Cryptocurrencies

[rkbabang]

44 minutes ago, wachtwoord said:

22 hours ago, Sweet said:

@wachtwoord seems to think that if you don’t share his view on crypto, you don’t understand crypto, and you should not post in the thread

 

Its perfectly possibly to understand yet disagree.  An example of that is the Amazon thread recently.  You won’t find anyone in there asking why they are posting something in a topic if they aren’t bullish.

 

Childish.

 

Expand  

 

No, not in the slightest. Just when such "critism" is entirely made of non sequitors, ad auctoritatem, ad hominems and other logical fallacies as they hold zero merit. 

Good luck with the mental gymnastics!

 

I've yet to read anything on the Amazon thread like:  All public companies are scams and Ponzi schemes. Why would you invest in any public company when someone else could just start an equivalent competing company tomorrow that does the same exact thing?  Look at how far the market has dropped, see I told you it was all nonsense!

[Sweet]

2 hours ago, wachtwoord said:

 

No, not in the slightest. Just when such "critism" is entirely made of non sequitors, ad auctoritatem, ad hominems and other logical fallacies as they hold zero merit. 

Good luck with the mental gymnastics!

Your arguments = logical.

 

Those who may disagree with you = “entirely made of non sequitors, auctoritatem, as hominems and other logical fallacies”.

 

That’s only slightly better than saying we shouldn’t comment.

[ValueArb]

According to this guy, lots of snakes in the bed at Signature Bank

 

Signs of Trouble at Signature Bank

 

Edit: To be clear this is Signature Bank, not Silvergate Bank. They are both crypto on-ramps, but Signature doesn't have the direct FTX exposure and class action lawsuits. The article is about a private blockchain they provide "vetted customers" which apparently isn't strongly vetted and used by a number of potential scammers? It's also a sign of how hard it is to be a crypto bank nowadays.

Edited January 10, 2023 by ValueArb

[wachtwoord]

4 hours ago, Sweet said:

Your arguments = logical.

 

Those who may disagree with you = “entirely made of non sequitors, auctoritatem, as hominems and other logical fallacies”.

 

That’s only slightly better than saying we shouldn’t comment.

 

Not true in the general case. Thus far in this specific case very true. Not because it's a priori determined to be so but because that's the content you and others with you bring to the table.

 

Look honestly to the content you brought. Perhaps also look at rkbabang's apt comparison above.

If after that you still consider what you and Value brought to the table valid arguments my only response to that would be: "Wow ".

Edited January 10, 2023 by wachtwoord

[Sweet]

6 minutes ago, wachtwoord said:

 

Not true in the general case. Thus far in this specific case very true. Not because it's a priori determined to be so but because that's the content you and others with you bring to the table.

 

Look honestly to the content you brought. Perhaps also look at rkbabang's apt comparison above.

If after that you still consider what you and Value brought to the table valid arguments my only response to that would be: "Wow ".

“Look honestly“ you think I’m lying about my views lol?  There is no reason to be anything but honest, I’m not long or short.

 

I never said crypto was a ponzi and scam, although some undoubtedly are, but so are many companies.  To base one’s argument around that is, and that nobody is saying Amazon is a ponzi or scam, is a logical fallacy (as you would say).

[wachtwoord]

17 hours ago, Sweet said:

“Look honestly“ you think I’m lying about my views lol?  There is no reason to be anything but honest, I’m not long or short.

 

I never said crypto was a ponzi and scam, although some undoubtedly are, but so are many companies.  To base one’s argument around that is, and that nobody is saying Amazon is a ponzi or scam, is a logical fallacy (as you would say).

 

I don't think you are lying particularly to me or the others in this thread. I (and we) are not special.

I simply can't believe you are being truthful with yourself because of the extreme irrationality of your argumentation combined with the fact you are very likely at least moderately intelligent. That's why I tried asking you to look at everything honestly (to yourself) once more. Just look at the logical fallacies you're using as arguments. Does that correspond to your reasoning with respect to other topics? I doubt it.

[Sweet]

3 hours ago, wachtwoord said:

 

I don't think you are lying particularly to me or the others in this thread. I (and we) are not special.

I simply can't believe you are being truthful with yourself because of the extreme irrationality of your argumentation combined with the fact you are very likely at least moderately intelligent. That's why I tried asking you to look at everything honestly (to yourself) once more. Just look at the logical fallacies you're using as arguments. Does that correspond to your reasoning with respect to other topics? I doubt it.

I think you just can’t understand why someone disagrees with you, and this is more evidence of it.

[wachtwoord]

55 minutes ago, Sweet said:

I think you just can’t understand why someone disagrees with you, and this is more evidence of it.

 

Never mind

[Longnose]

this thread went to shit lol

[Dave86ch]

12 hours ago, Longnose said:

this thread went to shit lol

 

There was too much noise since the beginning. My opinion is that a qualitative discussion is based on the willingness of the parts involved to brings themeselves to the same cultural level and, only after, debate on a specific topic.

It's a shame because a debate is a valuable way to spot reasoning failures.

 

The first thing to do here is understand the difference between a centralized entity and a decentralized protocol.

Edited January 12, 2023 by Dave86ch

[Sweet]

2 hours ago, Dave86ch said:

The first thing to do here is understand the difference between a centralized entity and a decentralized protocol.

Is it your opinion that there are commentators in this thread who don’t understand that?

 

Seems a fairly basic level of knowledge, which I would imagine everyone has.

Edited January 12, 2023 by Sweet

[gfp]

SBF's lawyers must love it every time he speaks publicly before the trial.  Anyway, it is a good read.

https://sambf.substack.com/p/ftx-pre-mortem-overview

[Longnose]

This is where I am at now in regards to this topic. 

 

Edit: not calling anyone on this forum fools. Lots smarter than me. I just see substantial value in crypto and its not worth my energy to convince anyone that doesn't want to have a productive discussion.

 

Edited January 12, 2023 by Longnose

[TwoCitiesCapital]

3 hours ago, Sweet said:

Is it your opinion that there are commentators in this thread who don’t understand that?

 

Seems a fairly basic level of knowledge, which I would imagine everyone has.

 

Seems that some people are clearly missing the distinction by posting articles that attempt to cast BTC, and other tokens, in a poor light given the fraud/lack of security/etc of centralized entities...and then refusing to defend them because they didn't write the article ::eye roll::

 

The discourse in the thread is at a very low level. Bulls like myself who have tried to engage get frustrated because it's the same conversation and same debate every 10 days. Always seems to revolve around making distinctions like the one above, discussions on why you can't use P/FCF to value Bitcoin (would seem obvious - but plenty of y'all seem to think it's a 0 for this reason), and why BTC is actually pretty terrible for criminal activity. 

 

I get it. I was a Bitcoin skeptic for years. I had those exact same concerns. And then I learned that I was wrong and changed my mind. 

 

Outside of the frustrations of engaging in the same 3-4 debates over and over and over, most people haven't come with well supported bear arguments otherwise.

 

There's been several times where I've referenced, or linked, to white papers that provide a Bitcoin valuation framework based on the size of network and observed adoption rates. Not a single person has probed/question/debated that methodology. Probably because it's not based on earnings and we all know if you don't have earnings your price should be zero. /sarcasm

 

If bears want higher quality discourse, they need to bring it because us bulls have tried. 

Edited January 12, 2023 by TwoCitiesCapital

[ValueArb]

2 minutes ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

 

Seems that some people are clearly missing the distinction by posting articles that attempt to cast BTC, and other tokens, in a poor light given the fraud/lack of security/etc of centralized entities. 

 

The discourse in the thread is at a very low level. Bulls like myself who have tried to engage get frustrated because it's the same conversation and same debate every 10 days and always seems to revolve around making distinctions like the one above, discussion why you can't use P/FCF to value Bitcoin, why BTC is actually pretty terrible for criminal activity, and why it still has characteristics that are of value lie any commodity. 

 

I get it. I was a Bitcoin skeptic for years. I had those exact same concerns. And then I learned that I was wrong and changed my mind. 

 

Outside of the frustrations of engaging in the same 4 debates over and over and over, most people haven't come with well supported bear arguments otherwise.

 

There's been several times where I've referenced, or linked, to white papers that provide a Bitcoin valuation framework based on the size of network and expeced (and observed) adoption curves. Not a single person has probed/question/debated that methodology. Probably because it's not based on earnings ::eye roll::

 

If bears want higher quality discourse, they need to bring it because us bulls have tried. 

 

Or because "valuations" based on "expected" adoption curves is circular reasoning? If BTC goes up, more people will buy it  to speculate. But the opposite is true as well.

 

And estimates based on observed growth during stimulus and the lowest interest rates in history aren't likely to match performance during high inflation and higher interest rates without direct government stimulus.

 

Value is based on generating cash flows. Crypto does not and cannot generate any cash flows, so it can't fit within the classic investment definition of possessing intrinsic value. Its no different than gold or commodities in that respect.

[TwoCitiesCapital]

5 minutes ago, ValueArb said:

 

Value is based on generating cash flows. Crypto does not and cannot generate any cash flows, so it can't fit within the classic investment definition of possessing intrinsic value. Its no different than gold or commodities in that respect.

 

See! Literally only took a single post.

 

I've argued that it IS a commodity. And should be valued as such. And have provided a framework for it. 

 

As far as it being circular reasoning - it isn't. Just like FCF can fluctuate and thus so do stock prices in the intermediate term. OR you zoom out and observe the TREND in FCF and come up with a longer term value estimate s few years in the future. 

 

Adoption/new wallets is no different. View the high frequency data and adjust you short term pricing upward or downward OR observe the long term trend and come up with an estimate 5-years out and wait for it to be realized or proved wrong. This isn't hard...

Edited January 12, 2023 by TwoCitiesCapital

[Sweet]

4 minutes ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

 

Seems that some people are clearly missing the distinction by posting articles that attempt to cast BTC, and other tokens, in a poor light given the fraud/lack of security/etc of centralized entities...and then refusing to defend them because they didn't write the article ::eye roll::

 

The discourse in the thread is at a very low level. Bulls like myself who have tried to engage get frustrated because it's the same conversation and same debate every 10 days. Always seems to revolve around making distinctions like the one above, discussions on why you can't use P/FCF to value Bitcoin (would seem obvious - but plenty of y'all seem to think it's a 0 for this reason), and why BTC is actually pretty terrible for criminal activity. 

 

I get it. I was a Bitcoin skeptic for years. I had those exact same concerns. And then I learned that I was wrong and changed my mind. 

 

Outside of the frustrations of engaging in the same 3-4 debates over and over and over, most people haven't come with well supported bear arguments otherwise.

 

There's been several times where I've referenced, or linked, to white papers that provide a Bitcoin valuation framework based on the size of network and observed adoption rates. Not a single person has probed/question/debated that methodology. Probably because it's not based on earnings and we all know if you don't have earnings your price should be zero. /sarcasm

 

If bears want higher quality discourse, they need to bring it because us bulls have tried. 

I don’t have a problem with your view. 
 

I read parts of the white paper, and don’t disagree with the theory about utility and adoptions aspects.  
 

I don’t think you can put a number on the valuation though.  From an investor standpoint, there are no cashflows to value.  That doesn’t mean it’s a zero though.

 

I think we are largely in agreement in principles.  I agree Bitcoin has uses and is valuable to some people, I just don’t really have any uses or place any value in it, but others do and valuation is subjective.

 

I think mine is a very reasonable stance.

 

My problem with wachtwoord is his attempt to redefine what ‘intrinsic value’ means in investing.

[UK]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-01-12/mike-novogratz-wants-to-punch-crypto-titans-sam-bankman-fried-barry-silbert?srnd=premium-europe

[ValueArb]

5 hours ago, Sweet said:

I don’t have a problem with your view. 
 

I read parts of the white paper, and don’t disagree with the theory about utility and adoptions aspects.  
 

I don’t think you can put a number on the valuation though.  From an investor standpoint, there are no cashflows to value.  That doesn’t mean it’s a zero though.

 

I think we are largely in agreement in principles.  I agree Bitcoin has uses and is valuable to some people, I just don’t really have any uses or place any value in it, but others do and valuation is subjective.

 

I think mine is a very reasonable stance.

 

My problem with wachtwoord is his attempt to redefine what ‘intrinsic value’ means in investing.

 

I agree with all of this.

[Parsad]

6 hours ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

 

See! Literally only took a single post.

 

I've argued that it IS a commodity. And should be valued as such. And have provided a framework for it. 

 

As far as it being circular reasoning - it isn't. Just like FCF can fluctuate and thus so do stock prices in the intermediate term. OR you zoom out and observe the TREND in FCF and come up with a longer term value estimate s few years in the future. 

 

Adoption/new wallets is no different. View the high frequency data and adjust you short term pricing upward or downward OR observe the long term trend and come up with an estimate 5-years out and wait for it to be realized or proved wrong. This isn't hard...

 

I think you're being unfair and perhaps a bit defensive.  I've always argued that crypto at best is commodity-like...the operative word being "like".  Very different than "same".  

 

Crypto has zero utilitarian value.  Every commodity has some utilitarian use...gold, lithium, pork bellies, orange juice, etc.  So crypto cannot be a commodity.  Commodity by definition means "a raw material or primary agricultural product that can be bought and sold, such as copper or coffee."  So that argument has no merit!

 

The truth is, crypto is essentially similar to art/collectibles etc, where the value is arbitrary and speculative.  The network and adoption is irrelevant.  It is too volatile and illiquid (in common daily use) to be used to replace dominant fiat currencies.  

 

At present day, I would argue that the current format of crypto is akin to trading stamps where they can be used similar to barter, but not really currency.  One day, digital currencies will use blockchain and at that time, asset-backed networks of crypto may be used as replacements for some fiat currency, but we aren't there yet.  And I have my doubts about the current batch of crypto being a dominant player in the future.  

 

Cheers!

[Parsad]

Winklevii get deeper in trouble:

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/sec-charges-genesis-gemini-with-selling-unregistered-securities-220036368.html

 

Cheers!

[TwoCitiesCapital]

2 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

I think you're being unfair and perhaps a bit defensive.  I've always argued that crypto at best is commodity-like...the operative word being "like".  Very different than "same".  

 

 

What is unfair, or defensive, about pointing our how stupid it is to continue to parrot the "it has no value because it has no cash flows" argument as if it weren't a commodity where the value is determined by supply/demand?  

 

I didn't call you out specifically. If you think it's too illiquid, then we're going to have to define what is liquid enough for a market that regularly trades billions each day - not including any transactions over the LN or wBTC on Ethereum. As the price rises, so does the liquidity and volume so this is a problem that will solve itself with adoption. 

 

As far as having no utilitarian value? I dunno about you, but plenty of people pay fees to banks to do wires, forex, custody, etc that Bitcoin removes the need for and has way lower fees - again even before considering the lightning network.  That's plenty of utility for the current market cap without considering it's other properties that lend themselves to being long term store of value and far more observable or measurable than stamps or art. 

 

Edited January 13, 2023 by TwoCitiesCapital

[wachtwoord]

8 hours ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

 

See! Literally only took a single post.

 

I've argued that it IS a commodity. And should be valued as such. And have provided a framework for it. 

 

As far as it being circular reasoning - it isn't. Just like FCF can fluctuate and thus so do stock prices in the intermediate term. OR you zoom out and observe the TREND in FCF and come up with a longer term value estimate s few years in the future. 

 

Adoption/new wallets is no different. View the high frequency data and adjust you short term pricing upward or downward OR observe the long term trend and come up with an estimate 5-years out and wait for it to be realized or proved wrong. This isn't hard...

 

Completely this. I let it rest for a few years, checked up here and frankly it didn't improve.

 

There's one person who doesn't understand what the generic meaning of intrinsic value is and gets stuck in a context specific one based on specific assumptions. Meanwhile Parsad comes in, someone with outside of this topic usually well argued points of view, and he says Bitcoin has no utilitarian value. NONE.

 

He doesn't say he doesn't know but instead he makes a completely nonsensical statement that he seems awfully certain of. There's just no point discussing it here. Maybe in a northern 5 years? 10? We'll see I guess.

[Parsad]

34 minutes ago, wachtwoord said:

 

Completely this. I let it rest for a few years, checked up here and frankly it didn't improve.

 

There's one person who doesn't understand what the generic meaning of intrinsic value is and gets stuck in a context specific one based on specific assumptions. Meanwhile Parsad comes in, someone with outside of this topic usually well argued points of view, and he says Bitcoin has no utilitarian value. NONE.

 

He doesn't say he doesn't know but instead he makes a completely nonsensical statement that he seems awfully certain of. There's just no point discussing it here. Maybe in a northern 5 years? 10? We'll see I guess.

 

I've been following blockchain and crypto probably longer than anyone on here, so I'm certainly not making uninformed comments.  I have 100% belief in blockchain.  I have far less certainty in the current batch of crypto other than maybe Ethereum.  And even that is a longshot!

 

I can tell you for a fact...not some nonsensical statement...that the support for BTC is based on speculative behavior.  Not driven by technology, utility, liquidity, etc, nor is it backed by any hard asset.  It is volatile, consumes massive amounts of energy, is currently not liquid like fiat currencies, nor is ownership transparent and regulated.  That's a lot of things working against it!

 

And here you guys are telling other people that they are wrong, when you have no proof or support that you are right either.  Cheers!

[Parsad]

1 hour ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

What is unfair, or defensive, about pointing our how stupid it is to continue to parrot the "it has no value because it has no cash flows" argument as if it weren't a commodity where the value is determined by supply/demand?  

 

I didn't call you out specifically. If you think it's too illiquid, then we're going to have to definite what is liquid enough for a market that regularly trades billions each day - not including any transactions over the LN or wBTC on Ethereum. As the price rises, so does the liquidity and volume so this is a problem that will solve itself with adoption. 

 

As far as having no utilitarian value? I dunno about you, but plenty of people pay fees to banks to do wires, forex, custody, etc that Bitcoin removes the need for and has way lower fees - again even before considering the lightning network.  That's plenty of utility for the current market cap without considering it's other properties that lend themselves to being long term store of value and far more observable or measurable than stamps or art. 

 

 

Ok, you guys are the ones making the argument that BTC will replace fiat currencies.  Well, you don't need billions of trading happening, you need trillions each day!  You need price stability in the currency...you need transparency of ownership...you need regulation otherwise you will create behavior that perpetuates destructive correlated risk.  

 

In terms of daily transactions...the USD and other fiat currencies aren't moving 10% a day in value.  You need stability in any fiat currency.  The lightning network you speak of has nothing to do with the cryptocurrency and everything to do with blockchain technology...which I've been a proponent of for 10+ years!  Blockchain is in it's infancy, like the internet was or the combustion engine.  It is incredibly difficult to predict long-term winners within early days of new technology.  Trying to is speculation...not investing!

 

Cheers!