ThLT

If every investment is speculative, then crypto is insanely speculative. And it's not true that every investment is completely speculative. Companies like Apple and Amazon, for example, are actual businesses that provide actual products and services—and considering their past performances, are very likely to remain profitable for many more years to come. On the other hand, cryptocurrencies, being a completely new market, and also currently providing no product or services, is entirely speculative. And especially individual coins. Nothing wrong with a speculative asset, but it is what it is. I don't know what you are trying to argue about, since even crypto fans know cryptocurrencies are highly speculative and volatile assets.

That's what cryptocurrencies are supposed to be, in theory. However, in the most part, they are basically just "get-rich-quick" speculative assets at the moment.

Like I said in my previous posts, most crypto coins are either literal Ponzi schemes, or are structured similarly to a Ponzi scheme. That some coins aren't like that doesn't change that most coins are. More like a baby in a huge swimming pool. Crypto fanatics only talk about the baby. Isn't it also important to talk about the pool? Every time you convert fiat money to buy crypto, there is a conversion/transaction fee. Along with costs of selling, there is then another conversion fee when converting crypto to fiat. If anything, you're probably paying more in conversion/transaction fees with crypto than if you would simply convert from one fiat currency to another.

If you would have read the thread, you would know I think Ethereum has a lot of potential. And, most importantly: If a small number of coins out of 7000+ crypto coins are good, it doesn't paint "a better picture." If 6970 out of 7000 coins are complete garbage... that means, on average, cryptocurrencies are garbage. Most people who like crypto have no idea what cryptocurrency is. And similarly with basic economics.

Fact is, if making money for present/future investors, without real-world applications, is the only present and future function of a crypto coin, then that is in large part the structure of a Ponzi scheme.

Crypto isn't just an asset class. That's an empty statement. Why would it be just an asset class? If it is, then that only further strengthens the point I'm making. That is what I'm saying. It's good that you're realizing it (as compared to Yellowtail, who is clueless about most points discussed). The way coins are structured—similar to the definition of a Ponzi scheme—are that many coins have no actual functioning business model or business activity, and essentially... provide no product or service. If a coin has no use in the present, and will have no use in the future, it will eventually crash, and will be superseded by a coin that does provide a product or service/has actual value. There are some coins that are literal Ponzi schemes, and some are basically structured as Ponzi schemes, whether that is the intent of the developers of the coin or not.

Exactly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

Yes, most coins will eventually crash—will be worth absolutely nothing—and a few will stand. Which, in its present state, is in large part what makes crypto very similar to a Ponzi scheme. Crypto-evangelists will evangelize. ????

Sure, but it's important to differentiate between blockchain/crypto as a technology, and cryptocurrencies. In 10-20 years from now, probably 99% of crypto coins will have perished. Most people will lose a lot of money, or even all of their investments. As a technology, crypto isn't a Ponzi scheme, and has a lot of potential... but right now, with most cases, it basically is structured this way.

Some of the arguments presented in this thread by those who aren't crypto fanatics: - Crypto is zero-sum, or even more, with electricity and hardware wear, negative-sum. - Crypto doesn't create real-world value. - Crypto is structured as a Ponzi scheme, and some coins are in fact full-blown Ponzi schemes (and also things like "pump and dump" with influencers, etc.). - Crypto is a speculative asset, and very likely a speculative bubble. If you want to refute these points, feel free to do so. However, @Yellowtail, saying things like: "Well, it creates value for me, so it creates value!" "And I believe value is subjective anyway!" "Well, not all coins are scams!" "I bought a real Rolex on eBay—so not all Rolexes on eBay are fakes!" Just makes you sound like an idiot more than anything else.

Here is an example of the structure of your whataboutisms that you hurl at us almost every single post:

Wow, you can't see it yourself how ridiculous you sound? You sound like a child. "A K-Bank employee perpetrated fraud, does it mean all Thai banks are no good"? Obviously not. But no one is saying all of crypto is "bad." Your argument, like your 20+ whataboutisms in this thread, is garbage and says nothing.

It is you who has difficulty understanding basic finances/economics, and very simple things like value creation and zero-sum. ????

You don't know how to use Google? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitconnect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneCoin

Whataboutisms, yet again. Yeah well you have to make hay while the sun-shines. Complete BS non-answer. ????

"... or something similar." ????

No. It's a simple sentence, and you managed to misunderstand it. You had replied to this post, which consisted in a wall of emojis, of which a moderator deleted. I read it and was finally relieved that this waste-of-time garbage exchange was over. However, half a day later (13 hours ago), you posted a second reply. Of which I replied to. There's one emoji. Not 100 like your garbage post that was deleted. ???? Ha. Okay, then tell me your bank, and your Internet provider. In this thread. I dare you. We're waiting. Finally. After 10 pages, me and lkn finally were able to make you understand a few things. By the way, here is your own source, that you yourself posted, in your own post a few pages back, which I agree with and which I've now quoted to you for a third time. It's ironic that it's your own source, but you keep denying that a definition of "creating value" exists. ???? https://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Tr-Z/Value-Creation.html

I did let it go. Your reply was deleted by a moderator, because it was just a wall of emojis, so you replied a second time half a day later. ???? That you keep asking this question—and that you think anyone would tell you their broker, simply shows how little you know about this. Are we done?

And not "I depend on my Apple stock dividends for my 'cash flow'" (whatever that means to you). ???? When you assume his "cash flow" is $30,000 per year, are you saying it's his yearly expenses or something? And you mean he is making $30,000 a year from the $0.88 per year of dividends (not $1.88, like you mentioned in your post, and which makes your calculation incorrect)? And did you assume that he makes $30,000 in dividends per year because of your incorrect assumption that he "depends on his Apple stock dividends for my 'cash flow'"? ???? Ah, yes, your more than $1.9M is correct though (that's assuming he bought $1000 of shares, though... and that he didn't sell any). Only part of your post that is correct. The rest is incorrect, like described above. And why are even talking about this anyway? Probably based on another one of your whataboutisms or pinpointing technicalities and diverting the discussion to pointless details. ????

He said his Apple stock dividends were a cashflow. ???? Your post: You somehow think that he "depends" on his Apple stock dividends for his "cashflow." ???? As if it's his yearly expenses or something. ???? You assumed his "cash flow" is $30,000 per year, and then made a bunch of reversed calculations based on that. ???? I can't correct your calculations, because they are entirely based on on wrong assumptions of his $30,000 "cash flow," and how he "depends on his Apple stock dividends for his cash flow."

He said he bought his first share for about $2.50—not all his shares. ???? Your calculations are all off. He never said his monthly expenses were paid for by Apple dividends. ???? What he said is the dividends paid for the initial costs of the shares.

And even then, especially nowadays, it's a minuscule percentage of people who use cryptocurrencies in this manner. Or use them at all in any manner as a currency, for that matter.

How many who buy crypto use it as a currency on a regular basis? Almost no one. How many have used cryptocurrency as a currency even just once in their lifetime? 1%, maybe 4% at most? ???? This is a perfect example of a whataboutism. I said "no one buys bitcoin to use it as a currency"... You know, when using an actual currency, you use it to buy stuff on a regular basis—more than once or twice. ????

I explained it in different ways, and so did lkn... I even agree with the definition of "creating value" which you yourself posted two pages ago. https://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Tr-Z/Value-Creation.html

Not everything is zero-sum. ???? Cryptocurrencies aren't companies. ???? People making money with crypto—which is what we are discussing—are almost entirely not using it as a currency. YOU: "But there are people who use it as a currency, for drugs and things like that." Yet another whataboutism.