How much is “the public” making? The title of the post says millions. The title of the article says trillions. The second paragraph of the article says not trillions. Sheesh
> The latent argument is that crypto leads to inequality
Uh, no..? The argument is just what the OP says it is: 'investing' in crypto does nothing productive for the real economy and thus is useless to society.
That depends if you are using crypto as 1) a store of value; 2) a medium of exchange; or 3) an alternative to permission-based monetary policy. All of it depends on the jurisdiction of the fiat-to-crypto and/or crypto-to-fiat transaction.
The entire crypto market cap is about $2.8T, which makes it about 75% as big as Apple. Would the same argument make sense if the author were to say Apple employees alone "push up prices for houses, resort hotels, and all sorts of other things they do with their money". Kind of a stretch if you ask me.
Ever read something that's so mind-bogglingly stupid that you have to pause and wonder (even now) if you're the stupid one?
That's me right now.
Okay, let me walk through it. I think what's going on here is an extreme double-fallacy: The idea that (1) there is a fixed supply of money (2) that consistently and fairly translates to spending power.
Both of these things are wildly wrong, rendering this article pure idiocy.
Thesis is "crypto millionaires squeeze out other consumers from high demand goods, loss of crypto value reduces demand for those and thus benefits other consumers"
The article comes to a completely incorrect conclusion by fundamentally misunderstanding what moves prices. The price of Bitcoin declines in USD terms when there is more net selling of Bitcoin than buying. If Bitcoin is sold by "crypto bros", only then do they have cash to "[push] up the price of items in short supply, like houses, and tickets to big-name concerts and major sports events". If you wanted the price of other scarce assets to decline, you would hope that more capital flows into Bitcoin or Crypto or something else that you don't care about.
What a weird biased tone throughout this whole article
What is weird about it?
How much is “the public” making? The title of the post says millions. The title of the article says trillions. The second paragraph of the article says not trillions. Sheesh
The latent argument is that crypto leads to inequality, and the low performance of crypto leads to more equality.
Equality in itself is good for the public.
However, i don't think this is a reasonable perspective. Naturally, it should also extend to stocks and real estate.
The difference being that stocks and real estate have at least a tenuous connection to actual production. Crypto has none.
> The latent argument is that crypto leads to inequality
Uh, no..? The argument is just what the OP says it is: 'investing' in crypto does nothing productive for the real economy and thus is useless to society.
Uh, you didn't read the article?
> The gang would be able to buy all sorts of things with their counterfeit money...
Formally it is not counterfeit. The issue is that you afford buying power to some people that others are not afforded - inequality.
Crypto is a zero sum game. "The Public" can't be making millions on aggregate.
Probably something like 90+% lose over longer term. And you make nothing until you sell.
Explain to me how crypto is zero sum? It can be infinity rehypothecatated..
Crypto is a box where a bunch of people put money in and get exactly the same amount out (just distributed differently).
That depends if you are using crypto as 1) a store of value; 2) a medium of exchange; or 3) an alternative to permission-based monetary policy. All of it depends on the jurisdiction of the fiat-to-crypto and/or crypto-to-fiat transaction.
The entire crypto market cap is about $2.8T, which makes it about 75% as big as Apple. Would the same argument make sense if the author were to say Apple employees alone "push up prices for houses, resort hotels, and all sorts of other things they do with their money". Kind of a stretch if you ask me.
But apple makes (at least in theory) a useful product that consumers value. As is pointed out in the article.
I am making the point that this asset class is not very big.
To follow the narrative: The do actual work, arguably even useful.
Ever read something that's so mind-bogglingly stupid that you have to pause and wonder (even now) if you're the stupid one?
That's me right now.
Okay, let me walk through it. I think what's going on here is an extreme double-fallacy: The idea that (1) there is a fixed supply of money (2) that consistently and fairly translates to spending power.
Both of these things are wildly wrong, rendering this article pure idiocy.
Thesis is "crypto millionaires squeeze out other consumers from high demand goods, loss of crypto value reduces demand for those and thus benefits other consumers"
The article comes to a completely incorrect conclusion by fundamentally misunderstanding what moves prices. The price of Bitcoin declines in USD terms when there is more net selling of Bitcoin than buying. If Bitcoin is sold by "crypto bros", only then do they have cash to "[push] up the price of items in short supply, like houses, and tickets to big-name concerts and major sports events". If you wanted the price of other scarce assets to decline, you would hope that more capital flows into Bitcoin or Crypto or something else that you don't care about.