The Stock/Investment Thread

[Wraith]

Let's follow the bouncing ball: You claimed I needed $5 million to retire, and suggested that getting from today to retirement with $5 million would be fraught with uncertainty despite my best laid plans. I responded arguing that relatively conservative assumptions about my investments gave me a good chance of hitting a decent sized nest egg, but I acknowledged other risks that could affect that savings/investment trajectory.

I further added that $5 million was probably not enough.

I'm going to need some more explanation on this. What's your expected expenses that leads to $5m not being enough? Are you trying to do this just on savings account interest?

[wiggin]

Funny you should say that, because the crypto community has been basically begging the Fed for years to get on top of the whole market and offer regulatory clarity beyond "we'll punish anyone who breaks the rules, but we won't tell you what the rules are yet". The lack of Fed involvement has been a depressing effect on the market. The market gets a bump upwards every time there's solid rumors of the Fed or ECB getting involved. The current run up started not long after the Fed started getting a little more involved and signed off on several of the bigger coins as legitimate assets.

Depends on what you by 'involvement', eh? I can totally see large central banks cracking down on it if it starts looking like a currency, their monetary policy levers will get a lot mushier if there's an unregulated currency floating around. As long as it continues to be treated as a highly volatile safe haven asset, I think they'll largely leave it alone other than the occasional rule to limit how much you can fleece mom and pop investors.

If reality keeps defying your expectations, eventually you have to start considering that it might not be reality that's wrong. I'm not a fan of BTC - they've squandered their potential and they're mostly sustained by marketing and tribalism right now, but crypto in general has some obscenely powerful disruptive tech. Coinbase has an education program that will pay out a small bit of crypto in exchange for learning about it if you'd like. I haven't bothered with it myself, but it's free money.

Bubbles can last for a long time; that doesn't mean that contrarians are wrong, they just need time to be proven right. For the record, I don't put any money into gold or forex, either, and both of those have much better fundamentals than crypto.

'Free' money means my time and eyeballs. If I wanted to grind to make more money I'm sure there are higher yielding ways to use my expertise. I already have three jobs, no need for more.

I'm going to need some more explanation on this. What's your expected expenses that leads to $5m not being enough? Are you trying to do this just on savings account interest?

No, but I assume that bonds will have very low rates for the foreseeable future given aging populations and savings gluts in the rich world. And my exposure to bonds will substantially increase (from nearly nil now) to something like 50% of my portfolio in retirement, to cushion volatility swings and sequence of returns risk. This is a guesstimate, I have decades to figure it out and the environment will change over that time - notably how much if any money I can expect from Social Security (I'm assuming I'll be considered wealthy enough that most of my SS benefits will be taxed at a minimum, if not actively curtailed) and whether annuities make sense rather than a bond heavy portfolio.

The current crappy rule of thumb is 4% withdrawals. From $5 million (assume constant 2021 dollars), that's $200k, likely a good chunk of which will be taxable. I expect that I'll have decent sized property taxes (though likely no mortgage), substantial healthcare costs, want to have a buffer against long term care costs, etc. And it would be nice if I could travel with my wife and help my kids save for the grandkid's college. $200k is decent but would probably be a huge hit from what we'd be earning prior to retirement. And that's assuming 4% is a safe number, I'd bet that longevity risk becomes much more prominent 30-40 years from now, so I'd want to be more conservative.

I'm well aware that I'm assuming a relatively expensive lifestyle compared to your typical American. Not exactly owning a chalet in Gstaad kind of consumption, but definitely more travel, more wealth transfers, and likely much more philanthropy. But based on realistic assumptions about what my household income will look like in 30 years, I wouldn't be shocked if I'd be taking a huge pay cut if I had a nest egg of $5 million.

[Lewkowski]

I continue to not understand why people put money into cryptocurrencies. There's literally no reason why BTC should be worth $1 or $1 million. I suspect that we'll only see real effects once (a) the Fed or ECB get involved, or (b) the bubble bursts.

There are a lot of reasons.

1. Crypto like bitcoin has outperformed the stock market by a massive amount.
2. Crypto can act as hedge for inflation and a falling currency. People call it "digital gold" for a reason.
3. Bitcoin can help get around government censorship and financial transaction chokepoints.

The third bit is pretty important. GAB for example is blacklisted from using card services but they do accept donations by check and most recently with cryptocurrency. Online gambling sites is another place that accepts crypto currency when most debit and credit cards aren't allowable. This sort of things is healthy because we never want a financial system that can shut people off.

[Wraith]

Depends on what you by 'involvement', eh? I can totally see large central banks cracking down on it if it starts looking like a currency, their monetary policy levers will get a lot mushier if there's an unregulated currency floating around.

Good thing the Fed already closed off that possibility years ago, eh?

Bubbles can last for a long time; that doesn't mean that contrarians are wrong, they just need time to be proven right.

Do bubbles usually recur this frequently for no reason? When will it stop being a bubble? How much smoke does there need to be before you start looking for a fire?

For the record, I don't put any money into gold or forex, either, and both of those have much better fundamentals than crypto.

You do not understand the fundamentals of crypto.

'Free' money means my time and eyeballs. If I wanted to grind to make more money I'm sure there are higher yielding ways to use my expertise. I already have three jobs, no need for more.

It's the free professionally designed education that goes along it with I was trying to interest you in. I know the topic is complex, but if you understood it better you'd probably understand all the interest better.

[wiggin]

Good thing the Fed already closed off that possibility years ago, eh?

Would you care to elaborate?

Do bubbles usually recur this frequently for no reason? When will it stop being a bubble? How much smoke does there need to be before you start looking for a fire?

What is recurring? I see wild price swings in an asset that is totally untethered to anything, driven purely by sentiment. I just don't think we've seen enough of a pullback to necessitate the kind of asset declines that would wipe out the asset entirely.

We can argue about whether various crypto price swings are best described as an asset bubble or something else, but even viewing it through the lens of it being a standard asset with an underlying value determined by something other than investor sentiment, I'd stay far far away from something with that kind of volatility, no matter what the short run return looked like.

You do not understand the fundamentals of crypto.

I'll admit that this clearly must be the case. However, I wouldn't say this is coming from a place of utter ignorance - I have a better than layman's understanding of the basic principles. I'm no expert - I haven't bothered to go through the math (though I trust it's legit) and I haven't spent enough time digging into the ever-changing internal politics and external risks (e.g. regulatory), but I have a pretty good understanding of how cryptocurrencies work. What I don't understand is why I should buy a cryptocurrency as an asset. There are lots of true believers who haven't been totally wiped out yet.

It's the free professionally designed education that goes along it with I was trying to interest you in. I know the topic is complex, but if you understood it better you'd probably understand all the interest better.

All advertising could be described as 'free professionally designed education'. I doubt it is worth my time (hence, my questioning the 'free' bit). I think you have a misapprehension that I'm completely ignorant as to how cryptocurrencies work and are thus hostile to them.

I've said it before and will gladly reiterate - I think that the underlying technology of cryptocurrencies, the blockchain, has a lot of intriguing applications, especially in fixing some internal plumbing in the financial world and clever applications in other contexts where trustless technologies could be very valuable. I am much more skeptical that it is a good way to store value independently of an underlying asset.

There are a lot of reasons.

1. Crypto like bitcoin has outperformed the stock market by a massive amount.
2. Crypto can act as hedge for inflation and a falling currency. People call it "digital gold" for a reason.
3. Bitcoin can help get around government censorship and financial transaction chokepoints.

The third bit is pretty important. GAB for example is blacklisted from using card services but they do accept donations by check and most recently with cryptocurrency. Online gambling sites is another place that accepts crypto currency when most debit and credit cards aren't allowable. This sort of things is healthy because we never want a financial system that can shut people off.

1. Many things can outperform the stock market, I wouldn't invest in any of them.
2. What is the correlation between one of the major cryptocurrencies and inflation? Is there one? Is gold even correlated all that well with inflation? (Hint: it's not, though the correlation is stronger with inflation expectations, suggesting that gold has more to do with market psychology than actual inflation.) If you're really worried about inflation buy some TIPS.
3. Sure, I understand this point but am not particularly interested in a currency whose main logical use case is by criminals or Nazis.

[Wraith]

Would you care to elaborate?

It was so long ago I'll never dig up the actual wording, but back when the exchanges were just getting started the Fed said all cryptocurrencies were assets, not currencies for their purposes, even when they are used in the same manner as currencies. This was in the lead up to when they started granting approval for the various regulated exchanges.

What is recurring? I see wild price swings in an asset that is totally untethered to anything, driven purely by sentiment. I just don't think we've seen enough of a pullback to necessitate the kind of asset declines that would wipe out the asset entirely.

That's convenient. Is anything not a bubble then?

We can argue about whether various crypto price swings are best described as an asset bubble or something else, but even viewing it through the lens of it being a standard asset with an underlying value determined by something other than investor sentiment, I'd stay far far away from something with that kind of volatility, no matter what the short run return looked like.

You don't like the volatility, that's fair. It's still young, the pacing is very fast, and equilibriums are yet to be found. I know you're super conservative with your investments. I'm not trying to get you to buy into it. Maybe stop making claims about there being nothing behind it though - you're spreading misinformation. You've been writing it off for more than a decade as doomed to fail, and yet it keeps hitting new highs in usage and adoption.

I'll admit that this clearly must be the case. However, I wouldn't say this is coming from a place of utter ignorance - I have a better than layman's understanding of the basic principles. I'm no expert - I haven't bothered to go through the math (though I trust it's legit) and I haven't spent enough time digging into the ever-changing internal politics and external risks (e.g. regulatory), but I have a pretty good understanding of how cryptocurrencies work. What I don't understand is why I should buy a cryptocurrency as an asset. There are lots of true believers who haven't been totally wiped out yet.

I don't do short term investing. My money went in because I looked at what the tech could do. I'm not a fan of BTC because even though it was the first, it allowed itself to be taken over by those more interested in increasing the price and willing to sacrifice use cases to do it. You keep talking like BTC is the only one, but that's more of the bare minimum for crpyto now. I'm afraid you're on your own from here though - I don't have the interest, time, or patience to walk through it with an unreceptive party.

All advertising could be described as 'free professionally designed education'. I doubt it is worth my time (hence, my questioning the 'free' bit). I think you have a misapprehension that I'm completely ignorant as to how cryptocurrencies work and are thus hostile to them.

It's an exchange. It's advertising in the same sense that the research tools provided by stock exchanges are advertising. They do advertise that this is a feature they offer as a way to differentiate themselves from their competition, but you can count that however you want. It's a good deal since they put a lot of effort into making the explanations understandable and give you something you can play with on your own without any financial risk, but up to you. You can watch youtube videos on the subjects if you prefer.

I've said it before and will gladly reiterate - I think that the underlying technology of cryptocurrencies, the blockchain, has a lot of intriguing applications, especially in fixing some internal plumbing in the financial world and clever applications in other contexts where trustless technologies could be very valuable. I am much more skeptical that it is a good way to store value independently of an underlying asset.

Then don't buy BTC. Please stop speaking like the solution space ends there though.

3. Sure, I understand this point but am not particularly interested in a currency whose main logical use case is by criminals or Nazis.

Well, shit, I just completely wasted my time here, didn't I? Can't overcome this level of entrenchment.

[wiggin]

It was so long ago I'll never dig up the actual wording, but back when the exchanges were just getting started the Fed said all cryptocurrencies were assets, not currencies for their purposes, even when they are used in the same manner as currencies. This was in the lead up to when they started granting approval for the various regulated exchanges.

Sure, the Fed is treating it as an asset now because that's how everyone else is treating it (its use as a currency is quite limited at the moment). But I have no doubt that if it was ever being used widely as a medium of exchange they'd change the regulatory environment - monetary policy can tolerate some forms of money-like instruments floating around (e.g. various government IOUs, small scale virtual cash in internal systems like video games, etc.) but if anything becomes widespread competition for dollars in the US, their ability to control monetary policy would be heavily affected and they'd act.

That's convenient. Is anything not a bubble then?

Fair enough, I'm not going to get into a no true Scotsman kind of argument here. Let's agree that there have been multiple run-ups in the price of prominent cryptocurrencies and there still seems to be growing appetite for exposure to this asset. I am not convinced that there is any fundamental value to the asset and wonder who will be holding the bag when the music stops. But I recognize that previous corrections and wild price swings have yet to dramatically dampen the enthusiasm among the true believers.

You don't like the volatility, that's fair. It's still young, the pacing is very fast, and equilibriums are yet to be found. I know you're super conservative with your investments. I'm not trying to get you to buy into it. Maybe stop making claims about there being nothing behind it though - you're spreading misinformation. You've been writing it off for more than a decade as doomed to fail, and yet it keeps hitting new highs in usage and adoption.

I find it hilarious you think I'm super conservative in my investments, I have nearly 100% exposure to equities with a very hefty international developed and developing world exposure. By most metrics that's a very high risk portfolio. What is evident from my posting here, though, is that I don't make big bets on things - I don't pick specific stocks or even sectors because I think that's a rube's game that most people lose. I don't try to read the tea leaves and invest cyclically for the same reason; math has shown that people can't do that in the long run and win.

When I say there's nothing behind cryptocurrencies, I am not saying that there isn't an interesting technology behind it. I'm saying that holding a single unit of a cryptocurrency does not give you anything of value except that which other people place on it. If I hold a share in a company, I own a miniscule fraction of that company, with all of the rights and privileges that come with that; there's actual revenue and profit and assets tied to my holding. Sure, the company could go bankrupt and as a shareholder I'd be left with little to nothing, but in the final analysis I own something. If I own a commodity - say, gold - while the market price may be determined by sentiment, if the price drops to nil I'm still in possession of an ounce of gold - something I could use to make jewelry, or electronics, or whatever. It has an actual use in the market, and one that's not likely to disappear overnight. If I own even something as abstract as a US dollar, even that is backed by something that has more substance than crypto - essentially the US government agrees to provide me a dollar's worth of services or goods for that dollar, with all of the country's natural and human resources and capital/infrastructure base to fall back on.

All of these assets have prices that are determined by sentiment and not fundamentals, agreed. But in the long run, if investing consistently and holding for a long time period, you're getting some approximation of the long run increase in fundamental value in your asset. With cryptocurrencies, the price is purely based on sentiment; there is no equilibrium price one could theoretically calculate. If it ever gets widespread use as a currency (something I'm skeptical about based on aforementioned regulatory risk) you can argue that its value is based on people willing to give you an ether's worth of goods or services in exchange for a unit of currency. But even then it's far more ephemeral than going with a currency backed by a deep pocketed, ridiculously well capitalized, and extremely liquid organization - e.g. the US Treasury.

I am truly sorry if you think I've been peddling misinformation. I genuinely think it's an incredibly risky investment that makes very little sense for retail investors to dabble in.

It's an exchange. It's advertising in the same sense that the research tools provided by stock exchanges are advertising. They do advertise that this is a feature they offer as a way to differentiate themselves from their competition, but you can count that however you want. It's a good deal since they put a lot of effort into making the explanations understandable and give you something you can play with on your own without any financial risk, but up to you. You can watch youtube videos on the subjects if you prefer.

You know what? I respect you and am willing to countenance the possibility that I might be wrong. I'll fire up the ol' coinbase advertising and give it a look. I'm quite skeptical I'll find anything that will fundamentally alter my analysis, but I'm willing to be surprised. I'll check back in on this in a few weeks after I've had time to work through it. But if I'm disappointed, I'll send you a bill for my time.

Then don't buy BTC. Please stop speaking like the solution space ends there though.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that BTC is my only problem, though obviously it gets the most press. I'd say ethereum is probably better constructed/administered but I still have the same fundamental concerns about its use as a currency and/or asset. Also, from a currency perspective there's likely to be only one or two winners here (if any), what with scaling effects. I would think it would be even riskier to go with some of the more marginal currencies in the hopes that it scales unless it really has a huge advantage in how it works.

Well, shit, I just completely wasted my time here, didn't I? Can't overcome this level of entrenchment.

That was responding to Lewk's gabfest and was intended to be flippant. I think that there's the potential for it to be used in much broader applications, I just think it's unlikely to be allowed to get that kind of scale.

[Lewkowski]

Sure, the Fed is treating it as an asset now because that's how everyone else is treating it (its use as a currency is quite limited at the moment). But I have no doubt that if it was ever being used widely as a medium of exchange they'd change the regulatory environment - monetary policy can tolerate some forms of money-like instruments floating around (e.g. various government IOUs, small scale virtual cash in internal systems like video games, etc.) but if anything becomes widespread competition for dollars in the US, their ability to control monetary policy would be heavily affected and they'd act.

Which is the ultimate form of gross tyranny. The idea that I can't swap one asset for another asset without the all powerful big brother getting upset is ludicrous. We should all long for the day when nation states cannot borrow money through their own fiat currency.

[Wraith]

Sure, the Fed is treating it as an asset now because that's how everyone else is treating it (its use as a currency is quite limited at the moment). But I have no doubt that if it was ever being used widely as a medium of exchange they'd change the regulatory environment - monetary policy can tolerate some forms of money-like instruments floating around (e.g. various government IOUs, small scale virtual cash in internal systems like video games, etc.) but if anything becomes widespread competition for dollars in the US, their ability to control monetary policy would be heavily affected and they'd act.

It's more complicated than that, but I don't want to go to far into it. It's safe from being declared as an illegal currency now, though - that's the important part. Exact details of how it should be treated are still nebulous, which has been keeping it maturing.

I find it hilarious you think I'm super conservative in my investments, I have nearly 100% exposure to equities with a very hefty international developed and developing world exposure. By most metrics that's a very high risk portfolio. What is evident from my posting here, though, is that I don't make big bets on things - I don't pick specific stocks or even sectors because I think that's a rube's game that most people lose. I don't try to read the tea leaves and invest cyclically for the same reason; math has shown that people can't do that in the long run and win.

When I say there's nothing behind cryptocurrencies, I am not saying that there isn't an interesting technology behind it. I'm saying that holding a single unit of a cryptocurrency does not give you anything of value except that which other people place on it. If I hold a share in a company, I own a miniscule fraction of that company, with all of the rights and privileges that come with that; there's actual revenue and profit and assets tied to my holding. Sure, the company could go bankrupt and as a shareholder I'd be left with little to nothing, but in the final analysis I own something. If I own a commodity - say, gold - while the market price may be determined by sentiment, if the price drops to nil I'm still in possession of an ounce of gold - something I could use to make jewelry, or electronics, or whatever. It has an actual use in the market, and one that's not likely to disappear overnight. If I own even something as abstract as a US dollar, even that is backed by something that has more substance than crypto - essentially the US government agrees to provide me a dollar's worth of services or goods for that dollar, with all of the country's natural and human resources and capital/infrastructure base to fall back on.

I knew what you were saying, and that's why I said you don't understand it. Bitcoin is the simplest, first use of the tech, and it has stalled out. It is not the end of the solution space. If you're not interested in learning what else is out there and what they do or how they're used, then there's not much I can do about it. Bitcoin's "store of value" mantra is derided outside of BTC circles though.

I am truly sorry if you think I've been peddling misinformation. I genuinely think it's an incredibly risky investment that makes very little sense for retail investors to dabble in.

It is risky, but I'd put more of the risk in picking the wrong horse in the market. This is a game-changing disruptive tech, and there's going to be a massive winner, it's just not certain who it's going to be yet. It's still a young market with intense competition, and a maneuvering by various parties to try to make sure they have a big piece of whatever coins wind up becoming dominant when the market matures. We also don't know how long that'll take as the regulatory environment is causing a big slowdown, though corporations and banks have recently (past year) begun signaling that they're tired of waiting and are ready to start moving forward with or without regulatory clarity.

You know what? I respect you and am willing to countenance the possibility that I might be wrong. I'll fire up the ol' coinbase advertising and give it a look. I'm quite skeptical I'll find anything that will fundamentally alter my analysis, but I'm willing to be surprised. I'll check back in on this in a few weeks after I've had time to work through it. But if I'm disappointed, I'll send you a bill for my time.

I only ran through one or two of them and decided it was too basic to be worth more of my time, but at the time I'd been keeping up with the tech anyways so that wasn't surprising. It did seem like a good presentation on the coins, and I've heard good feedback from other people who hadn't dug as deeply as I had before. There's plenty of other resources out there though, that's just the easiest one for me to point to that gives a foundational level of knowledge and does a decent job of it.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that BTC is my only problem, though obviously it gets the most press. I'd say ethereum is probably better constructed/administered but I still have the same fundamental concerns about its use as a currency and/or asset. Also, from a currency perspective there's likely to be only one or two winners here (if any), what with scaling effects. I would think it would be even riskier to go with some of the more marginal currencies in the hopes that it scales unless it really has a huge advantage in how it works.

Ethereum's use as a currency is just a side-effect of it's primary use, which is as fuel for the trustless distributed public computational network. I would try to steer anyone away from cryptocurrencies whose primary uses cases are as a currency - their value is too fragile. Here's a link that hints at Ethereum's value proposition if needed: https://coinmarketcap.com/tokens/views/all/

That was responding to Lewk's gabfest and was intended to be flippant. I think that there's the potential for it to be used in much broader applications, I just think it's unlikely to be allowed to get that kind of scale.

It doesn't work if you're echoing a common refrain from the same position you're currently occupying.

[GGT]

You do not understand the fundamentals of crypto.

Is this like how the Gold Bugs speculate/bet against fiat currency? I don't really understand that investment strategy, either.

So what "fundamentals" are you talking about?

[GGT]

Which is the ultimate form of gross tyranny. The idea that I can't swap one asset for another asset without the all powerful big brother getting upset is ludicrous.

That sounds like a sound bite you got from Fox & Friends. Governmental regulation doesn't necessarily mean gross governmental tyranny.

We should all long for the day when nation states cannot borrow money through their own fiat currency.

What does that even mean?

Do you want a globally-connected world operating without global standards based on the US Dollar? Or would you rather the base currency be the yen or the ruble, or the chicken? Want to trade a chicken for your medical check-up? What's the proxy value for that in cyber currency?

[Lewkowski]

That sounds like a sound bite you got from Fox & Friends. Governmental regulation doesn't necessarily mean gross governmental tyranny.



What does that even mean?

Do you want a globally-connected world operating without global standards based on the US Dollar? Or would you rather the base currency be the yen or the ruble, or the chicken? Want to trade a chicken for your medical check-up? What's the proxy value for that in cyber currency?

Global standard based on a dollar isn't a good thing. It makes it easier for us to borrow and spend and borrow some more, eventually the chickens come home to roost. A better solution is to yank the band aid off and have lending be based off of a crypto currency that is not tied to a nation state. Heck one that could maybe have a fixed supply so no country ever has the option of inflating their debt away.

EDIT: I am under no illusions this will happen soon and likely will never happen (at least in our lifetimes).

[GGT]

Global standard based on a dollar isn't a good thing. It makes it easier for us to borrow and spend and borrow some more, eventually the chickens come home to roost. A better solution is to yank the band aid off and have lending be based off of a crypto currency that is not tied to a nation state. Heck one that could maybe have a fixed supply so no country ever has the option of inflating their debt away.

EDIT: I am under no illusions this will happen soon and likely will never happen (at least in our lifetimes).

So the "fundamentals" you're talking about is divorced from currency valuations and is only concerned with collateralized debt obligations? How does that work in a globally connected world -- where you want to trade a chicken for a check-up?


edit: I think it's delusional to believe crypto-currency will deliver democratic freeedom to individuals via financial institutions or freeee markets that are already dominated by the top 1%.

[Hazir]

It's more complicated than that, but I don't want to go to far into it. It's safe from being declared as an illegal currency now, though - that's the important part. Exact details of how it should be treated are still nebulous, which has been keeping it maturing.

I knew what you were saying, and that's why I said you don't understand it. Bitcoin is the simplest, first use of the tech, and it has stalled out. It is not the end of the solution space. If you're not interested in learning what else is out there and what they do or how they're used, then there's not much I can do about it. Bitcoin's "store of value" mantra is derided outside of BTC circles though.

It is risky, but I'd put more of the risk in picking the wrong horse in the market. This is a game-changing disruptive tech, and there's going to be a massive winner, it's just not certain who it's going to be yet. It's still a young market with intense competition, and a maneuvering by various parties to try to make sure they have a big piece of whatever coins wind up becoming dominant when the market matures. We also don't know how long that'll take as the regulatory environment is causing a big slowdown, though corporations and banks have recently (past year) begun signaling that they're tired of waiting and are ready to start moving forward with or without regulatory clarity.

I only ran through one or two of them and decided it was too basic to be worth more of my time, but at the time I'd been keeping up with the tech anyways so that wasn't surprising. It did seem like a good presentation on the coins, and I've heard good feedback from other people who hadn't dug as deeply as I had before. There's plenty of other resources out there though, that's just the easiest one for me to point to that gives a foundational level of knowledge and does a decent job of it.

Ethereum's use as a currency is just a side-effect of it's primary use, which is as fuel for the trustless distributed public computational network. I would try to steer anyone away from cryptocurrencies whose primary uses cases are as a currency - their value is too fragile. Here's a link that hints at Ethereum's value proposition if needed: https://coinmarketcap.com/tokens/views/all/


It doesn't work if you're echoing a common refrain from the same position you're currently occupying.

I blame you for me buying €1000 in Ethereum today. To have an incentive to read up on crypto currencies. ��

[Wraith]

So what "fundamentals" are you talking about?

It's complicated. The best short version I can think of is that it's the internet for money. It is capable of doing everything the financial industry does, but faster, safer, and more transparently.

I blame you for me buying €1000 in Ethereum today. To have an incentive to read up on crypto currencies. ��

Sorry. I think you'll be happy with your investment someday, but there's a pretty good chance you'll be disappointed by it first. Don't eat any loss if you can avoid it.

Feel free to hit me up if you want me to vet or recommend any defi services for you. You can just sit on the eth, but you can also put it to work for you in a lot of different ways.

[Ominous Gamer]

Sorry. I think you'll be happy with your investment someday, but there's a pretty good chance you'll be disappointed by it first. Don't eat any loss if you can avoid it.

Today has been especially brutal

[Wraith]

Today has been especially brutal

Meh; I only have a pittance of BTC. Even with the size of their drop, I've seen worse. I'm liking the ratio action right now.

[Lewkowski]

Elon created a nice buying opportunity, I grabbed some BTC at 49k.

[Hazir]

It's complicated. The best short version I can think of is that it's the internet for money. It is capable of doing everything the financial industry does, but faster, safer, and more transparently.


Sorry. I think you'll be happy with your investment someday, but there's a pretty good chance you'll be disappointed by it first. Don't eat any loss if you can avoid it.

Feel free to hit me up if you want me to vet or recommend any defi services for you. You can just sit on the eth, but you can also put it to work for you in a lot of different ways.

Thanks for the offer. I appreciate that this isn't necessarily a short time thing (I got this horror story of a good friend who sold his 8 bitcoin for $200 a piece). I was considering that I should at least get to know what it was all about but the way I am I knew I would never do that without having a stake in it. Putting it to work is a bit next level for me

I don't think today was especially brutal, given that it went up by a similar margin yesterday.

[Dreadnaught]

I think the idea of using some of these distributed ledger technologies is interesting for transactions, but I think a true and functioning currency requires something more/different than the options being presented now.

I don't know if it's necessarily a good thing for a currency to be totally unmoored from government laws and borrowing -- and I am supposedly a right-wing Globalist Capitalist Zionist nutjob!

[Hazir]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the main effect of this type of currency that it ends monetary financing of fiscal policies? For some reason all these new constructs smack of Islamic banking.

[Dreadnaught]

To some extent yes. Crypto is also inherently deflationary (as I understand it).

[Being]

Flipping the Coin

sending it to a public address that is inaccessible

What does that mean? Any public address is accessible, assuming it exists.

[Wraith]

The public keys are always accessible. An inaccessible address is one where nobody has the private key.

[Ominous Gamer]

To some extent yes. Crypto is also inherently deflationary (as I understand it).

Not all. I think bitcoin has shown ~4% yearly decline in tokens due to lost accounts and whatnot but some coins are designed to add more coins to compensate for this, doge for example.

[Hazir]

It's becoming a bit brutal.

[GGT]

meh, the entire financial/banking/investment sphere has been contaminated by speculators, day-traders, hedge funds, and large institutional entities. Really hard to separate fiscal policy from monetary policy when it's all got political roots.

My financial advisor laid out a long term investment plan for me, but it used an assumed 1.75% inflation rate (3% for Healthcare costs) in the algorithm.

Meanwhile, the veterinarian space has seen a 20% increase in investment growth. Vet Architects (yeah that's a real thing), Vet Insurance, Boutique Animal Health Care, Vet Memberships, Vet Real Estate, etc.

Looks like it's better to be a pet than an aging human in our Freee Market enterprise

[GGT]

Did anyone else catch this story about a small local sandwich shop that's "valued" at $113 million?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/02/m...town-deli.html

Read it and weep. IMO it's just more proof that derivative investing is dangerous, even when it means using LLCs and shell companies that appear harmless, according to conventional wisdom. Also, that the SEC is waayyy behind the ball as a financial regulator. Freeee Markets? haha, what a joke.

[Aimless]

Did anyone else catch this story about a small local sandwich shop that's "valued" at $113 million?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/02/m...town-deli.html

Read it and weep. IMO it's just more proof that derivative investing is dangerous, even when it means using LLCs and shell companies that appear harmless, according to conventional wisdom. Also, that the SEC is waayyy behind the ball as a financial regulator. Freeee Markets? haha, what a joke.

Yeah, that story was nuts... wish they coulda cashed out and just retired.

[Being]

Corporate AAA bonds at -2.41%, what does that mean? If I buy them can I expect to be charged 2.41% to hold on to them? Or do my holdings just devalue until all the money I spent on them is gone?