Re:Crypto in 2026: Oh, This Is the Bad Place
by blenklo on Tuesday June 23, 2026 @07:15AM
(#48643261)
Buying crypto actually 'doubles' money by increasing risk:
You buy crypto and give out fiat. Now you have apparently 1 crypto worth 1 fiat and someone else now has 1 fiat.
Re:Crypto in 2026: Oh, This Is the Bad Place
by Dilettante_ on Tuesday June 23, 2026 @06:55PM
(#48652674)
I go to the store and buy a pencil. Now I have apparently 1 pencil worth 1 fiat and someone else now has 1 fiat? What a preposterous notion!
Re:Crypto in 2026: Oh, This Is the Bad Place
by blenklo on Wednesday June 24, 2026 @02:56AM
(#48656181)
The pencil was made with 'work'. You exchange existing work with 1 fiat.
If you do not consume this work, you can exchange it back.
Re:Crypto in 2026: Oh, This Is the Bad Place
by Dilettante_ on Wednesday June 24, 2026 @08:59AM
(#48659063)
The cryptocurency was also made with work. Hardware, electricity, and time were invested into the 1 unit of crypto. It's literally called Proof-Of-Work.
Re:Crypto in 2026: Oh, This Is the Bad Place
by ForHackernews on Tuesday June 23, 2026 @07:01AM
(#48643146)
The logical conclusion is it should be taxed as gambling, not investing. Some countries like India have already gotten this one right.
This is an interesting economic/philosophical angle. What is the logical conclusion of this? What happens as a higher fraction of people deploy their capital in zero-sum games? Is "deployment" even the right framing? A bet doesn't necessarily "tie up" capital in the same way as a real investment (you could place your bet moments before it's settled). Buying crypto does tie up capital, sort of, although in theory you could invest crypto-denominated assets into something productive.
My capital is in real estate and (mostly US tech) company equity. Is society actually better off because I put my capital there instead of letting it sit in a bank account or crypto wallet?