteristics that can not be used to measure that of bitcoin and that is why no matter what regulation they come with people still find a way, look at how they tax people in the us over transactions and people don't even care this shows that bitcoin is the king.

[Zoomic]

The paper claims that, in a scenario where Bitcoin’s price continues to rise, “the existence of Bitcoin impoverishes both non-holders and latecomers” as early Bitcoin holders accumulate wealth without contributing to the productive economy.

These claims are a clear evidence of their hatred for Bitcoin. How on earth will anyone say bitcoin holders contribute nothing to productive economy. Anyone would easily know more wealth means an increase in purchasing power. If wealthy bitcoin holders patronize other businesses, that is their contribution to the productive economy. Many bitcoin holders have other initiatives they finance to boost the economy.

The claim too that bitcoin impoverishes late adopters and non-adopters has no fact in it. If that claim was true, we won't be having more adopters like we have now. The government would do anything to make sure people lose interest in bitcoin. The only problem the government has with bitcoin is REGULATION.

These claims are not new. It will be more interesting if they can come up with a more befitting claim with lots of facts so we all will do our analysis well.

[SamReomo]

The only thing that could truly destroy Bitcoin is if its code gets cracked and someone messes with the system, but outside of that, there’s really no major risk.

There's no need to crack Bitcoin code as it's already available freely because it's an open source project and its source code is public. I believe the only way someone could do harm to Bitcoin is some type of 51% attack and that's also not possible because it would require huge investment and energy consumption, and I believe it's also hard to find that many ASIC miners even if someone has that much money.

Some worry about what happens if the big holders start selling, but we’ve got Satoshi holding a million bitcoins. If he ever decides to sell, it won’t be all at once because exchanges couldn’t handle that volume. Even if Satoshi sells, it would be gradual and wouldn’t shake up the market too much.

Even if big holders start selling their Bitcoin holdings that will still not damage Bitcoin in anyway. All those people who hold high number of Bitcoin may sell it sometime in their life unless they might earn profits from their ETF creation or from their company stock only because of Bitcoin. And, when it comes to Satoshi selling Bitcoin then that's not going to happen.

[Wind_FURY]

What those Central Bankers fear, are the technical features that Bitcoin possesses that makes it an asset that could weaken and break Political Strongholds, and probably change the current order. BRICS countries have their own banking treaties/accords, but the weaker countries in that group should probably start purchasing Bitcoin as a back-up/fall-back in case the more powerful nations in that group start pushing their authority against the weaker countries.

Plus having that fall-back will probably function as a disincentive for those powerful countries from pushing their authority.

[betswift]

What those Central Bankers fear, are the technical features that Bitcoin possesses that makes it an asset that could weaken and break Political Strongholds, and probably change the current order. BRICS countries have their own banking treaties/accords, but the weaker countries in that group should probably start purchasing Bitcoin as a back-up/fall-back in case the more powerful nations in that group start pushing their authority against the weaker countries.

Plus having that fall-back will probably function as a disincentive for those powerful countries from pushing their authority.

I wouldn't believe BRICS would be going all-on BTC simply because they don't have much authority over one another, they are not like an alliance of sorts where everybody vote what to do - just remember about China and India being in one group 
Maybe some will get a hold of BTC and use it in the future, but it's highly unlikely.