OT: Bitcoin, Altcoins, NFT's & All Things Crypto

[RU-05]

“Investing” as in buying a whole bunch of crypto = No (other than companies like Microstrategy, Tesla, and a few others that are doing it more as a gimmick). In my experience, Fortune 500 companies that want blockchain solutions typically develop it internally or buy off-the-shelf and custom solutions such as this:

IBM Blockchain - Enterprise Blockchain Solutions and Services

IBM Blockchain technology empowers businesses to digitize transactions through a secured, shared and distributed ledger, improving efficiency and transparency.

www.ibm.com

Fortune 500 companies have supply chain and finance organizations that have accountability. They aren’t going to gamble when they can buy legit hyper-ledger solutions. Not only that, for the most part, they don’t care about DeFi. The number of people in the world that care about DeFi is minuscule. Go ask family members, friends, co-workers, etc., if they are excited for the future DeFi world = I guarantee almost all of them won’t know what you are talking about or won’t care.

Well IBM is an interesting example.

Huge company getting into blockchain. Which to an extent validates the utility of blockchain.

However IBM get's into all sorts of exciting fields and then gets beat out by smaller players routinely in those fields.

 

[RUAldo]

blockchain "companies",

Assuming we are talking about the same thing, these are not “companies”, they are “projects”, “ecosystems”, or “platforms”. I wish all these crypto plays were companies because then we could vet them and their leadership. If you haven’t already done so, spend some time on the websites of Cardano, Solana, etc. Even better, read the terms of service and tell me how many Fortune 500 companies are going to sign up for a service with no SLAs, no recourse, and the service is purely provided on an “as is” basis.

 

[RUAldo]

Well IBM is an interesting example.

Huge company getting into blockchain. Which to an extent validates the utility of blockchain.

However IBM get's into all sorts of exciting fields and then gets beat out by smaller players routinely in those fields.

I could be wrong, but I think Block f/k/a Square is looking to roll out similar blockchain commercial solutions (at least I’m hopeful). There are plenty of hyperledger/blockchain solutions in market like IBM. The key is for blockchain to go mainstream and get rid of BS like title insurance, ticket resellers, etc. In that regard, all of the token/coin nonsense is not needed. It’s simply hyperledger BC technology. Rutgers Athletics is not going to use a technology platform that offers zero protections/recourse = meaning they are screwed if on game day the digital ticket ops crash. But again, nobody should take my view as gospel. Just do the research and make your own decisions.

 

[RUAldo]

Good luck finding a Fortune 500 supply chain org or legal department that will agree to these terms when it comes to critical business/company operations and products:

Terms of Service

Terms of service, agreement to terms and more.

solana.com

 

[Frida's Boss]

What I find fascinating is folks on this thread pumping crypto, posting videos, slamming anyone that questioned the $100K BTC EOY target - ONLY to then sell off their crypto portfolios and move that money to stocks. Why would any of these posters sell their BTC when they believe, and argued, it’s going to $100K?

The reason you encounter criticism from your posts regarding crypto is because, in order for BTC to rise in price over time, more people need to join the group willing to buy it. Absent such an increase in participants, the price will necessarily stagnate and quite likely fall because there is nothing to objectively anchor the price. You are angering the mob and offering reasons for potential new purchasers to question whether they too should join. Heaven forbid the mob shrinks.

Compare that to owning a stock. Criticism of the stock may cause the quoted price to fall, but this presents an opportunity for the investor to purchase more at a potentially attractive prospective return or for the issuer to repurchase shares, increasing the percentage of earnings accruing to continuing shareholders. You can evaluate the earnings and cash flow of the business in relation to the price and see that you, as a holder, are earning an attractive return. A true investor could evaluate the investment even if the quoted price of the stock, or the stock market, shut down for an extended period of time. So long as the business continues to earn good returns relative to your purchase price, you can conclude that your investment is sound and its value is improving. You don’t need a quoted price to reach that conclusion. A true investor doesn’t get upset or angry when encountering criticism If such criticism allows them or the issuer to purchase more shares at attractive prices.

Crypto has none of those attributes. The only time you will ever receive cash for your holding is when you sell it to someone else, and the more people willing to buy, the better. It depends on a quoted price, since there is no objective measure of what it is worth. It’s why the mob gets angry when faced with criticism or persistent skepticism,

I realize you know all of this, but wanted to offer the comments in response to your post to add to the discussion.

 

[ScarletNut]

Assuming we are talking about the same thing, these are not “companies”, they are “projects”, “ecosystems”, or “platforms”. I wish all these crypto plays were companies because then we could vet them and their leadership. If you haven’t already done so, spend some time on the websites of Cardano, Solana, etc. Even better, read the terms of service and tell me how many Fortune 500 companies are going to sign up for a service with no SLAs, no recourse, and the service is purely provided on an “as is” basis.

This particular analogy isn't great. Remember when google, android, red hat first came on, they were open source and basically an "as is" service.

 

[ScarletNut]

The reason you encounter criticism from your posts regarding crypto is because, in order for BTC to rise in price over time, more people need to join the group willing to buy it. Absent such an increase in participants, the price will necessarily stagnate and quite likely fall because there is nothing to objectively anchor the price. You are angering the mob and offering reasons for potential new purchasers to question whether they too should join. Heaven forbid the mob shrinks.

Compare that to owning a stock. Criticism of the stock may cause the quoted price to fall, but this presents an opportunity for the investor to purchase more at a potentially attractive prospective return or for the issuer to repurchase shares, increasing the percentage of earnings accruing to continuing shareholders. You can evaluate the earnings and cash flow of the business in relation to the price and see that you, as a holder, are earning an attractive return. A true investor could evaluate the investment even if the quoted price of the stock, or the stock market, shut down for an extended period of time. So long as the business continues to earn good returns relative to your purchase price, you can conclude that your investment is sound and its value is improving. You don’t need a quoted price to reach that conclusion. A true investor doesn’t get upset or angry when encountering criticism If such criticism allows them or the issuer to purchase more shares at attractive prices.

Crypto has none of those attributes. The only time you will ever receive cash for your holding is when you sell it to someone else, and the more people willing to buy, the better. It depends on a quoted price, since there is no objective measure of what it is worth. It’s why the mob gets angry when faced with criticism or persistent skepticism,

I realize you know all of this, but wanted to offer the comments in response to your post to add to the discussion.

Welcome back. I always find your input interesting.

 

[RUAldo]

This particular analogy isn't great. Remember when google, android, red hat first came on, they were open source and basically an "as is" service.

So you don’t think there is a difference between Google, a Goliath in the tech world and one of the most valuable/profitable companies, and a bunch of developers scattered across the world working on a project like Cardano? You just proved my point.

 

[ScarletNut]

So you don’t think there is a difference between Google, a Goliath in the tech world and one of the most valuable/profitable companies, and a bunch of developers scattered across the world working on a project like Cardano? You just proved my point.

Google wasn't a goliath at first, neither were the others I mentioned. C'mon, I've read almost all your posts and know your comprehension is better than that.

 

[Frida's Boss]

Welcome back. I always find your input interesting.

Thank you. Much appreciated.

I should add that many people have profited handsomely from crypto. I’m not in that group, but don’t begrudge anyone from earning money from crypto trades. That said, I think it’s important for people to understand what underlies the price of crypto. I’ve no idea whether it doubles from here or falls further, but I know I can’t evaluate it as I would any investment I’d consider. But I do wish good luck to anyone buying BTC.

 

[T2Kplus20]

Frida is a smarter and less emotional version of @RUAldo . LOL!
Nice to have him back. Now we need Bob to return!

 

[RUAldo]

Google wasn't a goliath at first, neither were the others I mentioned. C'mon, I've read almost all your posts and know your comprehension is better than that.

Sorry my man. Check your facts. Google launched Android in 2008, at least 10 years after Google was founded. I know because I worked with Google on Android product integration. You are talking apples and oranges.

 

[T2Kplus20]

Thank you. Much appreciated.

I should add that many people have profited handsomely from crypto. I’m not in that group, but don’t begrudge anyone from earning money from crypto trades. That said, I think it’s important for people to understand what underlies the price of crypto. I’ve no idea whether it doubles from here or falls further, but I know I can’t evaluate it as I would any investment I’d consider. But I do wish good luck to anyone buying BTC.

Crypto is a security with real intrinsic value or a collectable like art or a ponzi scheme scam. Honestly, the crypto market probably includes all of these examples. I am not an expert like Bob, but it has been enjoyable to learn about something new.

 

[RUAldo]

Crypto is security with real intrinsic value or a collectable like art or a ponzi scheme scam.

Please explain - crypto is a security or it is security?

 

[rutgersdave]

Freida Boss needs to get back to the stock thread to give his opinion of the current stock market. Would be greatly appreciated.

 

[T2Kplus20]

Good analysis of the Fed, crypto market, and a central back digital currency:

 

[T2Kplus20]

Please explain - crypto is a security or it is security?

Sorry, forget the "a" in that post (edited). Smart contract blockchains like ETH are likely securities. SEC chair alluded to this several times last year.

 

[RUAldo]

Google wasn't a goliath at first, neither were the others I mentioned. C'mon, I've read almost all your posts and know your comprehension is better than that.

Even better ScarletNut = go look up Hiroshi Lockheimer, Google SVP of Android/Chrome. I worked with him on several Android projects. He brought Android to life. When a company integrates with Android and there are problems guess where the issue ends up and who solves that problem = Lockheimer’s team. Find me his equivalent at Cardano, Solana, etc. so a CEO of a Fortune 500 company can make a call when that platform encounters a major issue. That point of contact does not exist.

 

[rurahrah000]

The reason you encounter criticism from your posts regarding crypto is because, in order for BTC to rise in price over time, more people need to join the group willing to buy it. Absent such an increase in participants, the price will necessarily stagnate and quite likely fall because there is nothing to objectively anchor the price. You are angering the mob and offering reasons for potential new purchasers to question whether they too should join. Heaven forbid the mob shrinks.

Compare that to owning a stock. Criticism of the stock may cause the quoted price to fall, but this presents an opportunity for the investor to purchase more at a potentially attractive prospective return or for the issuer to repurchase shares, increasing the percentage of earnings accruing to continuing shareholders. You can evaluate the earnings and cash flow of the business in relation to the price and see that you, as a holder, are earning an attractive return. A true investor could evaluate the investment even if the quoted price of the stock, or the stock market, shut down for an extended period of time. So long as the business continues to earn good returns relative to your purchase price, you can conclude that your investment is sound and its value is improving. You don’t need a quoted price to reach that conclusion. A true investor doesn’t get upset or angry when encountering criticism If such criticism allows them or the issuer to purchase more shares at attractive prices.

Crypto has none of those attributes. The only time you will ever receive cash for your holding is when you sell it to someone else, and the more people willing to buy, the better. It depends on a quoted price, since there is no objective measure of what it is worth. It’s why the mob gets angry when faced with criticism or persistent skepticism,

I realize you know all of this, but wanted to offer the comments in response to your post to add to the discussion.

… so your opinion is that crypto is a ponzi scheme, right? I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you.

 

[Rutgers Chris]

There’s are several caveats to this- did he sell any or is he holding, can he write any of this off, etc. But still a very interesting turn of events…

 

[RUAldo]

There’s are several caveats to this- did he sell any or is he holding, can he write any of this off, etc. But still a very interesting turn of events…

View embedded media

May be I’m missing the obvious, why not take your salary in cash and then go buy BTC if you love it to try to avoid this type of scenario?

 

[rutgersdave]

May be I’m missing the obvious, why not take your salary in cash and then go buy BTC if you love it to try to avoid this type of scenario?

I’m sure Beckham will try to get out of the deal.

 

[Frida's Boss]

… so your opinion is that crypto is a ponzi scheme, right? I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you.

That’s a loaded term, and I was careful to avoid it because it’s synonymous with fraud. That said, BTC does rely on increasing the number of participants willing to purchase it. I stop short of calling it fraud because there is, in theory, a chance that some widespread, accepted utility absent trading will emerge for it. That’s the other side of my argument, of course. I obviously disagree that it will have widespread utility as, for example, a medium of exchange or store of value, but don’t rule out that it could. If I did rule that out, it would meet the criteria for fraud. But I won’t use that label at this time.

 

[yesrutgers01]

There’s are several caveats to this- did he sell any or is he holding, can he write any of this off, etc. But still a very interesting turn of events…

View embedded media

Dang and I thought it bad being at a combined 37% or so on 750k

 

[rurichdog]

Even better ScarletNut = go look up Hiroshi Lockheimer, Google SVP of Android/Chrome. I worked with him on several Android projects. He brought Android to life. When a company integrates with Android and there are problems guess where the issue ends up and who solves that problem = Lockheimer’s team. Find me his equivalent at Cardano, Solana, etc. so a CEO of a Fortune 500 company can make a call when that platform encounters a major issue. That point of contact does not exist.

Just open a new thread on the project page in Github lol

 

[T2Kplus20]

That’s a loaded term, and I was careful to avoid it because it’s synonymous with fraud. That said, BTC does rely on increasing the number of participants willing to purchase it. I stop short of calling it fraud because there is, in theory, a chance that some widespread, accepted utility absent trading will emerge for it. That’s the other side of my argument, of course. I obviously disagree that it will have widespread utility as, for example, a medium of exchange or store of value, but don’t rule out that it could. If I did rule that out, it would meet the criteria for fraud. But I won’t use that label at this time.

Not a "Ponzi Scheme" by definition. At worst, it is a collectable like art or Pokemon cards. There is no Madoff operation of fake trades and false returns. It's just people willing to pay more and more for something based on their perceived value of it (whether right or wrong).

 

[RUBlackout7]

The reason you encounter criticism from your posts regarding crypto is because, in order for BTC to rise in price over time, more people need to join the group willing to buy it. Absent such an increase in participants, the price will necessarily stagnate and quite likely fall because there is nothing to objectively anchor the price. You are angering the mob and offering reasons for potential new purchasers to question whether they too should join. Heaven forbid the mob shrinks.

Compare that to owning a stock. Criticism of the stock may cause the quoted price to fall, but this presents an opportunity for the investor to purchase more at a potentially attractive prospective return or for the issuer to repurchase shares, increasing the percentage of earnings accruing to continuing shareholders. You can evaluate the earnings and cash flow of the business in relation to the price and see that you, as a holder, are earning an attractive return. A true investor could evaluate the investment even if the quoted price of the stock, or the stock market, shut down for an extended period of time. So long as the business continues to earn good returns relative to your purchase price, you can conclude that your investment is sound and its value is improving. You don’t need a quoted price to reach that conclusion. A true investor doesn’t get upset or angry when encountering criticism If such criticism allows them or the issuer to purchase more shares at attractive prices.

Crypto has none of those attributes. The only time you will ever receive cash for your holding is when you sell it to someone else, and the more people willing to buy, the better. It depends on a quoted price, since there is no objective measure of what it is worth. It’s why the mob gets angry when faced with criticism or persistent skepticism,

I realize you know all of this, but wanted to offer the comments in response to your post to add to the discussion.

Why are you comparing Cryptocurrencies against stocks in the first place? That’s a stupid comparison that doesn’t even make sense. Comparing against a commodity or currency would at least make a little more sense.

Your point about more people willing to buy is true about the price of anything. Not sure why you’re trying to use that as a point against crypto.

 

[Frida's Boss]

Not a "Ponzi Scheme" by definition. At worst, it is a collectable like art or Pokemon cards. There is no Madoff operation of fake trades and false returns. It's just people willing to pay more and more for something based on their perceived value of it (whether right or wrong).

I didn’t callit a Ponzi scheme and reaffirmed that I don’t consider it fraudulent.

 

[Frida's Boss]

Why are you comparing Cryptocurrencies against stocks in the first place? That’s a stupid comparison that doesn’t even make sense. Comparing against a commodity or currency would at least make a little more sense.

Your point about more people willing to buy is true about the price of anything. Not sure why you’re trying to use that as a point against crypto.

Buyers of crypto react quite negatively to criticism of crypto because increases in price rely exclusively on adding more buyers. A stock investor should welcome price declines if it affords the chance to buy more of an ownership stake at a lower price. They don’t react negatively to criticism because the value is independent of adding more buyers.

The comparison illustrates that there is no way to calculate a value for crypto without a quoted price, and that quoted price is exclusively a function of the number of particpatpnts willing to buy it as crypto has no other utility. A stock has value independent of the quoted price and does not need more buyers to increase said value. By your logic, a privately owned business would be worthless. Clearly that’s false.

Commodities are, in general, purchased and subsequently consumed. Think oil, natural gas , coal copper, etc. The price is a function of supply and demand for the end product use, and doesn’t rely solely on more market entrants to increase the price. Currencies a have utility as a medium of exchange and, in the case of the dollar, are backed by the largest nominal economy on earth along with the most potent military. BTC has none of those attributes..

 

[T2Kplus20]

I didn’t callit a Ponzi scheme and reaffirmed that I don’t consider it fraudulent.

Understood. My reply was referring to the message you replied to. Also, that term has been throw around a bit here and is factually incorrect.

Just wanted to set the record straight on the "Ponzi Scheme" silliness.

 

[RU-05]

The reason you encounter criticism from your posts regarding crypto is because, in order for BTC to rise in price over time, more people need to join the group willing to buy it. Absent such an increase in participants, the price will necessarily stagnate and quite likely fall because there is nothing to objectively anchor the price. You are angering the mob and offering reasons for potential new purchasers to question whether they too should join. Heaven forbid the mob shrinks.

Compare that to owning a stock. Criticism of the stock may cause the quoted price to fall, but this presents an opportunity for the investor to purchase more at a potentially attractive prospective return or for the issuer to repurchase shares, increasing the percentage of earnings accruing to continuing shareholders. You can evaluate the earnings and cash flow of the business in relation to the price and see that you, as a holder, are earning an attractive return. A true investor could evaluate the investment even if the quoted price of the stock, or the stock market, shut down for an extended period of time. So long as the business continues to earn good returns relative to your purchase price, you can conclude that your investment is sound and its value is improving. You don’t need a quoted price to reach that conclusion. A true investor doesn’t get upset or angry when encountering criticism If such criticism allows them or the issuer to purchase more shares at attractive prices.

Crypto has none of those attributes. The only time you will ever receive cash for your holding is when you sell it to someone else, and the more people willing to buy, the better. It depends on a quoted price, since there is no objective measure of what it is worth. It’s why the mob gets angry when faced with criticism or persistent skepticism,

I realize you know all of this, but wanted to offer the comments in response to your post to add to the discussion.

This is not correct. The current group could cause the price of BTC to increase by continuing to buy more.

 

[RUAldo]

This is not correct. The current group could cause the price of BTC to increase by continuing to buy more.

I think the point he was making is that BTC only goes up when someone, anyone, is willing to buy it from a holder.

 

[RU-05]

I think the point he was making is that BTC only goes up when someone, anyone, is willing to buy it from a holder.

More importantly that buyer needs to be willing to buy it for a higher price.

But Frida's original point was incorrect. 2 people can drive the price of a product up without the help of others.

 

[RUAldo]

This is one of my favorite Cramer articles and pretty much aligns with my POV:

Cramer says speculating on crypto is OK — as long as investors know all the risks

The "Mad Money" host stressed the need for people to view cryptocurrencies through an investment lens, not one colored by fandom.

www.cnbc.com

 

[RU-05]

This is one of my favorite Cramer articles and pretty much aligns with my POV:

Cramer says speculating on crypto is OK — as long as investors know all the risks

The "Mad Money" host stressed the need for people to view cryptocurrencies through an investment lens, not one colored by fandom.

www.cnbc.com

I've heard there are no actual risks.


Seriously though. Anyone buying? The level to watch is 30K I'd think. For BTC anyways.

If I add here it wouldn't be BTC.

 

[RUAldo]

I've heard there are no actual risks.


Seriously though. Anyone buying? The level to watch is 30K I'd think. For BTC anyways.

If I add here it wouldn't be BTC.

I don’t know why every BTC advocate is not loading up at these levels given the fact that it was supposed to be at $100K roughly 3 weeks ago. They should be buying hand over fist at these crazy discounted levels. I mean, a “nation state” is buying this dip so what’s wrong with the rest of the world? DeFi! Store of value! Joking aside, I’m surprised it hasn’t bounced back to $40K yet. If it doesn’t start climbing soon, that’s a really bad sign and there may be serious trouble ahead.

 

[Frida's Boss]

This is not correct. The current group could cause the price of BTC to increase by continuing to buy more.

In order for the price to rise over time, more buyers must come forward. The price will not rise if the same group simply buys and sells amongst themselves. You are describing an unsustainable market relying ina completely closed system where no participant exits their crypto holdings for currency or some other instrument. That’s just not possible over time.

 

[Frida's Boss]

More importantly that buyer needs to be willing to buy it for a higher price.

But Frida's original point was incorrect. 2 people can drive the price of a product up without the help of others.

No, the scenario you posit is not possible in reality. See my earlier post.

 

[RU-05]

I don’t know why every BTC advocate is not loading up at these levels given the fact that it was supposed to be at $100K roughly 3 weeks ago. They should be buying hand over fist at these crazy discounted levels. I mean, a “nation state” is buying this dip so what’s wrong with the rest of the world? DeFi! Store of value! Joking aside, I’m surprised it hasn’t bounced back to $40K yet. If it doesn’t start climbing soon, that’s a really bad sign and there may be serious trouble ahead.

Yeah I dunno, not sure anyone is really in a rush to get into risk assets right now, but the crypto market may be waiting to see what the equity markets do tomorrow.

We have a seen a bit of a bounce today though.

 

[RU-05]

In order for the price to rise over time, more buyers must come forward. The price will not rise if the same group simply buys and sells amongst themselves. You are describing an unsustainable market relying ina completely closed system where no participant exits their crypto holdings for currency or some other instrument. That’s just not possible over time.

Not possible? I think you mean not likely.