Re:SEC charges Ripple and two executives
by chihuahua on Tuesday December 22, 2020 @08:26PM
(#25513424)
I mostly agree with what you're saying. But there is another aspect to this, based on the "greater fool" theory of investing. A lower-priced stock or cryptocurrency could be more likely to attract a larger number of unsophisticated buyers (Robinhood customers etc.)
Especially for low-priced cryptocurrency, the marketing pitch of "it's like bitcoin for $1" could be very appealing, if you spread it on Reddit and other forums.
So from a pump-and-dump perspective it may be more promising.
Re:SEC charges Ripple and two executives
by sellyme on Tuesday December 22, 2020 @11:53PM
(#25514509)
> Especially for low-priced cryptocurrency, the marketing pitch of "it's like bitcoin for $1" could be very appealing, if you spread it on Reddit and other forums.
If you went back a decade in time while you were at it, maybe. But there's been such a relentless tide of cryptocurrency-related scams being spammed on forum boards since Bitcoin hit popular awareness that the only thing I can think of that would be less appealing is someone trying to flog discount pharmaceuticals.
Re:SEC charges Ripple and two executives
by user-the-name on Wednesday December 23, 2020 @06:24AM
(#25516542)
In cryptocurrencies, "market cap" is basically a complete fiction, and totally nonsensical.
Cheaper units are almost certainly not indicative of something being a better investment, I'd say the opposite is more often true: ex. penny stocks or any of the long-tail cryptocurrencies that trade at fractions of a penny.