Gold? No, it's only back at its 2012 peak now.
Bonds? I'm laughing.... or crying...
Stocks ... Could be, but very risky... because if QE stops tomorrow the stock market will correct -60% or more...
Just wait till you see what happens to the price of crypto when Tether QE ends and 65% of all trading volume just pops out of existence.
Gotta ask why are you worried that the stock market might correct 60% when Bitcoin did correct 65% this past month (65K to 28K peak to trough)?
That said, I fully expect Tether to implode in the next year or so.
I'm also suspicious that right as the crypto downturn hit they suddenly went out to raise $440M - something I wouldn't expect a stablecoin with billions in the bank to need to do. [2] However, personally I would assign them a risk score of 3/10 ("Hmmm") as compared to Tether's 11/10 ("Oh sweet mercy") - a sentiment echoed by the Fed [3].
IMO there's a few things propping up USDT, including multi-stablecoin liquidity pools doing automatic arbitrage against other stablecoins.
[1] https://www.centre.io/usdc-transparency
[2] https://www.coindesk.com/usdc-builder-circle-raises-440m
[3] https://www.coindesk.com/us-fed-official-calls-tether-a-chal...
Any mention of interest rate hikes and Bitcoin takes a dive too, because as far as I understand it, there's many borrowing cheap money (i.e. with low interest rate) to "invest" hoping to profit off the ponzi scheme.
I agree with you but we can also say with certainty that economics of Bitcoin are identical to a Ponzi scheme. Earlier investors are payed with funds from more recent investors.
At any time, all owners of bitcoin actually have their own bitcoin and theoretically could sell their coins because they actually have them. (unless we're talking about cases like specific companies or exchanges in which clients are being fooled into thinking they own bitcoins that they don't actually own. However, even in this case, the fraud is with certain BTC ecosystem players, not BTC itself as a thing.)
A ponzi scheme on the other hand literally transfers funds from new members to previous members in order to maintain an illusion of high returns, until the house of cards collapses as new members stop paying in at a rate that can sustain the illusion of returns through dishonest fund transfers.
These are all very basic and easy to grasp distinctions. It's tiresome to see the parroting of "BTC is a ponzi scheme" by so many supposedly non-stupid people on HN. Opposition to a thing shouldn't justify obviously, idiotically sloppy reasoning.
So what you are saying is that earlier investors investments only grow with influx of new investors. How is that different than a Ponzi scheme?
> At any time, all owners of bitcoin actually have their own bitcoin and theoretically could sell their coins because they actually have them.
Here you are describing a Ponzi scheme. Literally. You are just repeating what I wrote in the previous post: "Earlier investors are payed[paid] with funds from more recent investors.".
> A ponzi scheme on the other hand literally transfers funds from new members to previous members in order to maintain an illusion of high returns, until the house of cards collapses as new members stop paying in at a rate that can sustain the illusion of returns through dishonest fund transfers.
That is how bitcoin works. Are you trolling me? If I buy a bitcoin and later sell it that is literally a transfer of funds from a new member to me, a previous member.
> These are all very basic and easy to grasp distinctions.
You listed no distinctions.
One more time but even simpler: Bitcoin's structure is not designed with willful deception in mind. There is risk and some organizations working in the ecosystem are indeed fraudulent but the BTC blockchain itself is not. That alone makes it very different from a ponzi scheme.
Secondly: Earlier investors investments may grow or shrink in value depending on a number of factors. They're not dependent on new investors by default, and no transfer is taking place. Previous investors hold their same bitcoin and new investors hold their own, with their respective returns depending on market price of their assets subsequent to purchase, not literal transfers of cash/assets from new investors to previous ones to maintain a fraudulent picture of high returns. This latter process is how a ponzi scheme works, and The difference between these two things is obvious.
By your absurd definition of bitcoin as a ponzi scheme, much of the stock market and especially many high performing stocks with market caps way in excess of their book value could also be called ponzi schemes.
I first wrote: "Earlier investors are payed[paid] with funds from more recent investors.". Those are the economics of a ponzi scheme. In you previous post you just reiterated that point using different words. Go back and quote where you showed that that claim isn't true for bitcoin.
> One more time but even simpler: Bitcoin's structure is not designed with willful deception in mind. There is risk and some organizations working in the ecosystem are indeed fraudulent but the BTC blockchain itself is not. That alone makes it very different from a ponzi scheme.
This has no relation to anything I wrote.
> Secondly: Earlier investors investments may grow or shrink in value depending on a number of factors.
What are those factors for bitcoin?
> They're not dependent on new investors by default, and no transfer is taking place. Previous investors hold their same bitcoin and new investors hold their own, with their respective returns depending on market price of their assets subsequent to purchase, not literal transfers of cash/assets from new investors to previous ones to maintain a fraudulent picture of high returns. This latter process is how a ponzi scheme works, and The difference between these two things is obvious.
From where do the new investors get their bitcoins if not from earlier investors and how do they get them if there is no transfer of cash/assets?
> By your absurd definition of bitcoin as a ponzi scheme
Never did that.
> much of the stock market and especially many high performing stocks with market caps way in excess of their book value could also be called ponzi schemes.
Yes, some stock at some point in time can have a similar behavior to a ponzi scheme. That doesn't make them a pozni scheme.
(Until Mexico gets a slight handle on systemic corruption in every aspect of that country; I have a hard time believing anything they claim about anything.)