What the Hell Just Happened With Crypto?
Last week, the price of bitcoin fell to lows not seen since 2020 while a prominent stablecoin collapsed. Does this mean it was all a Ponzi scheme?

The cryptocurrency world took a beating last week. The price of bitcoin fell to lows not seen since 2020; Coinbase, the largest cryptocurrency exchange, saw its stock plummet; and a prominent "stablecoin" called Terra, along with its associated cryptocurrency, Luna, collapsed.
In response, crypto naysayers took to Twitter to dance on bitcoin's grave, and subreddits that had once been filled with celebrations of booming crypto portfolios were soon filled with people posting numbers for suicide hotlines and desperate personal stories about lost fortunes.
Some of the downturn in the crypto market can be explained by the fact that cryptocurrencies now closely track the stock market, and so the same global factors that battered the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average also battered bitcoin: another month of high inflation, the Federal Reserve hiking interest rates, slow economic growth, and supply chain disruptions stemming from Russia's war against Ukraine and China's zero-COVID policy.
But it's impossible to understand what's happening with bitcoin without understanding the role of Terra's collapse and what it might say (or not) about stablecoins, which are integral to the cryptocurrency ecosystem.
As the name suggests, stablecoins are non-volatile digital currencies that are pegged to the dollar. This peg is ostensibly "backed by reserves like dollars, U.S. Treasury bonds or other traditional assets," reported The New York Times last week. That peg simply means that if you use one U.S. dollar to buy one stablecoin on Monday, you can expect that on Friday, that stablecoin can still be redeemed for one dollar. Using stablecoins like USDC (USD Coin) and USDT (Tether) allows investors to move into and out of cryptocurrency positions more quickly.
However, one popular stablecoin turned out to not be so stable: Terra, which the Times notes was "based on an algorithm that encourages traders to maintain its value," lost nearly all of its value last week after its supportive sister currency Luna dropped to 23 cents in value. (More on the technical side of the Terra collapse here.) The loss of Terra's peg meant that Terra holders could not redeem their tokens for U.S. dollars on a 1:1 basis, which is the primary function of stablecoins.
Terra losing its peg not only erased the wealth of Terra investors, but also led to another stablecoin, Tether, briefly losing its dollar peg and falling to 94.55 cents before recovering. It also likely drove many bitcoin investors to cash out for fear that Terra's collapse indicated a systemic problem that might spread to other parts of the crypto space.
Whether the Terra incident is a harbinger of collapses to come depends on who you ask. "Really we shouldn't use the same word for all of these things," tweeted Sam Bankman-Fried, CEO of FTX, a prominent crypto exchange, on May 12. "What we call 'algorithmic stablecoins' aren't really stable in the same way that fiat backed stablecoins are. They're more like structured products, and they need upside if they want to justify the risk."
The fact that Terra holders went all in regardless of the risk is what worries Jon Stokes, founder of Ars Technica and a major web3 watcher. "With the Terra-Luna pairing, there was an ecosystem there," he tells Reason. "It wasn't just a stablecoin that people were using on [decentralized exchanges] to swap in and out of USD; there was an ecosystem of DeFi products…that were built on top of this."
Because Terra was more than just a stablecoin, "what has imploded is not an asset solely, but a whole corner of web3," Stokes says. Plus, Terra and the associated protocol, Anchor, "had some amount of V.C. imprimatur." There were big names and big money behind Terra, which raises the question of whether retail investors are safe following the lead of venture capital firms and other institutional investors, who can afford bigger losses.
What's more, Stokes notes that there has always been skepticism around Terra specifically because it was backed by volatile assets. However, Stokes says he's also skeptical of supposedly safer stablecoins. "There are plenty of those kinds of things that are out there; I suspect we will see more such implosions in the coming weeks and months," he says. "I think [Tether] is vulnerable to a bank run."
However, another way to look at Terra's collapse is a successful stress test of Tether, which quickly recovered its 1:1 peg with the U.S. dollar. That's what Nic Carter, general partner at Castle Island Ventures and founder of Coin Metrics, took away from the last two weeks, when Tether processed over $7 billion in redemptions. "If Tether had no reserves, they wouldn't be able to do that," says Carter. "What this shows is the mechanism worked as intended." He adds that while many of crypto's critics are "indiscriminate" and "think everything is a scam," some things really are "Ponzi-like" or "Ponzi-adjacent"; Carter says that Terra qualifies.
As to why bitcoin is tracking stocks so closely, Carter says it's investors trying to manage risk in their portfolios during less-than-ideal times. "Bitcoin is a great asset to liquidate, it sells 24/7, globally, everywhere," he notes.
And eventually, we may start to talk about stocks following crypto, rather than the other way around. "My guess is that…if crypto prices crash there will not be a ton of contagion in the rest of the financial system," writes columnist Matt Levine at Bloomberg Opinion. "But I think it is, at this point, debatable. Crypto has at least started to work its way into the real financial system. Some traditional investors also own crypto; if their crypto goes down they might have to sell regular stuff. Some public companies are exposed to crypto (because they are crypto exchanges, because they have levered crypto holdings, etc.), so your boring old index fund might go down when crypto goes down." The existence of ripple effects would prove crypto's success, in a way, argues Levine.
Despite current volatility in the crypto space, its fundamental promise holds up: It remains a competitor to central banks, adds Carter. "It's very unambiguous to me that bitcoin, in particular, and then stablecoins are very useful for financial and monetary freedom."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
What the Hell Just Happened With Crypto?
Last week, the price of bitcoin fell to lows not seen since 2020 while a prominent stablecoin collapsed. Does this mean it was all a Ponzi scheme?
*sigh*
The last 2 years did create an artificial high for crypto and NFTs based on excess covid money given to young adults to not to work. There were dozens of stories regarding them investing their covid money in these exchanges as get rich quick schemes.
Any commodity can have swings from speculation, including Crypto.
“Does this mean it was all a Ponzi scheme?”
Hahaha. You just described our market based economy. Whatsamatta
Why did you quote a headline not in my post in a reply?
who cares he still roasted your ass
The same thing that happened to the rest of the economy, the progtards got elected
Why do we allow them to live? So much simpler if we forced them to identify as dead.
They could still out vote us - - - - - - - -
How’s Spokane traitor?
How's Naraka, you ban evading freakshow.
The article is interesting, and the topic is interesting. I have two comments though:
"bitcoin fell to lows not seen since 2020" is not a scary statement. That was 2 years ago. Might have been way too high or something, but asset bubbles during destabilization is to be expected. Sounds like we had a correction, and that's how markets do, mang. The idea that Bitcoin is a monotonically increasing value asset is more the problem. People need to learn that. The state surprise at Crypto tracking stocks (i.e. markets are tracking with other markets) just shows a weird ignorance on at least some folks part.
And then I forgot my second point.
I noticed the two year thing too. That's not that bad of a drop as I was hearing.
"bitcoin fell to lows not seen since 2020" is not a scary statement. That was 2 years ago.
This is a little bit out of context and gets back to the stupid promises bitcoin has made. That is, if your investments fall 50% back to 2020 levels, that's a market correction. If your currency falls 50% back to 2020 levels, that's rather catatrophic.
^
Can we get the dollar to fall back (up) to 2020 levels?
Bitcoin should be going UP as the dollar devalues.
As far as stablecoin, I can’t even fathom the thought process of tethering an imaginary energy waste to a fiat currency to begin with.
This is the 14389032nd time bitcoin has died.
But in the real world, it's still double what it was on election night -- just like your grocery bill.
BTC's huge spike up to near 70k was based on the idea that Biden would get all his spending through congress. Since he's completely incompetent and all his ideas are terrible, he's been pretty much reduced to EOs and shoveling money to Ukraine.
But don't worry, that spending will happen sooner or later and btc will shoot right back up.
Bitcoin makes sense academically as a counter to inflation of fiat currency.
It “should” appreciate at the rate of inflation.
Any increases beyond that would reflect a defect in the currency. Or a gaming of the currency. Neither are good.
"Any increases beyond that would reflect a defect in the currency. Or a gaming of the currency. Neither are good."
This is wrong. As I note below, in a currency with (relatively) fixed supply, the value of a unit of currency is far more determined by how much economic activity it is tracking, rather than how much a separate currency is inflating.
People are pulling money out to cope with Bidenflation.
I mean….. the Putin price hike.
Bitcoin is literally fiat currency. It is made out of nothing, backed by nothing, explicitly nothing. The software says "let it be" and it is so. Why libertarians are so gaga over Bitcoin is confusing.
Crypto currency in general? Sure, got it. But Bitcoin in particular? Why?
Bitcoin is to crypto as Kleenex is to tissue.
"Bitcoin is literally fiat currency."
No. Fiat currency requires a government to say "It shall be".
"It is made out of nothing, backed by nothing, explicitly nothing."
A bitcoin is a notional share of economic activity in a large distributed ledger. It is backed by millions of people doing actual work to secure this ledger from attack. It is explicitly whatever people are willing to pay for it.
Fiat currency doesn't require a government blessing. It just means the currency is not backed by gold or silver or other object of value.
And what you described about bitcoin makes it literally a fiat currency. It is not backed by anything of substance.
"Fiat" has meaning; it is an authorization or decree issued by someone or some institution. With respect to money, it means "made legal tender by government decree." (Oxford English Dictionary).
Bitcoin is neither fiat money nor is it backed by something material. In the context of gold and fiat currency, it is something new: a digital asset that is not subject to counterfeit and is of fixed maximum quantity.
Do you know what the word "fiat" means? It's an Italian word that means "decree". Fiat currency most certainly DOES require a government blessing, i.e., violence. Crypto is backed by AGREEMENT.
Until it's replaced by a better or more widely accepted cryptocurrency.
There are two things impacting Bitcoin's price: Economic activity on the blockchain and inflation of the US Dollar.
BTC's economic activity is driving the most volatility. It is driven partially by real world changes like people piling into it as a store of value, folks using it for black market activities around the world, and El Salvador allowing it to be spend like a currency on any market activities, But it is also driven by speculators using complicated derivatives to amass enormous leverage.
That leveraged, speculation volatility is not too different than our current stock market, and it is largely a bubbling froth fueled by the world's easy money policy over the past 15 years. It is also a wild west where anyone can make and lose their fortune daily without silly middle men and their regulators. (This extreme leverage isn't possible without moving your currency out of the US Exchanges- a primary purpose of the Tether eco system.)
I couldn't be happier seeing what is happening with bitcoin. It is tremendously organic and unruly- the exact chaos that we need to continuously prove experts and nannies wrong. And yes, a lot of gullible people are going to lose their shirts (and more) fucking around with it. But I have no doubt that in the end it will also be the place where we solve a lot of different problems.
If this is what you think, then you don't understand what you buy when you buy a share of stock.
Are you suggesting that leverage is not a driver of volatility in the stock market?
I think it was a slightly willful interpretation, ignoring what you meant.
Let me check to make sure it's clear -- you mean that the froth in the market, the rather excessive value of some assets, has been significantly increased due to leverage Like, above and beyond that normal valuations of companies, all of this extra flow coming from Fed "easing" and stimulus, near zero interest rates, and the like.
Something that would traditionally be valued at $10-20 now trading at $100 is still valuable, but the 90% of the price that's above traditional value contains froth as a result of (stimulus, margins, interest rates, fed pumping, etc).
From my perspective, it is true, when money parked in a safe place like a bank or bond is gaining no interest it will find a new place to go, one that is likely to beat inflation. That will inflate perceived values of those more popular assets.
Likewise, when you can borrow from the fed for an inflation adjusted nothing, why would you pull capital out of the markets? You can just spend other people's money now and pay it back with inflated dollars later, right?
My specific point was that when you have $10 you can create $10 worth of demand (and then supply, when you sell). But with easy leverage, (aka margin accounts, shorting, and derivatives) you can create $100 of demand/supply. This tends to cause wider price-swings, aka volatility.
I am not condemning (or endorsing) leverage. It's a tool. It exists. But it has the effect of creating volatility. There are many other causes of price changing in the markets, but in Crypto in particular, there are people swinging enormous amounts of leverage around, because the government doesn't regulate them like they do in securities markets.
This allows some crazy attacks on crypto positions in the market. The attack on Luna was undoubtedly caused by people using leverage to flash crash the crypto. There are other examples of people testing price points to see when algo-traders will sell, then creating flash crashes (or flash spikes) to muscle people out of their positions with margin calls. It is CRAZY. I don't know how they do it, but there are a bunch of kids here in so-call driving around in lambos because they were the first ones doing it.
BTC's huge spike up to near 70k was based on the idea that Biden would get all his spending through congress. Since he's completely incompetent and all his ideas are terrible, he's been pretty much reduced to EOs and shoveling money to Ukraine.
Tell me the price of your currency is controlled by the fiat without... telling me the price of your currency is controlled by the fiat.
LOL the idea that you can print trillions of dollars without inflating the price of btc along with everything else is nuts.
When the US Dollar went from 320 Marks to 7400 marks in the weimar republic, was the dollar controlled by fiat marks?
When you say 'in the Weimar Republic', why do *you* think you're doing that?
I am doing it because that is when the US dollar went from a price of 320 Marks to a price of 7400 marks.
Now do you have an answer to my question?
The answer to your question is a rather obvious... 'In the Weimar Republic... yes.' Are you suggesting that, in the Weimar Republic, people were free to choose to simply use dollars rather than switch from Papiermark to Rentenmark? Even if you point to Stinne making billions by getting paid in dollars as the rule rather than the obvious exception, his fortune collapsed when the government stopped inflating the Mark.
You are pretty transparent when you realize you made a silly argument. You try to deflect by bringing up a lot of obscure, tangential bullshit hoping that your obfuscation will cause people not to reply.
Because Terra was more than just a stablecoin, "what has imploded is not an asset solely, but a whole corner of web3," Stokes says. Plus, Terra and the associated protocol, Anchor, "had some amount of V.C. imprimatur." There were big names and big money behind Terra, which raises the question of whether retail investors are safe following the lead of venture capital firms and other institutional investors, who can afford bigger losses.
When the number of available currencies is limited only by the imaginations of fevered Silicon Valley venture capitalists and swashbuckling startups, what are the chances of a stable, long term coin you'd put your life-savings into?
The problem with fiat currency is that it is subject to the whims of the government. That gives us inflation.
The obvious solution is to just fabricate a bunch of new currencies out of thin air.
The problem with crypto is that it is subject to the whims of the participants in the crypto. No asset is eternal. Not gold, or fiat currency or equities or oil or crypto. Value depends on the participants who produce, exchange, consume and destroy them.
At least with gold, you can make pretty jewelry.
Try to mold an earring out of bitcoin.
You mean an NFT?
You mean a JPG?
Gold is close enough to eternal, compared to the lifespan of humans and human civilization. It is pretty much indestructible, and will survive the collapse of governments or massive solar flares knocking out the electric grid.
Why would you ever pour your life savings into a currency?
I think it worked well for Creepy Dude aka Warren Buffet.
When I look at my 401k, I don't look at it and say, "Whoa, look at this, I have 12,000 shares of Amazon and Twitter!" I look at it and say, "Whoa, my 401k is up to $72,000! Retirement, here I come!"
If I instead looked at my 401k and said, "Wow, my 401k is worth 30,000 Luna! Retirement, here I come!" and then discover that the 30,000 luna won't buy a stick of gum, that's a problem.
Especially when literally day before yesterday, 30,000 luna would have bought me a mansion in Palm Springs.
You deserve better.
But people *don't* put their life savings into "the dollar". They put it into stocks. And they do that BECAUSE if they leave the money in the dollar, they are vulnerable to changes in the purchasing power of that dollar. Instead they store the fruits of their productivity in many instruments.
My 401k is down about 15% this year...It appears that I shouldn't have put my life savings in Amazon (-38% YTD) or Twitter (-11% YTD) either? Or is it possible that volatility in something like bitcoin (down 38%, just like AMZN) isn't quite the deal killer everyone seems to think?
Public Service Announcement: Don't sink your life savings into one instrument, whether it is fiat dollars, Amazon, Twitter, CDs at your Credit Union, or Bitcoin. You should have a diversified portfolio.
A thriving business will continue to hold (and possibly grow) future value, as long as it is not terribly mismanaged.
A social media network runs the risk of being replaced by the next cool thing.
The USD is pretty much guaranteed to lose value over time, but you hope it does so slowly enough that you can use it for a store of value between other investment transactions.
A cryptocurrency is more of a gamble. If you get in on the ground floor of the one that eventually wins, you can make a fortune. Unfortunately there is an infinite supply of alternative cryptocurrencies.
Jokes on you, my benie babies future's are doing great
Crypto has no inherent value.
It’s a mechanism for tracking the exchange of value.
One that is not terribly liquid or anonymous.
"Crypto has no inherent value."
Neither does the dollar. It's value is based solely on the good faith of the Federal Reserve.
It's value is based solely on the good faith of the Federal Reserve.
Not even fractionally on the values of the people involved in the exchange? That's a pretty powerful fiat!
If that is your definition, then BTC also has a similar backing of value, since people...you know...are involved in the exchange.
It's not my definition of "inherent" or "sole" and your assumption, regardless of who owns the defintion, requires that they both be the same, which they aren't even remotely.
IIRC, you were the one who said neither Bitcoin nor a dictionary had any inherent value. I'm not entirely clear on why you would be so hell bent on proving yourself right but, you do you.
"It's not my definition of "inherent" or "sole" and your assumption, regardless of who owns the defintion, requires that they both be the same, which they aren't even remotely."
It's like you don't even know what you are arguing any more.
"IIRC, you were the one who said neither Bitcoin nor a dictionary had any inherent value."
Or who you are arguing with.
The value of the dollar is that it can keep you from going to jail for not paying your taxes. If the US govt eventually goes out of business, it will have no value.
You just hope that the US govt doesn't print too much too fast, like they have for the past 2 years. Most people can adapt to inflation at 2 or 3 percent. When it hits 7 or 8 or 10 percent it gets painful.
Right. That’s why I have no expectation that the cash in my mattress will increase in value.
... and the violence that the State is willing to use to enforce its use against popular will.
It's "The Currency About Nothing."
With Kramer running the Fed.
Only porkbellies have any real value!
Crypto today has zero of the libertarian ethos that got some people involved in the first place. All of this DeFi stuff is a vessel to do the opposite, invite more control over a person's life (with a public digital wallet controlling access) and that is the best case scenario. Worst case its another speculative asset, except this one doesn't even potentially have value. Its exactly like Moxie predicted.
I do own some crypto ... mobilecoin through signal, because that's, you know, private
I agree with you on this. When Bitcoin first hit the scene... however many, many years ago. I was legitimately interested as I have a... "libertarian disdain" for fiat currency. But as the goalposts of Bitcoin kept getting moved, shifted, rebuilt, lowered, etc., I began to sour not only on Bitcoin, but the concept of cryptocurrency.
People will most certainly confuse this for thinking I have a great love of fiat currency and Federal Reserve manipulations of it. I don't, I've just decided that Bitcoin is not the answer to that set of problems. Or, in my humble opinion, any crypto currency currently in play today. I know, I know, they thought the Wright Brothers would never get off the ground and now look at us.
I'll not hold my breath.
I still have a similar view to what I initially had. It's an interesting idea, sounds like they have a lot of stuff to figure out still. Give it time and we'll see if it happens.
I think blockchain has interesting possibilities.
Unfortunately NFTs showed up and showed us one of those incredibly annoying possibilities.
Annoyingly stupid possibilities
I completely agree with this Paul. Crypto in general assumes value only comes from scarcity. Sure the supply of Bitcoin is finite and it has value in that it requires energy to mine, but ultimately who cares if nobody wants it. Gold has traditionally been a carrier of value not just because it's scarce but because there is demand for it. It's a key distinction that seems to be overlooked at times.
If the whole thing comes crashing down what good will a Bitcoin be? Commodities at least have some inherent value.
What scarcity when they subdivide coins to small fractions? Scarcity driven by 64 digits?
Bits*
"But as the goalposts of Bitcoin kept getting moved, shifted, rebuilt, lowered, etc. I began to sour "
I like most of your posting, but with bitcoin, not so much. You seem to have completely soured, and continue to call out goalposts that were never actually put forward by the originators of bitcoin. And then when bitcoin cannot perfectly meet these invented goalposts, you declare it irredeemable.
And then when bitcoin cannot perfectly meet these invented goalposts, you declare it irredeemable.
Uh, you do know that all goalposts are invented, right? I think you mean they were invented unfairly by other people but that's not what you said. And it's not exactly true, Satoshi himself in the first paragraph of the abstract says "purely P2P" and "without going through a financial institution" both of which are inconsistent with the blockchain. Moreover, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of economic transactions and general social interaction to say "I'm the only one who gets to have/set standards and anyone/everyone else can fuck off with theirs."
"Uh, you do know that all goalposts are invented, right?"
No shit. Paul is calling out goalposts that *he* invented and imputed on the crypto, or heard from someone that has no clear understanding of it. And then when these random predictions don't pan out, he declares bitcoin a failure. It's as if he looked at a Mustang and declared it a failure because it can't go off road.
Or, people like yourself, just demonstrate that they do not know what they are talking about:
"And it's not exactly true, Satoshi himself in the first paragraph of the abstract says "purely P2P" and "without going through a financial institution" both of which are inconsistent with the blockchain."
The bitcoin protocol is, by definition, peer-to-peer. Before you google-search a bunch of tangential bullshit in order to try and confuse this issue, understand that I've been working with various protocols including P2P for 30 years. Just take the L.
And Bitcoin does allow payment between peers without a financial institution. (The fact that some, or many people choose to make transactions with the help of financial institutions is not inconsistent.)
"Moreover, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of economic transactions and general social interaction to say "I'm the only one who gets to have/set standards and anyone/everyone else can fuck off with theirs.""
Which isn't, you know, anywhere in the paper. I think it is pretty clear from the fact that you don't even know what P2P is that you are just making up whatever definitions you want.
"All of this DeFi stuff is a vessel to do the opposite, invite more control over a person's life (with a public digital wallet controlling access) and that is the best case scenario."
DeFi has nothing to do with "public digital wallets controlling access".
DeFi has much to offer, but it isn't the sum total of Crypto. You could go your whole life trading bitcoin and never once use DeFi. Yet, at the same time, deFi's ability to remove money-changers (for example) as middle men is revolutionary, and is a service that shouldn't be overlooked.
The idea that there is zero libertarian ethos is absurd. Bitcoin still remains permissionless. It is still cryptographically secure, and is increasingly anonymous. Your ability to make anonymous trades with bitcoin is HIGHER than at any time in the history of bitcoin.
Bitcoin still remains permissionless.
You know those goalposts you were talking about people inventing above? Yeah, Satoshi's whitepaper never uses the word 'permissionless' and, again, anything that has to go through Satoshi's genius solution to the Byzantine Generals problem is, by definition, not permissionless.
Here you are making up definitions again. The fact that you broadcast using a consensus algorithm does not mean you are getting permission. Anyone can broadcast a transaction, and as long as they follow the pre-defined rules, their transaction will be accepted- no permission required. Every peer (there's that P thing that you don't understand again) can start and stop, and does not require the permission of anyone as long as it broadcasts valid transactions.
To say that isn't permissionless is to (again) demonstrate either a willfully distraction, or woefully ignorant understanding of words. With you, I think it might be a bit of both here.
A sort of self-assembled Ponzi scheme, even if that was not the conscious intent. Elements of a giant casino mixed in. The proven applications are ponzi, pump and dump, ransomware, sex trafficking.
"The reason why I say it’s rerunning half a millennium of failure is that at the start, there’s a huge amount of “tulip mania.” Back in 2018, we had a tulip mania of these deformed cats called “crypto kitties” that shut down Ethereum. Now we have a tulip mania of these deformed apes that shut down Ethereum, because of course it can’t really do all that much. And so the thing is, there’s just no object permanence in the space. They don’t remember their old mistakes. And so they just keep making them over and over again"
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2022/05/why-this-computer-scientist-says-all-cryptocurrency-should-die-in-a-fire/?fbclid=IwAR2x6PmB6YX5ybIaPJnqVQR9T39baeJub2eqCp_JgIcrYqWGp1JPjpBqY9o
I remember when Bitcoin first came out, and the [libertarian] enthusiasts declared that Bitcoin was going to be the facebook to fiat currency's friendster and myspace. That people would stampede to the superior platform, leaving fiat currency to... wither on the vine (to invoke the ghost of the 1990s). Bitcoin would success because it existed outside the manipulations of government and existed outside regulatory strictures.
Now we literally get arguments like, "Bitcoin would totes be successful if the US Government would just recognize it as a currency!"
The smart people weren't talking about bitcoin being currency for Facebook or Myspace, they were talking about it being currency for the poor unbanked third world citizens who keep getting the value of their currency inflated away.
Whoosh!
The smart people should advocate for a reliable self sustaining electricity grid for the worlds poor, necessary for digital electronic currencies, before they skip to the currency itself. It’s not smart to go to the end game before figuring out how the game is played.
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/3489776-an-energy-independent-india-requires-a-nuclear-revolution/
I took Elvis's confusion of "Bitcoin was supposed to obsolete fiat the way Facebook obsoleted MySpace." as "Bitcoin was supposed to be used by Facebook and MySpace." to mean that even if he heard smart people talking, he wouldn't have the slightest clue what they were talking about.
Are ALL cryptocurrencies Ponzi schemes?
No. That's absurd.
Are SOME?
Oh yes. Definitely some.
"based on an algorithm that encourages traders to maintain its value"
Again with the "algorithm"! That crap's as bad as Twitter or even the internet itself and should be banned from software!
Bitcoin can’t be used as money because the US government classified it as an investment, meaning every transaction is subject to reporting and capital gains. It is hardly surprising that classifying it as security means it behaves like a security and not a currency.
*In the united states*
People around the world are using it as a currency. People in the US are using it as a currency as well...Specifically those who are using the full Bitcoin ecosystem, rather than leaving their money in an exchange.
Get out of the exchange, pay any taxes you made while it sat dormant, and tumble your bitcoin into a lightning wallet. You now have a permission-less, nearly anonymous[*] currency at your hands. The price for this is that it is extremely volatile right now.
Europe also has a complex tax regime. The US and Europe are so dominant commercially and financially that they are going to dominate the behavior of Bitcoin.
Staying out of the exchanges doesn’t help with the tax rules. I suppose you can ignore the rules, but the penalties can be serious. Again, that may work for people with not a lot to lose, but it’s not going to change how Bitcoin behaves because big businesses aren’t going to do that.
My point remains: the volatility is the result of regulations, not an inherent problem with Bitcoin as a currency.
In the regulated market, when prices go down it's an opportunity to leverage other people's panic to buy in when things are cheap. And the stablecoin known as the dollar has a value that will only collapse if something really bad happens to the world. In which case, good luck buying canned goods and ammo with crypto. Jesus Christ, is there anything you people don't support that's not a means of scamming people out of their money by making them stupid?
I agree with Tony!!!! In addition, it’s based on a reliable electricity grid, brokerage and internet connection. Back in the short squeeze nonsense, TD Schwab blocked my access to the entire brokerage for a few hours.
Folks that live in the real world should be worried about 70 year productivity lows. Explain Reason
Well we did just have a Twitter employee on camera stating how lax employment is there where someone can choose when it when not to work allowing him to work 4 hours a week for months with no change in pay.
Really? WTF
No wonder Musk is slowing his deal down in favor of more extensive due diligence. Twitter may be near worthless.
Like, say, if it for some reason countries started buying oil using Rubles or something..
Then we ought to make sure Russia does not replace the US as the world's preeminent power, I'm sure we agree.
Good. So we can stop fucking up our military and destroying our own economy. To that end, you should support the immediate dissolution of the current administration and the restoration of the successful previous administration.
Right?
There is literally zero risk of Russia being the world's superpower.
China, on the other hand...
Blockquote>Last week, the price of bitcoin fell to lows not seen since 2020 while a prominent stablecoin collapsed. Does this mean it was all a Ponzi scheme?/blockquote>
No. But it does mean crypto is not money - it is a speculative asset. One that did not create wealth and was in a bubble and that bubble's deflated.
"and that bubble's deflated."
If it is deflated, then BTC created a lot of wealth. It is up 3x since 2020.
I can't see it.
I can't hold it.
I can't put it under my mattress.
Therefore, it doesn't exist.
Just like radio waves, simply not there.
Ackshuyally, radio waves do exist, M'Lady, as do atoms as established by Ion Mass Spectrometers. And at least radio waves can serve as an advertising medium that can make money, regardless of the medium of exchange, though, of course, the best medium that stores value is precious metals e.g. Platinum, Gold, Silver, etc.
Really? Than catch a radio wave and paint it blue.
I think there's a problem with your definition (or you are making a joke that I'm missing). Our inability to directly perceive a thing doesn't mean it isn't real. Nor does our inability to apply blue paint.
One can even make a pretty good argument that only things like the electromagnetic field and various other fields are the only things that really exist.
Radio waves can't appear blue because they are energy transfer outside the visible spectrum of light. You can catch them just fine with an antenna though. Try it sometime.
I figured the other way. My old CRT TV with the bunny ears is how you catch a radio wave and paint it blue.
OK, I give up.
Doesn't mean it was a Ponzi scheme. Just means it was a speculation bubble. Tulips and shit. Everyone outside of Crypto knew this, only the Tru Beliebers thought differently.
Of course, doesn't help that Bitcoin explicitly encourages this its mining requirements.
The big problem I see with crypto is that everyone running an exchange or extolling the virtues to the public are pushing a pyramid scheme without pushing a pyramid scheme. A liquid, non-centralized, priced to market currency that is imminently spendable is a great idea. It seems that cryptos don't fit this mold.
When you catch anyone on the business shows explaining why it's a good investment, you hear things like game theory, blockchain, and generational wealth. The biggest selling point I hear from most of them is telling me how secure blockchain is. I'm not sure how blockchain makes bitcoin worth anything as a currency.
It's secure until someone masters quantum computing.
Digital tulip bag holders get what they deserve. The US Dollar's value has been relatively stable for so long that people straight up forgot that dollars (like all currencies) have no inherent value: the only value that dollars have is derived from what they they can do (be spent on things, be lent out, etc). Bitcoin cannot be lent out. It cannot be used to buy anything important. It does nothing. The ONLY appeal it has or has ever had was "some day the value will increase." It's a speculation tool, a bet, by idiots, that a valueless thing will some day become valuable for no particular reason (that's why they are idiots). No one hoards dollars with the idea that some day dollar bills will be worth more, because dollar bills have no inherent value.
Fools and their money are soon parted. I must admit though. I was really hoping they'd have been fully parted with all of it sooner so that they'd stop buying out all the graphics cards.
I have a beanie baby and pet rock I made a fortune on. Sarc/agree
Peter, Michael and Samir are behind this.
They will probably end up in federal ‘pound me in the ass’ prison.
It means when you build a house of cards, the whole thing can collapse if you pull one out on the bottom level.
The problem with crypto is “there is no there there.” It’s all ones and zeros. If people decide tomorrow that Bitcoin is smoke and mirrors and you have thousands in Bitcoin, you really have nothing in Bitcoin. When you own a stock, you own part of a real thing - a company that produces a product or service. If Ford goes bankrupt, there are still factories, inventory and real estate to liquidate. If you own gold and the world decides it doesn’t like gold, at least you have metal. If Bitcoin goes bankrupt you have a computer file worth nothing.
Bitcoin is to currency as hydrogen is to emissions.
It’s a mechanism for transferring value. It has none of the unique features it claimed to have.
It’s a stupid place to “invest”. Just like any other currency.
No, the whole thing isn't a Ponzi scheme, just Terra/Luna... and quite a few other cryptos out there.
There are a lot of criminals in the crypto space taking advantage of crypto newbies who don't understand much except they think they can make a lot of money by buying crypto. This is like the dot.com crash where web newbies were investing into vapor-ware, sold by fast-talking frauds.
It's not a Ponzi scheme, it's just asset speculation.
Any 'thing' has value based on it's utility.
The original 'utility' of crypto (fading as law-enforcement gets better at dealing with it) was as a financial system for criminal activity.
That created demand, which combined with the deflationary design of most cryptos (there isn't really one that inflates at 2-3%/yr perpetually, the way actual money does - they all seem to artificially limit the total supply) creates room for speculation.
There really isn't a thing that crypto does better than the commercial financial-system otherwise... Transaction processing costs are high, the blockchain networks are slow and inefficient (every user has a copy of the complete chain. Now immagine that scaled up to every user having a copy of the entire world's financial transactions, for even a day - waste bandwidth much?)....
So if the hype cracks & if law-enforcement gets good enough at tracing transactions that BTC stops being the go-to for hacking ransoms, darkweb markets, and so on...
Zero is believable. Just like tulips...
So-called stable coins are supposed to be propped up by stable assets like dollars, but the actual underlying assets are shady as hell. I thought I read somewhere that Tether simply minted more tokens and used those tokens to buy crypto that they then labeled as their backing reserves. Like, *poof*, our reserves just doubled! What could possibly go wrong?
crypto is not an investment -- it's gambling. crypto is not backed by anything of value. it is always very volatile making it very risky.
The dollar is backed up by the faith that U.S. citizens and their children, grandchildren, great-grand children etc to infinity will work their butts off producing things while keeping the government officials in office. WE are the collateral.
Crypto currency is based on nothing except trying to make that "money" without having to produce anything at all. It will not work. You have to have something to back up money or else the paper, or the crypto in your bank, is worth nothing at all. You may as well use pet rocks as trade while declaring them worth millions of dollars.
I can't think of any simply way to explain Cryptocurrency except to state the obvious: It's a very elaborate Ponzi scheme.
I don't deal with cryptocurrencies, although I probably should start doing it. The problem is that I'm completely absorbed in my online business and application. Now I am actively figuring out what is api integration and how it can be useful to me. In fact, it seems to me that this interface can be very useful in your work.
The price of Bitcoin is highly volatile, so it's pretty obvious that over some time, it'll grow in price and won't lose the leadership. Even if you use multi-factor regression analysis and take a look at fiat and crypto currencies, you'll understand that even thought they're more stable, they're not that profitable, so there's no need to panic.