Which is More Valuable...

[Parsad]

...Bitcoin or Green Bay Packers stock certificates? 

 

For those that own crypto, please explain how the current batch of crypto are any different than the Green Bay Packers stock certificates issued regularly, with little in voting rights, no profit sharing, no assets backing them, etc.  Cheers!

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/one-year-after-booking-record-profits-packers-seeking-90-m-in-faux-stock-offering-to-fan-base-001540715.html

[JRM]

trick question.  they're both equally worthless...j/k

[Spekulatius]

This is just a another way to monetize highly engaged fans. The ability to do this stuff makes sports teams more valuable. They can issue collectibles and probably NFT's. Virtually zero cost (except marketing) so margins are going to be close to 100%. It's great for sports team owner, if done right.

[Gregmal]

The one that goes up, obviously. 

[SharperDingaan]

You're simply showing your age!

Obviously ... the BTC is the more valuable - 'cause I can short the hell out of the sucker!!

 

The Green Bay certificates is just a direct crowd-fund. Same result, but a lot more efficient than selling branded merch at inflated prices to pocket the gains.

Network monetization that 'old school' capitalist just do not get 

 

SD

 

 

 

 

 

[Spekulatius]

Just now, SharperDingaan said:

You're simply showing your age!

Obviously ... the BTC is the more valuable - 'cause I can short the hell out of the sucker!!

 

The Green Bay certificates is just a direct crowd-fund. Same result, but a lot more efficient than selling branded merch at inflated prices to pocket the gains.

Network monetization that 'old school' capitalist just do not get 

 

SD

 

 

 

 

 

BTC is easier to buy and sell, so it's better bet for speculation. Last time I checked the price for one BTC was a whole lot higher than the price for a Green Bay pack certificate so I am voting for BTC.

[SharperDingaan]

32 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

BTC is easier to buy and sell, so it's better bet for speculation. Last time I checked the price for one BTC was a whole lot higher than the price for a Green Bay pack certificate so I am voting for BTC.

 

Technically, one can't reliably short BTC without using CME futures. 

Why the CME? Collection on your expected obscene MTM gain is guaranteed, whereas on a backstreet 'exchange' ... not so much!

 

SD

[Dave86ch]

Some BTC features and tech characteristics:

digital scarcity/portability/divisibility, programmed deflationary trajectory, immutability, blockchain rails, network effect, mindshare, attraction of brains incentivated and motivated to improve the network.

Ethereum is a Turing complete machine.

I see nothing in common with this stock certificates.

Edited November 17, 2021 by Dave86ch

[rkbabang]

BTC, because it is more likely to be in demand as a store of value by more people and for a longer time than Greenpacks.  Also, like a fiat currency the Green Bay Packers can issue as much stock as it wants, anytime that it wants.  The real question is what makes the US Dollar different from Green Bay Packers stock certificates?  The only difference I can see is that the dollar is demanded by a large government who will hurt you if you don't pay them a part of everything you create in dollars.  The Green Bay Packers should go into the protection racket and demand payment in Greenpacks.

 

 

[Spekulatius]

 The only difference I can see is that the dollar is demanded by a large government who will hurt you if you don't pay them a part of everything you create in dollars

 

I think you got this right. Piss off the US government bad enough and these guys are coming for you regardless where you are. BTC cannot compete with this:

[rkbabang]

56 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

 The only difference I can see is that the dollar is demanded by a large government who will hurt you if you don't pay them a part of everything you create in dollars

 

I think you got this right. Piss off the US government bad enough and these guys are coming for you regardless where you are. BTC cannot compete with this:

Some things are in demand because people want to own it and other things are in demand because someone powerful is making you use it.  The difference between BTC and USD is the difference between consent and coercion.

 

[adesigar]

Weren't tulip bulbs in demand because people wanted to own them? 

[Parsad]

3 hours ago, rkbabang said:

BTC, because it is more likely to be in demand as a store of value by more people and for a longer time than Greenpacks.  Also, like a fiat currency the Green Bay Packers can issue as much stock as it wants, anytime that it wants.  The real question is what makes the US Dollar different from Green Bay Packers stock certificates?  The only difference I can see is that the dollar is demanded by a large government who will hurt you if you don't pay them a part of everything you create in dollars.  The Green Bay Packers should go into the protection racket and demand payment in Greenpacks.

 

 

 

U.S. dollar is supported by its tax revenue base and all national assets (resources, technology, patents, property, etc).  Both BTC and the Packer's certificates have nothing tangible backing them...simply digital scarcity.  Cheers!

[rkbabang]

2 minutes ago, adesigar said:

Weren't tulip bulbs in demand because people wanted to own them? 

 

 

Yes, and tulip bulbs still have value. You can buy them at your local garden center today.

Prices go up and down on most things, and bubbles happen from time to time.

Also the story you are referring to is more urban legend than history.

 

https://cunninghamjeff.medium.com/the-dutch-tulip-mania-that-never-happened-85dd0b18066a

 

[adesigar]

3 minutes ago, rkbabang said:

 

 

Yes, and tulip bulbs still have value. You can buy them at your local garden center today.

Prices go up and down on most things, and bubbles happen from time to time.

Also the story you are referring to is more urban legend than history.

 

https://cunninghamjeff.medium.com/the-dutch-tulip-mania-that-never-happened-85dd0b18066a

 

 

The local garden center wont take BTC or Green Bay Packer certs :(. Both are useless and worthless.

[Parsad]

3 hours ago, Dave86ch said:

Some BTC features and tech characteristics:

digital scarcity/portability/divisibility, programmed deflationary trajectory, immutability, blockchain rails, network effect, mindshare, attraction of brains incentivated and motivated to improve the network.

Ethereum is a Turing complete machine.

I see nothing in common with this stock certificates.

 

Digital scarcity - has no effect on tangible value or utility.

 

Programmed deflationary trajectory - only until all coins are mined.

 

Immutability - Yes, but can be replaced with tangible digital currency.

 

Blockchain rails - This is not isolated to BTC...anything can have blockchain rails.

 

Network effect - Again, not isolated to BTC...a national digital currency would have more stability, usability and would have extensive network expansion.

 

Attraction of brains incentivized and motivated to improve the network - These same brains and ideas could easily be adapted to digital currencies which have more stability, liquidity, usability and require no energy to mine.

 

Ethereum is a Turing complete machine - thus my question about the value of BTC, not Ethereum.  

 

Cheers!

 

[rkbabang]

7 minutes ago, Parsad said:

 

U.S. dollar is supported by its tax revenue base and all national assets (resources, technology, patents, property, etc).  Both BTC and the Packer's certificates have nothing tangible backing them...simply digital scarcity.  Cheers!

 

"supported by its tax revenue base" is another way of saying what I've already said.  It is supported by its ability to take a significant portion of the wealth created by everyone who lives in a large area of the planet under threat of violence, and to demand that payment in dollars.  It has a large protection racket and it is likely that it will continue for the foreseeable future. I'm not saying that it is unreasonable to value dollars, I hold them myself, I'm just being realistic as to what gives them the value they hold.

 

As for BTC not having anything "backing it"; it is valuable in and of itself because of its properties. It is useful and will become far more useful in the future.   I know it is in vogue for value investors to laugh at the concept of holding gold because it "doesn't produce anything", but people have valued it for its money like properties for thousands of years and will continue to do so.  Bitcoin has superior money-like properties to gold and thus people will value it, regardless of what value investors think.

 

[rkbabang]

7 minutes ago, adesigar said:

 

The local garden center wont take BTC or Green Bay Packer certs :(. Both are useless and worthless.

 

There was a time when paper money was useless too, but people seem to accept it now though.  Times change. Some people change with the times, others don't... until they do.  None of these anti-BTC posts are going to age well I think.  I will have a chuckle someday though. Until then we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[rkbabang]

11 minutes ago, Parsad said:

 

Digital scarcity - has no effect on tangible value or utility.

 

Programmed deflationary trajectory - only until all coins are mined.

 

Immutability - Yes, but can be replaced with tangible digital currency.

 

Blockchain rails - This is not isolated to BTC...anything can have blockchain rails.

 

Network effect - Again, not isolated to BTC...a national digital currency would have more stability, usability and would have extensive network expansion.

 

Attraction of brains incentivized and motivated to improve the network - These same brains and ideas could easily be adapted to digital currencies which have more stability, liquidity, usability and require no energy to mine.

 

Ethereum is a Turing complete machine - thus my question about the value of BTC, not Ethereum.  

 

Cheers!

 

 

That's like saying Amazon.com is just a company with a website and anyone can start a company with a website, there are millions of them and more being created every day. Oh wait, value investors did say that about Amazon.com for decades....

 

Also Ethereum is Turing complete which makes it dangerous.  Bitcoin not being Turing complete is a feature not a bug.  Ethereum and Bitcoin are fundamentally different things.

 

[Spekulatius]

The thread predictably ended up in the gutter. I don't own bitcoin (probably never will) but if you don't like something or don't understand it, it is easier to ignore it and move on. It's not like you have to own or use it.

Edited November 17, 2021 by Spekulatius

[Longnose]

22 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

The thread predictably ended up in the gutter. I don't own bitcoin (probably never will) but if you don't like something or don't understand it, it is easier to ignore it and move on. It's not like you have to own or use it.

 

If I don't understand something that is popular or making headlines. I like to view it from a lens of what and I learn or understand from this? Its really easy to dismiss or get negative about things that don't make sense to us or go against current view of thinking. I mean go back a few hundred years when people consistently thought the world was flat or that there was nothing on the other side of the Ocean. Now jumping back to BTC or things that are perceived to have little or no value. In the beginning I would argue that BTC didn't have any value. Yet as years have gone on we see more and more intelligent people putting trust and money behind BTC and crypto. Which begs the question why??? 

 

I like to read classic novels movies, or art in the same vein. What makes Moby Dick so special? its just a book about a man obsessed with a giant fish. To many that is all it will ever be. To it becomes life lessons that can be adapted to many scenarios. Many of the investors in BTC may just be chasing the white whale of fast volatile yields. While another may see the future of our financial system. IMO dismissing BTC and other cryptos as having no value seems comparable to people assuming Christopher Columbus would never come back from his voyage across the Atlantic. 

 

We are probably very much still in the infancy of the crypto voyage but dismissing it as no value seems a pretty crazy assumption. If you don't want to support the journey don't put any money behind it. With Columbus's journey no one knew America existed till he returned. With BTC we have lots of information available if you want to dig into it and are tech savvy enough to understand it. I admit much of it goes over my head but when I attempt to look at the whole picture it makes me very curious about the future for BTC and other cryptos. I definitely don't want to just say Crypto is worthless and walk away. 

[Parsad]

2 hours ago, rkbabang said:

 

"supported by its tax revenue base" is another way of saying what I've already said.  It is supported by its ability to take a significant portion of the wealth created by everyone who lives in a large area of the planet under threat of violence, and to demand that payment in dollars.  It has a large protection racket and it is likely that it will continue for the foreseeable future. I'm not saying that it is unreasonable to value dollars, I hold them myself, I'm just being realistic as to what gives them the value they hold.

 

As for BTC not having anything "backing it"; it is valuable in and of itself because of its properties. It is useful and will become far more useful in the future.   I know it is in vogue for value investors to laugh at the concept of holding gold because it "doesn't produce anything", but people have valued it for its money like properties for thousands of years and will continue to do so.  Bitcoin has superior money-like properties to gold and thus people will value it, regardless of what value investors think.

 

 

On the contrary, I'm a proponent of gold in place of fiat currencies.  Gold, silver and other commodities actually have a utility value...not just as store of value because of scarcity.  Why would I own BTC, if I could hold coffee beans or wheat?  They have more utility and less volatility than BTC.  In actuality, virtually anything (even my poop) has more utility than BTC.  Hey, but I'm an old goat who doesn't understand these new fangled things. 

 

My mint Wayne Gretzky rookie card actually carries more value because of scarcity than BTC!  Let's get Opee-Chee to issue 100,000 new Gretzky rookie cards and release only 1,000 every year for the next 100 years.  Then real estate agents, car dealers, Amazon, Overstock, etc will all start accepting Wayne Gretzky rookie cards for purchases.  We can then start a company that issues wallets to hold fractions of our Wayne Gretzky rookie cards...we'll break each one into millions of fractional pieces.  Because of the limited supply, the prices of the cards will continue to go up and they will be an alternative store of value for the US dollar.  Sounds like a wonderful idea, since the energy costs of printing 100,000 cards would be nothing like the energy costs to mine cryptocurrencies.  Cheers!

[Red Lion]

1 minute ago, Parsad said:

 

On the contrary, I'm a proponent of gold in place of fiat currencies.  Gold, silver and other commodities actually have a utility value...not just as store of value because of scarcity.  Why would I own BTC, if I could hold coffee beans or wheat?  They have more utility and less volatility than BTC.  In actuality, virtually anything (even my poop) has more utility than BTC.  Hey, but I'm an old goat who doesn't understand these new fangled things. 

 

My mint Wayne Gretzky rookie card actually carries more value because of scarcity than BTC!  Let's get Opee-Chee to issue 100,000 new Gretzky rookie cards and release only 1,000 every year for the next 100 years.  Then real estate agents, car dealers, Amazon, Overstock, etc will all start accepting Wayne Gretzky rookie cards for purchases.  We can then start a company that issues wallets to hold fractions of our Wayne Gretzky rookie cards...we'll break each one into millions of fractional pieces.  Because of the limited supply, the prices of the cards will continue to go up and they will be an alternative store of value for the US dollar.  Sounds like a wonderful idea, since the energy costs of printing 100,000 cards would be nothing like the energy costs to mine cryptocurrencies.  Cheers!

 

I don't purport to know much about BTC intrinsic value, but one of the huge utility's of BTC, is its use in facilitating black market transactions whether it be drug dealing, human trafficking, terrorism, tax fraud, etc. This part of BTC's "user base" seems to me to poise huge risks since it gives governments around the world a strong incentive to try to regulate or track cryptocurrency in general. I don't know enough to express an opinion about the feasibility government regulation or tracking these transactions.

 

There's obviously a great deal of financial speculation involved today, probably a much higher % than black market transactions, I'm not sure how you could even estimate the break down due to the decentralized nature of BTC and other cryptocurrency transactions. 

 

I first heard about Bitcoin when it had just crossed over $1,000, and felt that it was speculative and had already had all its easy gains and passed at that time. Clearly the wrong decision in retrospect, but I have essentially continued to feel the same way the whole way up. 

[Parsad]

2 hours ago, rkbabang said:

 

That's like saying Amazon.com is just a company with a website and anyone can start a company with a website, there are millions of them and more being created every day. Oh wait, value investors did say that about Amazon.com for decades....

 

Also Ethereum is Turing complete which makes it dangerous.  Bitcoin not being Turing complete is a feature not a bug.  Ethereum and Bitcoin are fundamentally different things.

 

 

Value investors didn't have a problem with Amazon itself, but with the losses Bezos was sustaining in the early days.  Investors understood what Bezos was trying to do, but weren't sure how he was going to get there.  Bitcoin in this analogy would not be Amazon, but an Amazon product.  Basically an item being sold through an online portal/channel.  Blockchain technology would be Amazon...and I have been one of the proponents of blockchain technology for about 7 years now since Overstock.com/Patrick Byrne first introduced me to it through the creation of tZero.  I have a problem with most of the current batch of crypto...not digital currencies themselves.  Cheers! 

[Parsad]

3 minutes ago, RedLion said:

 

I don't purport to know much about BTC intrinsic value, but one of the huge utility's of BTC, is its use in facilitating black market transactions whether it be drug dealing, human trafficking, terrorism, tax fraud, etc. This part of BTC's "user base" seems to me to poise huge risks since it gives governments around the world a strong incentive to try to regulate or track cryptocurrency in general. I don't know enough to express an opinion about the feasibility government regulation or tracking these transactions.

 

There's obviously a great deal of financial speculation involved today, probably a much higher % than black market transactions, I'm not sure how you could even estimate the break down due to the decentralized nature of BTC and other cryptocurrency transactions. 

 

I first heard about Bitcoin when it had just crossed over $1,000, and felt that it was speculative and had already had all its easy gains and passed at that time. Clearly the wrong decision in retrospect, but I have essentially continued to feel the same way the whole way up. 

 

This is and should be a massive concern for everyone except the underground/criminal economy.  This is a $3T market now and I would imagine is significantly starting to hit the pocketbooks of nation states who cannot/have not been collecting taxes on this business.  As this becomes larger, I can only imagine a huge crackdown.  The fear is what dominoes fall if the price of cryptos fall when some sort of day of reckoning arrives.  Cheers!