Is anyone else starting to become a bit worried? mod note in first post

TallyRand

The likes of makeorbrake, who don’t trust banks or governments by and large, is the complete minority (we all have peeves but 99% of punters are happy with having and utilizing a ban account)

This is something the crypto-fan seems stuck on. Just because you strongly believe something doesn’t mean the vast majority do (or even care).

Imagine asking a 1,000 people would they like next months wages in fiat cash or crypto coin?

If you’re explaining you’re losing............

Sleeper12

Mr.S wrote:

It's still an investment if you believe in the projects, applications and use case. That investment has probably lost you money at this stage if you cash out, though.

In all honesty no one in the financial or investment world classes something that can swing as much as crypto as an investment. All investments can have highs and lows but there has never been "an investment" that swings like this.

I bought Bank Of Ireland and Allied Irish shares for pennies and sold them for 20 times as much but it was never an investment. It was a punt. I took the chance that they would increase before they would fall again. The government had already bailed out the banks but no one knew the true value of the shares for another three years or so. It was purely speculation. I gambled & won but no one would ever consider it an investment.

Crypto has no real value therefore can't be seen as an investment. At least my bank shares were part of a business. It had assets but it still wasn't an investment. Crypto has no assets. Zip. Zero. Nada. What exactly would you be investing in? Property? Loans? Or purely what someone else thinks it's worth at any given moment? That's not an investment. That's a punt

TallyRand

Mr.S wrote: »

It's still an investment if you believe in the projects, applications and use case. That investment has probably lost you money at this stage if you cash out, though.

A total gamble (and better spent at the bookies) if you thought you could make huge returns on whatever coin was on the way up just because.

If it was purely an investment in new tech, why didn’t all these companies (is every crypto coin a company with a genuine business plan?) seek investment in the conventional sense rather than inventing tokens / coins?

Who is the beneficiary from all this coin investments? (My answer is the likes of coinbase and the fraud scammers)

makeorbrake

TallyRand wrote: »

The likes of makeorbrake, who don’t trust banks or governments by and large, is the complete minority (we all have peeves but 99% of punters are happy with having and utilizing a ban account)

Can you READ? Where did I mention the word majority? Where?

This is something the crypto-fan seems stuck on. Just because you strongly believe something doesn’t mean the vast majority do (or even care).

No, it's not. It's something YOU'RE stuck on. Where has anyone said that decentralised crypto would replace a sovereign currency? Where in this thread? All you're flouting here is misinformation.

TallyRand wrote: »

Imagine asking a 1,000 people would they like next months wages in fiat cash or crypto coin?

You know perfectly well that's totally disingenuous. Everyone knows this is a developing technology. There's an entire ecosystem to be built out to make it more accessible. There are more solutions needed to make it more user friendly for the ordinary person.
Secondly - see above. Who has the expectation of majority use OR use for the majority of transactions? Who has expressed that here? Crypto doesn't need to reach that point to be successful.

TallyRand wrote:

If you’re explaining you’re losing............

That's the most ridiculous statement out of you yet (and there have been a few!). In case it escaped your attention, this is a discussion forum. Secondly, I'm long beyond 'explaining' anything to the likes of you. What I want to achieve here is that any neutral reader has access to the counter-argument so that they can make up their own mind.

I have no time for your prejudiced view and the reason I know it's prejudiced is because NOT once have you acknowledged a single positive feature of blockchain technology.

makeorbrake

TallyRand wrote: »

If it was purely an investment in new tech, why didn’t all these companies (is every crypto coin a company with a genuine business plan?) seek investment in the conventional sense rather than inventing tokens / coins?

You don't have a god damn clue what you're talking about. Check page 7 of this KPMG report on crypto which was released last week. I'm referring to the section on use case -> tokenization. Read it and tell me that you still know what the hell you're talking about because you don't.

TallyRand wrote:

Who is the beneficiary from all this coin investments? (My answer is the likes of coinbase and the fraud scammers)

Firstly, nobody is asking you or anyone else to invest in anything - do as you see fit and do your due diligence. The conventional market is the very same. You've heard of Jordan Belfort and penney stocks? Whats the difference? EVERYONE has a duty to carry out due diligence.

As regards Coinbase, despite the fact that i'm not a fan of centralised exchanges, it provides a brokerage business and is compensated for it. So what? It hasn't done anything wrong in doing so.

TheAnalyst_

Alt-right crypto bros losing their arse? What's not to like?

makeorbrake

Sleeper12 wrote: »

In all honesty no one in the financial or investment world classes something that can swing as much as crypto as an investment. All investments can have highs and lows but there has never been "an investment" that swings like this.

Incorrect. Morgan Stanley - one of the biggest investment banks in the World does...as per their updated report released at the beginning of this month.

Eric Cartman

This was always going to happen, at the end of the day they sell houses and cars and lunch in fiat, there was never robust methods of extracting large amounts of fiat out of your investment quickly, people have figured this now. Those who got in early cashed out , but similar to a Ponzi scheme it appears those at the top won at the expense of those on the bottom.

In a gold rush sell shovels , exchange owners and people building trading apps were the winners here. The cycle rolls on.

TallyRand

My little head head is spinning even more now, I’ve learned over the last few months and days from the more knowledgeable two here grindle and makeorbrake that:

Bitcoin is crock of sh1t that relies on its brand

Hope that ETH goes down to $10

99% of coins are scrap heap material

And central banks are likely to develop their own digital currency

You wouldn’t be leaving lots of room for positives there lads, it’s turning into a club clique rather than cracking into the mainstream.

Whatever about blockchain but crypto will remain a niche. It seems you would be better investing in plc’s that plan to develop blockchain (if it’s the really all about the tech for you) than investing in “coins” that do nothing

gctest50

Might want to check this before all yer bitcoins get stolen :


https://github.com/dominictarr/event-stream/issues/116#issuecomment-441746370

Sleeper12

makeorbrake wrote:

released at the beginning of this month.

Do you honestly believe that they would publish such rubbish now? Only three weeks later?

Usually there are reasons why stocks fall & let's not forget that your stock is an investment a business with assets.

There is no reason why crypto is falling. Well there is as much reason for it falling as to why it rises. Speculation. The value of the assets haven't fallen because there are no assets. People wanted to sell & no investor or group of investors tried to prop up the price. Price isn't based on last year's profits because there are no profits. Price isn't based on assets or even projected profits because there are none.

I can invest in blockchain without going near crypto so the "investment" isn't even in "new technologies". Its in an imaginary currency without other countries /governments backing or popping it up.

This is not an investment. I made a killing on Bank shares in less than two years but it was pure luck and it was never ever an investment. It was pure speculation. In my mind the shares being pennies I figured they had to increase in value before they went bust. It was like putting the money on black at the roulette table.

makeorbrake

TallyRand wrote: »

My little head head is spinning even more now,

I wouldn't imagine there's a whole lot of 'use case' in either of them.

TallyRand wrote: »

Bitcoin is crock of sh1t that relies on its brand

Let me remove the invective...

Bitcoin arose as a direct consequence of the mismanagement by governments and the banking community - which gave rise to the 2008 financial crisis. It's a gen 1. crypto and doesn't have the same flexibility in terms of overcoming issues that have arisen (example - scalability) whereas a fresh project can account for these issues as a direct result of being able to start from scratch. That said, it may well be that layer 2 solutions will still overcome these issues and that it succeeds. We'll have to wait and see.

TallyRand wrote: »

Hope that ETH goes down to $10

What's the big deal? Grindle said he'd fill his boots if it went down to that level. So what?

TallyRand wrote: »

99% of coins are scrap heap material

In a wave of new tech, startups fail all the time. It's a reasonable assumption that the best will survive. So what?

TallyRand wrote: »

And central banks are likely to develop their own digital currency

What of it? They're centralised cryptos. If you knew anything, you'd know they don't fulfil the role of a decentralised crypto.

TallyRand wrote: »

You wouldn’t be leaving lots of room for positives there lads, it’s turning into a club clique rather than cracking into the mainstream.

If you think you've quoted a list of negatives, once again, I have to tell you - you haven't a clue.

TallyRand wrote: »

Whatever about blockchain but crypto will remain a niche. It seems you would be better investing in plc’s that plan to develop blockchain (if it’s the really all about the tech for you) than investing in “coins” that do nothing

And still can't quote a single positive re. blockchain technology apart from trotting out the mantra from the banks.

Sleeper12

Eric Cartman wrote:

This was always going to happen, at the end of the day they sell houses and cars and lunch in fiat, there was never robust methods of extracting large amounts of fiat out of your investment quickly, people have figured this now. Those who got in early cashed out , but similar to a Ponzi scheme it appears those at the top won at the expense of those on the bottom.

Many posters have tried to point out how much this is to a pyramid scheme. All you hear back is blockchain & new tech. They fail to see that the blockchain & new tech isn't actually what they are "investing" in nor is it copyrighted. They are "investing" in an imaginary currency that happens to use a new technology but they don't own the technology. They only own the imaginary currency.

I remember a story as a child. I think it was called the emperor's new clothes. It reminds me this whole mess

TallyRand

makeorbrake wrote: »

I wouldn't imagine there's a whole lot of 'use case' in either of them.


Let me remove the invective...

Bitcoin arose as a direct consequence of the mismanagement by governments and the banking community - which gave rise to the 2008 financial crisis. It's a gen 1. crypto and doesn't have the same flexibility in terms of overcoming issues that have arisen (example - scalability) whereas a fresh project can account for these issues as a direct result of being able to start from scratch. That said, it may well be that layer 2 solutions will still overcome these issues and that it succeeds. We'll have to wait and see.


What's the big deal? Grindle said he'd fill his boots if it went down to that level. So what?

In a wave of new tech, startups fail all the time. It's a reasonable assumption that the best will survive. So what?

What of it? They're centralised cryptos. If you knew anything, you'd know they don't fulfil the role of a decentralised crypto.

If you think you've quoted a list of negatives, once again, I have to tell you - you haven't a clue.

And still can't quote a single positive re. blockchain technology apart from trotting out the mantra from the banks.

Okay, Block chain will have a positive impact as a ledger for supply chain logistics, I don’t have much after that. I know you have given examples before and I genuinely can’t re-call so if you could add a quick positive (a two liner even not asking for in-depth ) that will impact me then please do?

rapul

Fair dues makeorbrake that Tallyrand lad wants to be spoon fed info if seems, do your own research stop asking the same stuff over and over and just brick walling very good honest answers!!

makeorbrake

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that they would publish such rubbish now? Only three weeks later?

Are you honestly suggesting that they've changed their views on the basis of this short term drop? Seriously?
Were Goldman Sachs blindsided too?

Those guys know exactly what they're doing.


Other than that, is it highly volatile and speculative? Of course. Nobody has claimed any different. So is day and swing trading but I don't see the same people here getting animated about that. The same with Forex.

TallyRand

rapul wrote: »

Fair dues makeorbrake that Tallyrand lad wants to be spoon fed info if seems, do your own research stop asking the same stuff over and over and just brick walling very good honest answers!!

Okay, I’ll go onto the highly reputable ccn or coin telegraph websites for my info, the propaganda from the crypto heads would put goebbels to shame!

If I google search bitcoin on the news tab I’ll have to wade through pages and pages of fanny from these propaganda sites spouting the virtues of the same coins the lads here say are sh1t before reaching anything source half decent

makeorbrake

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Many posters have tried to point out how much this is to a pyramid scheme.

They have and each time it has been pointed out to them that a pyramid scheme has to be perpetrated by someone. Who has done so in this instance?

Sleeper12 wrote: »

They are "investing" in an imaginary currency that happens to use a new technology but they don't own the technology. They only own the imaginary currency.

If the blockchain network in question is successful and the circulating token pool is restricted, demand will rise. It's a simple case of supply/demand.

TallyRand

makeorbrake wrote: »

Are you honestly suggesting that they've changed their views on the basis of this short term drop? Seriously?
Were Goldman Sachs blindsided too?

Those guys know exactly what they're doing.


Other than that, is it highly volatile and speculative? Of course. Nobody has claimed any different. So is day and swing trading but I don't see the same people here getting animated about that. The same with Forex.

Where have Morgan Stanley said this? I’m not saying they haven’t just would need to verify from a decent reputable website, all that being said I do agree with you that the know what they are doing and that is to be the bricks and mortar coinbase, skim off the buyers and sellers

TallyRand

makeorbrake wrote: »

They have and each time it has been pointed out to them that a pyramid scheme has to be perpetrated by someone. Who has done so in this instance?

If the blockchain network in question is successful and the circulating token pool is restricted, demand will rise. It's a simple case of supply/demand.

Supply and demand, until there is a fallout and a hard fork!

makeorbrake

TallyRand wrote: »

Supply and demand, until there is a fallout and a hard fork!

How does a hard fork affect that dynamic?

Sleeper12

makeorbrake wrote:

Those guys know exactly what they're doing.

How exactly? It's still all new. There no rhyme no reason to how the value of crypto changes from day to day. Unlike the stockmarket they don't have hundreds of years of data to go on. No one can predict what price crypto will be this time next year because it has no real value. You don't own the tech you feel that you are "investing" in. No one can be sure on the price of stocks next year either but the stocks will always be worth the value of the company's assets. I can say with pretty good certainly that Bank of Ireland shares will be worth give or take 10 percent of today's value. No one knows if bitcoin will be worth anything this time next year. It could also be worth 20k but that still doesn't make it an investment. Its nothing more than a punt. An investment usually has a little risk but there is usually some sort of certainty with it too

kaymin

makeorbrake wrote: »

If the blockchain network in question is successful and the circulating token pool is restricted, demand will rise. It's a simple case of supply/demand.

If the tokens are valued in the billions, the users of the network will have to pay high amounts to use the network. Unless there's high barriers to entry / competitive moat, then it becomes a race to the bottom. Inevitably someone else will offer a similar network at a much lower cost which will attract all the users.

makeorbrake

TallyRand wrote: »

Okay, I’ll go onto the highly reputable ccn or coin telegraph websites for my info, the propaganda from the crypto heads would put goebbels to shame!

It definitely cuts both ways - see your quoted text below!

TallyRand wrote: »

Okay, Block chain will have a positive impact as a ledger for supply chain logistics, I don’t have much after that. I know you have given examples before and I genuinely can’t re-call so if you could add a quick positive (a two liner even not asking for in-depth ) that will impact me then please do?

Reading that, you can feel the unwillingness. I provided you with a whole host of use cases (a totally incomplete list) a couple of days ago on this thread and that's your very, very reluctant takeaway? I guess we all have to start somewhere - I mean, it's the first time there has been a positive (?...if we can call that positive) utterance from you about any aspect of the technology.

TallyRand wrote: »

Where have Morgan Stanley said this?

I linked to the ccn article - which in turn links to the report.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

How exactly? It's still all new. There no rhyme no reason to how the value of crypto changes from day to day.

They know that its not a flash in the pan and that its going to be around for many years to come. Otherwise, why are they all now investing in it?
As regards setting a price, that's a different issue - but of course it's an issue as the same benchmarks can't be used as conventional stocks.

rob316

I took pretty much all my coin out back in March. I was spending little too much time on crypto so packed it in. Feel sorry for anyone that bought in around the ATH and just have no choice but hold. Hopefully this is near the bottom guys.

Sleeper12

makeorbrake wrote:

They have and each time it has been pointed out to them that a pyramid scheme has to be perpetrated by someone. Who has done so in this instance?

That is pure deflection.

Please point me to a law, statue that states that a pyramid scheme has to be perpetrated by someone? Just because someone didn't deliberately set up crypto as a pyramid scheme doesn't mean that its not like one. It might not have been deliberately set up in such a way but so far the big guys at the top got rich while the little guy gets screwed. It's the big guys dumping that's screwing the little guy. Pyramid schemes have no assets. You don't invest in assets you invest in the business model. Just about every poster on this thread has said the same about crypto in some shape or other.

makeorbrake wrote:

If the blockchain network in question is successful and the circulating token pool is restricted, demand will rise. It's a simple case of supply/demand.

You don't own the blockchain so don't fool yourself in thinking that you are investing in it. You say supply & demand yet there's nothing stopping me from copying your blockchain & currency & starting sleepers bitcoin. I now increase supply & lower the value of your coin. Some countries have tried this in times of crisis. Increasing supply of currency. They are usually called banana republics and have 1000 percent inflation because the government keeps printing more money.

makeorbrake

kaymin wrote: »

If the tokens are valued in the billions, the users of the network will have to pay high amounts to use the network. Unless there's high barriers to entry / competitive moat, then it becomes a race to the bottom. Inevitably someone else will offer a similar network at a much lower cost which will attract all the users.

It depends on which blockchain network you're referring to but they usually go to many decimal places so that's an irrelevance. Bitcoin unit price is misleading to an extent - it goes to 8 decimal places.

As regards a replicated network, sure someone can set one up. There are many instances where a conventional online business can be replicated but unless it does something better, then why would it succeed?

makeorbrake

Sleeper12 wrote: »

That is pure deflection.

Please point me to a law, statue that states that a pyramid scheme has to be perpetrated by someone?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme

and I quote...
"A pyramid scheme (commonly known as pyramid scams) is a business model that recruits members via a promise of payments or services for enrolling others into the scheme"

Now, if you're saying it's not but it's similar, then anything on Wall Street also applies. Retail investors don't get ahead of the whales in that world - that's where the manipulation comes from. It's what they've always done.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You say supply & demand yet there's nothing stopping me from copying your blockchain & currency & starting sleepers bitcoin.

Answered in the post above.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Some countries have tried this in times of crisis. Increasing supply of currency. They are usually called banana republics and have 1000 percent inflation because the government keeps printing more money.

I'm glad you brought this up! They're all doing it and every time they do so, they're taking money out of everyones pockets. It's called Quantitative Easing (Q.E.) except that QE hits the small guy a lot harder than the institutions.

kaymin

makeorbrake wrote: »

It depends on which blockchain network you're referring to but they usually go to many decimal places so that's an irrelevance. Bitcoin unit price is misleading to an extent - it goes to 8 decimal places.

As regards a replicated network, sure someone can set one up. There are many instances where a conventional online business can be replicated but unless it does something better, then why would it succeed?

Unless there is sufficient demand to use the network such that all the tokens in circulation are in demand then the token price will drop. Unless of course there is irrational speculation in the token.

An alternative network would succeed if it offers better value.

makeorbrake

kaymin wrote: »

Unless there is sufficient demand to use the network such that all the tokens in circulation are in demand then the token price will drop. Unless of course there is irrational speculation in the token.

Absolutely - that's how supply and demand works. As regards speculation being the driver, well we both know that is currently the dominant force based on the expectation of what's to come. Those that speculate may be off the mark. Nevertheless, the principal applies that supply relative to demand sets token price.

kaymin wrote: »

An alternative network would succeed if it offers better value.

It needs to offer something different i.e. solve a problem that the other network doesnt. Other than that, who is priced out of using a blockchain network right now?