Now no matter what the end game is regulation, either by someone like SBF to make it happen or knowing full well it was going to blow up. With regulation they can protect the fox in the hen house like they do with the stock market and keep all the control.
If you don't think so, read in depth what Bernie Madoff did and how connected he was. The best part is, stock market still allows PFOF which he invented to help with his Ponzi scheme.
Just my take on it all...
If that was his endgame he would've had better record keeping and books. Regulation and paperwork go hand in hand, he was not set up for existing in a regulatory environment.
For example, bitcoin has a market cap of $320B. At its peak it was worth about four times that. Did $960B just disappear? Basically, yes.
The coin has no intrinsic value (in the way that a can of corn does, for example). It's worth money because people say it is. And market cap is just a multiple of what it trades for at the margins times the number of shares (coins).
To give an example, say that I bought a bitcoin 10 years ago and that it was my only possession. At its peak, I could have sold the bitcoin for ~$64k, so I had a net worth of 64k. If I didn't sell it at that point and still hold it, I'm now worth ~16k. No one made $48K of of me... there were no transactions in that time period. The "wealth" has simply vanished.
This is pretty debatable. Bitcoin does have some intrinsic value as a medium of exchange and store of value.
On the opposite end, a can of Cambell's soup has intrinsic value, because it's worth something to someone regardless of what anyone else thinks. The can of soup that Andy Warhol as the basic for his famous paintings has a mixture of both types of value (surely someone will pay significantly more for that can over any other identical can).
That doesn’t seem like a contradiction at all, right? If your fork somehow became well known and replaced the original, then yeah, your fork would have some intrinsic value as a medium of exchange and a store of value.
Intrinsic value is a value outside of perceived value. A can of soup is calories, which we need to survive, as long as it is edible, it will always be worth something to a human. Farm land has intrinsic value because it can produce food. Diesel has intrinsic value because farmers need this to produce food. Bitcoin9890812895, my fork of Bitcoin9890812894 has no intrinsic value to anyone.
Yes, and we're not talking about perceived value. We're talking about intrinsic value from a peer-to-peer network that's used by many people.
Consider a hypothetical Bitcoin, without the objective measures you describe. Without the capabilities of the network, people willing to accept it as payment for goods/services —- it is a coin that nobody has a use or want for, i.e. an unadopted shitcoin.
The value of unadopted shitcoins approaches zero as fewer and fewer people use it. Therefore, the value of Bitcoin is entirely comprised of perceived, and not intrinsic value.
Another way:
Compare a Bitcoin with a banknote. A banknote has perceived value (it represents one, or several, dollars, which have a stable value and are accepted universally) and intrinsic value (it is piece of paper that you could burn to provide a small amount of heat, in a pinch). The Bitcoin doesn’t even have that tiny amount of intrinsic value that the banknote has.
During the Weimar Republic, people burned paper money because it was cheaper than wood. In that situation hyperinflation led to the perceived value falling so low that it was below the paper money’s intrinsic value. If everyone stopped accepting Bitcoin and its perceived value evaporated, that Bitcoin would not even have the intrinsic value remaining, of heat from a single burning banknote.
I was hoping years back that all of this would have taken off for payments rather than silliness. I was wondering if we'd see a (low) Bitcoin value determined by the need to pay BTC transaction fees and those fees being effectively locked up until the next block comes
What's happening is not great for crypto investors, but it's beneficial for people who want inflation to go down (nearly all of us.)
OP was worth at least 64k at some point and now is worth at least 16k. The value and total amount of wealth (in US Dollars) has gone down.
Take Elon Musk, for example. A lot of his wealth is in Tesla stock. But he can't sell that stock without also affecting its price. If he decided to sell all of it tomorrow, the price would plummet and he would only receive a fraction of what it's worth today.
This is what a lot of these companies are doing. I can create 100 tokens and sell you one for $1. In theory, my "net worth" is now $99, since I have 99 tokens that are worth $1 each. In reality, if I tried to sell all 99 of them, I'd quickly find that people are actually not willing to buy all of them for that amount.
I trust money more than wealth. Unsold stock should not be quantified until the moment it is sold.
It's getting tiring to hear about "so and so billionaire lost X billion". No, they didn't lose anything that they didn't have to begin with. Having more stock than the trade volume of that stock means all of that "wealth" is mostly theoretical.
That "theoretical" wealth clearly has a massive impact on the real world, so it's silly to pretend it does not exist. For example, Elon didn't buy Twitter with a giant bag of gold coins -- he borrowed against his wealth, which is mostly in stock.
Because no sane organization will lend out real cash over the same amount of collateral TSLA stock, and leveraged lending opens TSLA to extremely high risk as value dropping would means Musk will be forced to sell to cover/and or stake more TSLA. This is exactly how FTX failed - they counted their own token as their "asset". Spoiler: it didn't work.
Does this wealth have a high impact on the world? Of course it does. But does it has the same impact as same volume of cash? Absolutely not.
> Unsold stock should not be quantified until the moment it is sold.
I don't know Elon Musk's finances, but I imagine that he's got a bunch of stock, (let's say) an amount of cash in the tens or even hundreds of millions and debts well above the amount of cash he has on hand. If you don't count unsold stock, then Elon Musk is poorer than most college students.
I agree the numbers are misleading (e.g. Bill Gates money is very diversified and he has already paid many of the capital gains on microsoft stock sales, so comparing his wealth to Elon Musk's with a single number is quite misleading). But you have to count unsold stock for something.
Do I now actually have $300 in wealth? No, because it's illiquid, and the bid for it more broadly is likely $0, I have to apply a large liquidity discount. It seems like many communities behind these coins have been doing something similar to the internal trading I've been describing here, and hyping them to find outside people willing to trade some of their real dollars for these worthless coins, and those few trades have been used to establish the broader market caps of these things.
All illiquid and somewhat illiquid have this property to varying degrees, ranging from startup stock (no, selling 20% for $1M to a VC doesn't mean your company is actually worth $5M, unless you could find a buyer for all the stock for that much) all the way up to Amazon, Tesla, Apple, etc, because there's no buyer waiting to absorb all the outstanding stock at the current bid. There would be a buyer willing to absorb all of it at some level, but it's likely at a level far lower than the current market cap.
It may not be "real wealth" but it certainly is spending power and psychological cushion, which means different spending choices, which means inflationary pressure.
I had a lot of coworkers who listed crypto holdings on their mortgage application in the past few years. They wouldn't have been bidding as high if the perceived value of those wasn't there.
So in that sense, it _was_ wealth for the holders.
- You start the day with $200,000. You create an NFT and sell it to yourself for $200,000.
- Now you have $200,000 and a $200,000 NFT, meaning you've doubled your wealth to $400,000.
- If you can convince someone to buy that arbitrary NFT at 95% discount, you end up having $210,000 in cash by the EOD.
But you now also have a liability of $200,000. Your total asset is still $200,000 , not $400,000.
> If you can convince someone to buy that arbitrary NFT at 95% discount
so you just sold the NFT for $10,000. If somebody else got tricked into thinking they got a 95% discount - that's on them. A fashion store often marks up their clothing by 100%, and have "sales" of 50%!
Assets are not liabilities, so you'll need to explain why you think it is a liability.
Fashion brands and their physical goods are definitely not the same as NFTs, insomuch as they at least have intrinsic value. NFTs only intrinsic value is they good for ripping off greater fools.
For crypto, no one would want to buy the entirety of bitcoin, because it basically has no value if it isn't traded, so it's effectively worth $0 if someone owns all of it.
For companies, this isn't necessarily true. When acquisitions happen, the current market cap is usually the floor, not the ceiling. I agree with your overall point though.
You and every individual investor could have cashed out but that is as saying that Madoff customers could have cashed out. It's just an illusion. Most of the money disappeared once you deposited and Madoff, SBF, or some other scammer spent it on a new boat or house on an island.
It's true no matter if you're talking about falling stocks or falling crypto.
Yes, the $10 exists, but that $10 trade may have inflated the value of the coin by billions.
At start you had 10 bucks and he had 10 bucks worth of crypto for total assets of 20
Now you have crypto with value of 0 and he has 10 bucks for total assets of 10
Overall 10 bucks is gone and yes there are winners and losers
Edit: TikTok quiz abbreviated: you buy for 50, sell for 60, buy again for 80, sell for 90. How much did you win / lose? ... the confusion for some people being created since they sold at 60 to buy back at 80
It's like a gold mine being revealed as barren. Whether you say wealth was destroyed or wasn't there to begin with is... distinction without a difference.
Here's an example of how this works:
FTX "minted" their own cryptocurrency. They minted billions of dollars of it.
When people purchased a tiny fraction of it, that established a price for one coin.
Once that happened, FTX could say "we're worth billions of dollars."
But keep in mind:
* the cryptocurrency was created out of thin air
* the value of the crypto crashed by over 90% in the past month
On top of all that, there was a "multiplier effect" when the "assets" were used as collateral on loans to counterparties.
The net effect is that the "assets" were worth billions at some point, but that value has evaporated. And loans were made on those "assets" which may have multiplied the actual impact several fold.
It's a banal comparison, but this is a lot like Beanie Babies in the 1990s. At one point the market was worth millions of dollars, and then it evaporated overnight.
That's deflationary, and if there's one thing the world needs right now, it's deflation.
A day later the Russian army hits my car with a mortar. You have $10,000. I have some scrap metal. Rather than $20,000 worth of stuff, there's now $10,000 (plus some scrap metal) total.
People losing jobs and thinking about their next steps are usually too late with not enough skin in the game to jump on the decade-long bandwagon. That's the "wealth" some of the commenters here seem to be pointing to. Essentially, inequality.
Which one retains value in a market crash? My money is on US Dollars, but you are free to disagree with me.
More than a half-century ago, John Kenneth Galbraith presented a definitive depiction of the Wall Street Crash of 1929 in a slim, elegantly written volume. Embezzlement, Galbraith observed, has the property that “weeks, months, or years elapse between the commission of the crime and its discovery. This is the period, incidentally, when the embezzler has his gain and the man who has been embezzled feels no loss. There is a net increase in psychic wealth.” Galbraith described that increase in wealth as “the bezzle.”
Burn baby burn.
These shitcoins with billion dollar market caps never actually took a billion dollars into any accounts. The volume is fake, the activity is fake, the price is fake.
How can a crypto coin lose 99% of its value? It was worth nothing to begin with. No wealth created, no wealth destroyed. Plain transference.
If I convince one person to pay $10 for a quarter, are all quarters worth $10?
If you answered "yes", you can run https://coinmarketcap.com/.
- How many Dollars does a bitcoin buy?
- How many Bitcoins does a Dollar buy?
- When the exchange rate varies, what does that say about the relative value of each currency?
- How many Potatoes can a Dollar buy?
- How many Potatoes can a Bitcoin buy?
- How many Drugs can a Dollar buy?
- How many Drugs can a Bitcoin buy?
The above is extremely oversimplified but much like a global foreign exchange relies on shifting exchange rates, so does the value of all currency in terms of relative buying power. In terms of absolute buying power - my personal highly subjective bid is that a currency's "value" is a compound of its' exchange rate as well as the amount of people willing to exchange it, and the amount of it in circulation as well as the breadth of people willing to accept it in exchange for goods and services.
If A mints a coin for free and sells it to B for $0.25, B sells it to C for $0.50, C sells it to D for $0.75, and D sells it to E for $1.00, at which point it crashes to zero, A, B, C and D have all made $0.25 each, and E has lost $1.00, but nothing of value was created or destroyed.
E incorrectly believed that the coin was worth $1.00 and thus that more wealth existed in the world than was actually the case, but that doesn’t mean wealth was ever destroyed, just that his incorrect estimate was updated.
*negligible not zero, because some tiny slice of crypto transactions actually are done by useful workers in order to shield wages from kleptocratic regimes.
The last time Serum was worth $2.1+ per token, it was Jan 2022. At current market prices, that same stake is worth less than $250M (given liquidity conditions).
Serum was also a dex that SBF's company, Alameda, pretty much made in-house, and then allocated themselves 1 billion tokens.
So this "wealth" was created out of thin air. And disappeared into thin air.
Ergo, it was not real. It wasn't lost. It never really existed in the first place.
How does this actually benefit anyone? It's not wealth redistribution.
> When will then take some of the extra money out of the real economy
But it wasn't real money in the real economy, it was fake money in a fake economy.
Admittedly some real money went in, and some came out again to buy stadium endorsements and superbowl adverts, but the main effect of this is to wreck the savings of (a) ordinary rubes and (b) over-optimistic VC firms. I can see why people want (b), but you can't separate it from (a).
Here's a "real world example:"
There's a house near me that's selling for $7,777,777 (get it? Lucky sevens?)
The cost of the house is obviously arbitrary, and it's listing has a bunch of references to bitcoin. The owners of the home are obviously trying to "leverage" crypto mania to find a buyer.
Now that a bunch of crypto "wealth" has been destroyed by falling prices, the owner of that house will need to re-assess whether $7,777,777 is a realistic price.
More than likely, it's not. And by lowering the price of the home they're selling, they're contributing to a reduction in real world inflation rates.
Also, yes, I know that inflation stats use a proxy for the cost of housing.
If the entire stock market went to zero tomorrow, exactly the same number of dollars would be circulating.
In your loan example, either you haven't spent the money they loaned you, which would then be reclaimed, or you have spent it, in which case someone else has it.
No money would be destroyed in either scenario, unless what you did with the loan was put it in a suitcase and burn it.
The only things that remove money from circulation are: bank accounts that only accrete (usually temporary, and thus not actual removal), taxes, and physical destruction.
It's now $250,000.
https://www.fdic.gov/resources/deposit-insurance/brochures/i....
> In your loan example, either you haven't spent the money they loaned you, which would then be reclaimed, or you have spent it, in which case someone else has it.
Not sure if you understood the parent's statement. Money is created largely by loans - when banks lend $1m to a company, the company owes $1m to the bank and gets $1m, but no one loses $1m anywhere. And by spending that $1m somewhere else, a fresh $1m is printed out of thin air and goes into circulation. When the company pays that back, that $1m is destroyed.
There is certainly a "root" of money that seems not to be created via loans anywhere, namely those issued directly by the central bank (the Federal Reserve in US's case). And no, they are loans nevertheless - since these money is backed by the government's ability to collect taxes, any money printed is effectively created via loans to the government, and the government has infinite ability to borrow money. When the government is unable to collect taxes anymore, nobody needs these money either and the government effectively goes bankrupt since its loan is no longer backed. As a result, dollar loses its value. That's how our current fiat money system works.
So your contention is that Bank of America prints the $1m dollars that it loans to me? Color me skeptical. I imagine they'd have better rates if they had a money printer. Or maybe they wouldn't bother loaning money at all.
Maybe it will alleviate the semiconductor shortage.
There’s real benefit when we consider the amount of man-hours spent the past years on trying to reinvent finance, with little success so far.
These (smart) people can use their time and skills towards more productive stuff.
But if society really believes that their smartness could have been used better, why aren't they paid for doing "more productive stuff" than crypto? These people did crypto because it paid the most. Therefore, at the time, it must mean that it is most productive to do crypto.
Fe. society might have been better off investing in nuclear energy in the past 30 years, yet it did not and it s starting to look as a mistake.
Circumstances play a role too. My opinion is that if it had not been for the pandemic and the economic anomalies that happened way fewer people would have paid attention to crypto.
Sure it is. It redistributes money from the marks to the crooks.