So as usual, the cryptocurrency story here is that a few people may be finding an opportunity to make money, while it's acting as an overall negative for the society in general.

Are they trying to make money,

or protect what they already had, and need?

That is an all too common story in general these days.

The comment you were responding to was summarizing/editorializing its parent, not presenting new information.

Source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g

NFT != cryptocurrency

The video goes into great detail about cryptocurrency

This makes no sense as crypto doesn’t have the same feature set as currency. It is like comparing a small number of razor scooters to the transportation network. They don’t belong in the same sentence.

That's true. Traditional currencies rely on the full faith and credit of some institution in order to convey value. I have yet to come across a cryptocurrency that has any meaningful story to tell me as to why it should have any value whatsoever.

Take Bitcoin as an example. People acquire BTC either when someone else transfers it to them (generally as a form of payment), or when their computer solves some useless math problem. I don't care about silly math problems, and the fact that you think it has value doesn't show me why I should think it has value.

I could see this "social proof" theory as a valid reason to believe BTC has value if enough people believed it, but that would essentially require that BTC be as ubiquitous as USD. If I can't pay my rent, buy gas, and hit up the local dispensary, and pay my taxes with BTC, the social proof theory doesn't apply strongly enough for me to even consider BTC a real currency. And, the story is even worse if you apply it to any of the more obscure cryptocurrencies (e.g. Monero, Dogecoin).

Spend the time writing paragraphs reading about the adoption of cryptocurrency at the corpo level, you'll see the stuff you're asking for taking shape.

Bitrefill, movie theaters taking majors + Dogecoin, etc

Way to completely miss the point. The fact is that a "currency" that isn't usable as currency isn't a currency. If I can't go about my day using it, it's simply not useful, and currency ultimately derives its value from its utility.

correct, it has an overlapping feature set of currencies and most other asset classes simultaneously

That is also meaningless. I have an overlapping feature set with Jeff Bezos in that I’m alive and have eyebrows. This doesn’t mean that there are meaningful financial comparisons.

What is your crypto position and why have you taken that position?

>That is also meaningless. I have an overlapping feature set with Jeff Bezos in that I’m alive and have eyebrows. This doesn’t mean that there are meaningful financial comparisons.

oh I didn't realize you were trying to reinforce a perspective on that, in this case there also are an overlapping set of financial comparisons as well, that are inherently tied to the overlapping feature sets

the only lacking thing is that a government isn't the one pushing for demand of the intermediary asset that is used to purchase other assets, and the people that are typically do not have an ability to control supply and demand or have a debt market to distort with a central bank

(quoting the above because I was responding before your edit)

> What is your crypto position and why have you taken that position?

and for after your edit, you might be in the wrong decade for your perspective, in my world what you're asking is like trying to prove I can't be a good source about US equities (or perhaps, currencies) based on whether I owned a stock (or a dollar) at some time in time and don't really debate about their mere existence - as opposed to acknowledging their existence and availability and would maybe debate about a specific one if compelled

saw your flagged response, from your source it is defined as:

"The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments."

since I was responding in good faith and wasn't making any argument as opposed to a valid reality that's easy to experience, is this is a cognitive limitation for you to feel as if you have been overwhelmed by excessive number of arguments? because that would say more about you and your ability to have this conversation at all, like maybe your worldview is incapable of being more plastic

Crytocurrency seems to have an extra amount of spamy / blog spam / low quality news sources surrounding it compared to other topics.

Used to be that shilling snake-oil (or penny stocks) to gullible citizens required you to spend significant time and effort (and money) to be present in person. And the reach of any given huckster was limited by the strength of their voice and the number of handbills they could pass out.

The wonder of the internet is that now they can do it to a virtually unlimited degree, for minimal effort/outlay. No wonder we're drowning in it.

> for minimal effort/outlay.

Could you explain this part? I've always seen internet publicity the same as traditional, its a pay to play game and rich people have it locked up.

That may be true, but I don't think applies to al-monitor.

Yeah I meant generally. I don't know that site well enough to say. Although that particular story is pretty content free as it relates to the title.

Yep.

I also find it very disingenuous how crypto enthusiasts use people in third world countries under oppressive regimes as their go to "why crypto matters" example while they themselves are only actually only in it for a big payday.

For the incumbents and newcomers it is impossible to exit without another huge ROI (10x, 100x) since crypto billionaires cannot cash out to billions of US dollars. They need to routinely pump & dump and hope that the music doesn't stop.

Somebody doing taxes this year is going to be on the hook for last year's BTC prices, and by god, they need it at least 100% ROI just to break even after paying taxes in the US.

Capital gains are paid on cash, not on unrealized gains against unsold assets.

So someone doing taxes this year either sold at a profit and has gains to pay on cash, sold at a loss and has no tax to pay, or bought and held, again, no taxes to pay.

There's no being "on the hook for last year's BTC prices" in any of these.

The part you're missing is that those people also believe "first world" countries are at risk of having the same things happen: hyperinflation, debt crises, confiscation of wealth/assets.

And if the risk of those things goes up, a rational person increases their bets as a hedge. Because the payday does go up, but only because everything around it is collapsing.

The difference is that you don't think those things could ever happen here; in our peaceful, stable, bourgeois society.