We all need a little more of this in our lives. NFT Market Collapses Just As Square Enix Sells Tomb Raider To Bet Big On Blockchain

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
2,989
Apple sure, but ask people that invested in Enron or Theranos. There is way too much speculation in the market and many companies' stock valuation is way over their true value.
If I am not mistaken, that 2 cases of fraud, such example would exist in real estate, oil, any minerals you can mine and so on.
 

lopoetve

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,962
If I am not mistaken, that 2 cases of fraud, such example would exist in real estate, oil, any minerals you can mine and so on.
Also true - but massively regulated. What happens to the crypto fraudsters?

Pretty much nothing.
 

DanNeely

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
4,319
That's assuming crypto is oblivious to fraud, stealing, and hacking. But we see that it's not. LAck of regulation made it a hacker's / scammer's paradise. The great leader, or dear leader (I always confuse the two) thanks the west for popularizing crypto.

As for the current banking systems, they are already in place and obviously not using 10 times the power requirement of humanity. Whatever it uses is negligible. As for human resources necessary to keep it running, that's actually a benefit in a world of technological unemployment.

Actually neither.

Great Leader was Kim Il-sung, North Korea's original dictator, founder of the country/dynasty, and hero of the war.

Dear Leader was Kim Jong-il, second of the dynasty who continued his father rule and made NK a nuclear power.

Great Successor is Kim Jong-un, who to the surprise of many outsiders (myself among them, who for the first year or two referred to him as Dear Chair Warmer) did manage to consolidate power after his fathers death by being even more ruthless than all rivals for power.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,391
You think that the ability for a company to get investors via something that is like a stock market has no value ?
You can't eat it. It's not a tool to fix anything. It's not a physical item. It's just a method to squeeze blood from a stone. It's literally a method of making free money for the wealthy. It used to be a way for investors to get funds to expand their business but I don't think Apple needs funds to expand their business. Instead of taking a loan and paying interest like the rest of us. Also if they fail then you pay for it, not them.
Would you suggest that people that create or invest in a company could not one day resell it to someone else or that they should not be able to invest in a company to start with ?
Companies like Tesla get government money to get started like so many others. Why promote the stock market which pushes companies to cater to investors instead of consumers? I say eliminate the stock market for it does nothing but bring misery to the people.
If Apple tank tomorrow just because every owner outside me sells their stock, why should I care outside, gaining the opportunity to own 100% of Apple for free being a marvellous blessing and making me the richest person that ever lived ?
Good luck with that. The mechanism that is the stock market would prevent you from ever reaching that goal. Tim Cook would buy their shares before someone like you. If we learned anything from Gamestop is that the rules can be bent in the wealthiest favor. The game is rigged.

Inflation - in moderation - is a GOOD thing.
No it is not. The only reason for inflation is so the wealthy can extract more wealth before the workers demand for more pay. That gap is so large now that it's ridiculous on a massive scale.
Occasionally it is higher (like right now) and occasionally it is lower, but a 2% long term average is a positive thing. Without it, the economy would be in trouble.
I argue that inflation is the cause of economic recessions. Take a look at 2008 which everyone agrees that the housing market is at fault for giving bad loans. How is it a bad loan? People suddenly lost their jobs or couldn't pay the new higher taxes or fees. Most Americans can't afford the cheapest new car and yet new cars are going for $40k+. The cheapest new car Americans can't afford is $14k. You think these high food and gas prices won't create a recession? People already changed their buying habits. This will create a rubber band effect where prices will suddenly crash because people ain't buying. People will lose their jobs and go into debt. The solution for 2008 was put people into debt. They created fake money and because it's backed by debt the 2008 recession was solved. Not really, as for years people complained that they couldn't pay back the ridiculous debts they owed. Now in 2022 where we're making the 2008 recession look good. Can't wait to see how far the rubber band will snap this time.

Ah so cheering on colapsing fiat are you? Backing ever inflationary fiat and feeling proud?
Which fiat you talking about? Both crypto and dollars/euros are fiat money.
"I dont like this relatively new thing. Lets kill it NOW so it cant develop and adress the things I dont like about it!"
Just cause it's new doesn't mean it's good. Just cause it's old doesn't make it bad.
 

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
2,989
You can't eat it. It's not a tool to fix anything. It's not a physical item. It's just a method to squeeze blood from a stone. It's literally a method of making free money for the wealthy. It used to be a way for investors to get funds to expand their business but I don't think Apple needs funds to expand their business. Instead of taking a loan and paying interest like the rest of us. Also if they fail then you pay for it, not them.
When you watch a show like Shark Tank, do you think they should not be able to ever resold their ownership ? If so, what would be the difference with the current system ? Do you really think that Elon Musk is not buying any physical item if he buy all of the twitter stocks ? It is true that owning stock it is not exactly like owning YourStocks/NumberOfCompanyStock, that distinction make it so that you cannot be sued for the wrongdoing that a company did if you are just a pure stockowner, you are not liable for the company debt and so on, but you are somewhat owning a percentage of a company.

If not are you really saying that people that start, inherit, invest in a company could never have resold their ownership in them ?

Companies like Tesla get government money to get started like so many others. Why promote the stock market which pushes companies to cater to investors instead of consumers? I say eliminate the stock market for it does nothing but bring misery to the people.
They also got capital from Elon Musk and others (Larry Page, Brin, etc...), do you mean they should not have the right to invest in Testla, only company governement finance should be able to exist ? Or they should not be able to ever resell their ownership in Testla ?

Good luck with that. The mechanism that is the stock market would prevent you from ever reaching that goal. Tim Cook would buy their shares before someone like you. If we learned anything from Gamestop is that the rules can be bent in the wealthiest favor. The game is rigged.
Exactly, the stock market would always have people ready to buy a company, a good company would never go to zero just because all the current owners decide to sells (Apple would privatise itself and buy all of them putting a giant pressure up to the price), it is not something the different report I read on Gamestop made me particularly learn. If it would actually go down just because sells like you said, why would any serious owner care ? Just the occasion to buy more, it is really different than something like a crypto.
 

Joust

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
5,835
You can't eat it. It's not a tool to fix anything. It's not a physical item. It's just a method to squeeze blood from a stone. It's literally a method of making free money for the wealthy. It used to be a way for investors to get funds to expand their business but I don't think Apple needs funds to expand their business. Instead of taking a loan and paying interest like the rest of us. Also if they fail then you pay for it, not them.

Companies like Tesla get government money to get started like so many others. Why promote the stock market which pushes companies to cater to investors instead of consumers? I say eliminate the stock market for it does nothing but bring misery to the people.

Good luck with that. The mechanism that is the stock market would prevent you from ever reaching that goal. Tim Cook would buy their shares before someone like you. If we learned anything from Gamestop is that the rules can be bent in the wealthiest favor. The game is rigged.


No it is not. The only reason for inflation is so the wealthy can extract more wealth before the workers demand for more pay. That gap is so large now that it's ridiculous on a massive scale.

I argue that inflation is the cause of economic recessions. Take a look at 2008 which everyone agrees that the housing market is at fault for giving bad loans. How is it a bad loan? People suddenly lost their jobs or couldn't pay the new higher taxes or fees. Most Americans can't afford the cheapest new car and yet new cars are going for $40k+. The cheapest new car Americans can't afford is $14k. You think these high food and gas prices won't create a recession? People already changed their buying habits. This will create a rubber band effect where prices will suddenly crash because people ain't buying. People will lose their jobs and go into debt. The solution for 2008 was put people into debt. They created fake money and because it's backed by debt the 2008 recession was solved. Not really, as for years people complained that they couldn't pay back the ridiculous debts they owed. Now in 2022 where we're making the 2008 recession look good. Can't wait to see how far the rubber band will snap this time.


Which fiat you talking about? Both crypto and dollars/euros are fiat money.

Just cause it's new doesn't mean it's good. Just cause it's old doesn't make it bad.

There's a lot to unpack here.

The Long and Short of it belongs in soapbox, though.
 

ElementDave

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 5, 2013
Messages
363
I think we can all agree with the overall sentiment of "Fuck NFTs"
MAKE MONEY FAST!!!

There is always at least one wise guy who has to show up and ruin the mood with far-fetched hypothetical scenarios in which NFTs might actually serve a useful purpose, though the attempts to rationalize their continued existence are occasionally entertaining...;)

Yes. Fuck NFTs. 💰🚽
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
34,999
No it is not. The only reason for inflation is so the wealthy can extract more wealth before the workers demand for more pay. That gap is so large now that it's ridiculous on a massive scale.

I argue that inflation is the cause of economic recessions. Take a look at 2008 which everyone agrees that the housing market is at fault for giving bad loans. How is it a bad loan? People suddenly lost their jobs or couldn't pay the new higher taxes or fees. Most Americans can't afford the cheapest new car and yet new cars are going for $40k+. The cheapest new car Americans can't afford is $14k. You think these high food and gas prices won't create a recession? People already changed their buying habits. This will create a rubber band effect where prices will suddenly crash because people ain't buying. People will lose their jobs and go into debt. The solution for 2008 was put people into debt. They created fake money and because it's backed by debt the 2008 recession was solved. Not really, as for years people complained that they couldn't pay back the ridiculous debts they owed. Now in 2022 where we're making the 2008 recession look good. Can't wait to see how far the rubber band will snap this time.

Tell me you know absolutely nothing about economics without telling me you know absolutely nothing about economics.

There is absolutely an inflation sweet spot, and that sweet spot is about 2%-4% (most central banks seem to have decided on the lower end of that spectrum, about 2%), long term and stable.

Too high, and you have some of the problems we are having right now with rapid price increases

Too low - however - is worse.

  • When prices barely move, many people and businesses postpone purchases. Why rush if the same price — or lower — will be available in six months? Collectively, such delays slow consumer spending, the economy's main fuel. And this has a carry-on effect. If people aren't making purchases, why employ people to make the products, etc. etc.
  • When prices don't rise very much, neither do company sales or salaries. That is, workers won't receive higher pay if their employers' profits aren't expanding.
  • It magnifies debt burdens. When income remains stagnant or even drops, then paying the interest on loans becomes a heavier financial burden. In fact, most Americans have massive amounts of debt in their mortgages, car loans, etc. When there is inflation, it drives their salaries higher through inflationary pressures, but their debts remain unchanged. One of the biggest beneficiaries of inflation that is too low are banks and other lenders. (Hint, this is also why you never take a loan in a different currency than your income is in, as many in eastern Europe found out during the last financial crisis. Their income remained the same in their local currencies, but their debts which were in harder western currencies kept growing with the change in exchange rates leading to mass defaults.
  • Too-low inflation raises the prospect of something worse: Deflation, a broad decline in prices, pay and the value of stocks, homes or other assets. Deflation can further restrain spending and even tip an economy into recession.
  • A low to moderate level of inflation (2%-4%) also gives the Fed more power to counteract economic downturns through monetary policy. If inflation is already very low, they don't have much maneuvering room.

So, yeah. High inflation is bad. Deflation, no inflation, or even very low inflation is much much worse. It absolutely kills the economy and harms people.

This is why just about every central bank in the world targets ~2% and tries to keep that as stable as possible at that level. Right now, they have failed at this, but this is largely due to the unique challenges of the pandemic followed by the war in Ukraine resulting in supply side issues. Just about every tool in a central banks toolkit is demand side. They have almost nothing that can tackle supply side issues. They are trying right now, and with a little luck they will succeed without triggering a recession, but even if we get a recession it will likely be a small one, because fundamentals are strong. Unemployment is abnormally low which should help us ride this one out a bit. A bit of a slow down might actually be a good thing if it helps get the labor markets to some level of stability.

Cryptocurrencies are by their nature deflationary because of the relatively limited supply (or at least growing difficulty to mine more with time, meaning supply vs. demand drives up value rather than down. Because of this, replacing FIAT currencies with cryptocurrencies would be an absolute catastrophe. It would be even worse than the gold standard.

There is a reason the world economies have been relatively stable in the post gold standard world. Central banks and their monetary policy work modern day miracles. Sure, we've had some ups and downs in the last 90 years, but nothing near as violent of a roller coaster ride as the worlds economies had during the bad old days of the gold standards with violent boom and bust cycles to the levels that would make the 2007 financial collapse look cute by comparison.

The great depression and panic of 1837, the Long Depression of 1867-1896, the Great Depression of the 1930's. These all made the ups and downs of our lifetimes seem trivial by comparison, and they have largely been avoided since the 1930's (with the exception maybe of the Greek 2009 collapse which is an outlier) thanks to central banks, monetary policy and a long term stable 2% inflation target.

Because of this, it is imperative that cryptocurrencies be killed, otherwise we will be dragging the world back to the financial dark ages when gold standards removed any ability to manage boom and bust cycles, and "great depressions" that ruined peoples lives (and even killed people due tot he inability to feed themselves) were the norm every ~30 years or so.

Central banks and monetary policy are not perfect, and you have to make sure they are competently run, but they have smoothed out the boom and bust cycles significantly. Volatility harms ordinary people immensely. The only ones that benefit from volatility are big institutional investors who love to gamble on the boom and bust cycles while ordinary people suffer.


Here is an explainer piece that helps better explain than I can, why some inflation is necessary in the economy, and why removing it would be a bad thing.
 
Last edited:

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,391
Tell me you know absolutely nothing about economics without telling me you know absolutely nothing about economics.
Careful, your NFT is showing.
[*]When prices barely move, many people and businesses postpone purchases. Why rush if the same price — or lower — will be available in six months? Collectively, such delays slow consumer spending, the economy's main fuel. And this has a carry-on effect. If people aren't making purchases, why employ people to make the products, etc. etc.
This sounds like a problem more with inflation than deflation.
[*]When prices don't rise very much, neither do company sales or salaries. That is, workers won't receive higher pay if their employers' profits aren't expanding.
And you've seen this in action? Last I checked salaries have been relatively stagnant. Also why do you people feel the need to write an essay for this?
[*]It magnifies debt burdens. When income remains stagnant or even drops, then paying the interest on loans becomes a heavier financial burden.
You telling me that income isn't relatively stagnant? You know what, I'm not answering the rest. Looks like something taken from a text book. One made in the 60's.
So, yeah. High inflation is bad. Deflation, no inflation, or even very low inflation is much much worse. It absolutely kills the economy and harms people.
I'm gonna sum this all up in explain Japan.
Unemployment is abnormally low which should help us ride this one out a bit. A bit of a slow down might actually be a good thing if it helps get the labor markets to some level of stability.
Tell me you know absolutely nothing about economics without telling me you know absolutely nothing about economics. Unemployment rates are pointless because you have to factor in the participation rate. And it's not good.
There is a reason the world economies have been relatively stable in the post gold standard world. Central banks and their monetary policy work modern day miracles. Sure, we've had some ups and downs in the last 90 years, but nothing near as violent of a roller coaster ride as the worlds economies had during the bad old days of the gold standards with violent boom and bust cycles to the levels that would make the 2007 financial collapse look cute by comparison.
Gold standard was removed in 1971 so it wasn't 90 years. Also 2008 was really bad and for a lot of people they consider 2008 to have never ended. Maybe WallStreet recovered but then again the government had to bail some businesses.
Because of this, it is imperative that cryptocurrencies be killed, otherwise we will be dragging the world back to the financial dark ages when gold standards removed any ability to manage boom and bust cycles, and "great depressions" that ruined peoples lives (and even killed people due tot he inability to feed themselves) were the norm every ~30 years or so.
I agree but not for the same reasons. Crypto though is a symptom of a bigger problem and that's people who don't want their purchases to be tracked. The lack of money in peoples pockets is driving people to seek out any niche they can to make money and crypto is the new big thing. By making money they are literally making their own money. People are sick of working which is probably why some countries are exploring the four day work week. Why you think the NFT bros are trying to push their scam? Scamming is a very big business and is one of the best ways to make money without doing any actual work. There's no real punishment if you get caught too.
Here is an explainer piece that helps better explain than I can, why some inflation is necessary in the economy, and why removing it would be a bad thing.
That article does about as good of a job as you do. It gives a bit of history like you did and then goes on to a "what if" scenario. Like what if a refrigerator costs less and people stop buying because they'll just wait for prices to fall. Which by the way, everyone does this. Then you have people need that refrigerator today, or even yesterday cause they don't want hundreds of dollars worth of food to spoil. Utter none-sense and it's clear the person who wrote that doesn't have a good explanation. Nobody does because nobody understands. They just regurgitate what they've already heard in hopes to sound correct.

Take everything that was said and flush it down a Japanese toilet. Japan hasn't seen inflation in decades and has even had it deflate in recent years. Inflation is just an excuse to raise prices. The difference is that a slow boil doesn't alert anyone but a faster one will have the frog stop buying things.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
34,999
Gold standard was removed in 1971 so it wasn't 90 years.

Depends. The U.S. was one of the last to stop convertibility, but the pound sterling dropped off the gold standard in 1931, as did many other currencies internationally. The US Dollar was the odd man out here.

Also 2008 was really bad and for a lot of people they consider 2008 to have never ended. Maybe WallStreet recovered but then again the government had to bail some businesses.

I'm not in Wall street. I lost my job in 2009 as a result, which sucked, and wound up being unemployed for longer than I have in my professional life, approximately 3 months, until I found new work. Since late 2009 things were pretty much back to normal for me, apart from the fact that you pretty much couldn't get a mortgage for several years there, which delayed my home shopping by a few years.

The financial crisis was bad, but it was not "depression" bad like the 1930's or late 1800's Not by a long shot. The term "depression" is meaningless in economic terms, but where it has traditionally been used has been to describe recessions that were orders of magnitude worse than what we lived through in 2007-2010.


Tell me you know absolutely nothing about economics without telling me you know absolutely nothing about economics. Unemployment rates are pointless because you have to factor in the participation rate. And it's not good.

I am well aware of the distinction between the labor force participation rate and the unemployment rate. During the financial crisis and it's immediate aftermath this was a very valid point. Actual unemployment was much higher than the official unemployment figures due to people who had given up looking for work not being included in the figures.

That is not the case today. The labor force participation rate doesn't look great, but that is largely because lots of older workers decided to retire early rather than work during the pandemic. Shortages in child care have also forced many to stay home. There are also some residual effects from the opioid crisis. It is not at all like it was during the financial crisis in which there wasn't work to be found. Absolutely anyone and everyone at any level of qualification who wants a job right now can find one. People who are choosing to not work are not doing so because they have given up in finding a job, they are doing so because they don't want to. That is a huge distinction.

That, and monthly year over year wage growth in the U.S. has been at record levels starting in April of last year. Workers have been using this labor shortage to their benefit in droves. Did you miss all of the stories about "the big quit"? More people have in the last year left their jobs and found new, bnetter ones that pay more than in a very very long time in this country.

1652740310900.png


People have to be willing to leave their jobs to cash in on this one though. You can't just sit pretty with your current employer and expect them to do the right thing. That never works.

Take everything that was said and flush it down a Japanese toilet. Japan hasn't seen inflation in decades and has even had it deflate in recent years. Inflation is just an excuse to raise prices. The difference is that a slow boil doesn't alert anyone but a faster one will have the frog stop buying things.

I can't speak to Japan. I've never studied it. Their rather specific issues are an outlier, but they did bring us the concept of quantitative easing which has been a rather useful tool in circumstances where traditional monetary policy has proven to not be enough. I wonder if their shrinking population is part of the reason.

I'm not even an expert at this stuff. I know enough to be dangerous based on my minor in economics, but in general I am just restating the consensus view among reputed economists. I know enough to not question the best minds in the field.
 
Last edited:

rinaldo00

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,977
If I am not mistaken, that 2 cases of fraud, such example would exist in real estate, oil, any minerals you can mine and so on.
Theranos was a Silicon Valley tech company, and don't forget the 90's dot.com bubble burst.
 

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
2,989
Theranos was a Silicon Valley tech company, and don't forget the 90's dot.com bubble burst.
Yes, which the trial outgoing I am pretty certain involved fraud, a lot of people that kept their dot.com bubble burst are quite happy to have them today. I think I have lost the point people are trying to do here, but people that thought that the Internet was a giant commercial potential in the 90s were not particularly wrong.
 
Last edited:

rinaldo00

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,977
Yes, which the trial outgoing I am pretty certain involved fraud, a lot of people that kept their dot.com bubble burst are quite happy to have them today.
No, fraud was not the major cause of the burst. It was due to companies that no tangible worth, no great new ideas, but got got investors to pour money into them because venture capitalists were afraid of missing out on the next big thing and bought into the hype.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/...rash was triggered,or track record of profits.


The dotcom crash was triggered by the rise and fall of technology stocks. The growth of the Internet created a buzz among investors, who were quick to pour money into startup companies. These companies were able to raise enough money to go public without a business plan, product, or track record of profits.
 

rinaldo00

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,977
And who cares? It was two mouse clicks to duplicate vs thousands of dollars and an expert, and while the expert one will be close, the JPG will actually be identical minus said metadata which no. One. Can. See.

So what if you have the original or not in that case?

You’re also not handling the issues with authenticity of the original art in your case. Look up all the artists having their stuff stolen and minted today. I’m waiting for the first lawsuit for owning “stolen goods” that hits an NFT buyer.
I think NFTs are stupid but there IS a way to justify them. The art market is just as phony but the notion that I can prove that I own the original is the same. Just as you can sue and prosecute people that deal in forged art people will sue over NFT ownership.

Here is legal analysis on that very idea

https://fortune.com/2022/02/04/nft-theft-stealing-copying-right-click-save-law-lawyer/

Is it illegal to steal NFT?
In fact, some crypto enthusiasts argue that to right-click and save an NFT is no more theft than taking a photograph of the Mona Lisa would be. However, if you start using that photo of the Mona Lisa or that copy of an NFT—by setting it as your profile picture, for example—then you enter a legal gray zone.Feb 4, 2022
 

lopoetve

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,962
No, fraud was not the major cause of the burst. It was due to companies that no tangible worth, no great new ideas, but got got investors to pour money into them because venture capitalists were afraid of missing out on the next big thing and bought into the hype.
So just like crypto? :p
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dotcom-bubble.asp#:~:text=The dotcom crash was triggered,or track record of profits.


The dotcom crash was triggered by the rise and fall of technology stocks. The growth of the Internet created a buzz among investors, who were quick to pour money into startup companies. These companies were able to raise enough money to go public without a business plan, product, or track record of profits.
I think he was primarily talking about Theranos, but the point on the .com bubble is valid.
 

lopoetve

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,962
I think NFTs are stupid but there IS a way to justify them. The art market is just as phony but the notion that I can prove that I own the original is the same. Just as you can sue and prosecute people that deal in forged art people will sue over NFT ownership.

Here is legal analysis on that very idea

https://fortune.com/2022/02/04/nft-theft-stealing-copying-right-click-save-law-lawyer/

Is it illegal to steal NFT?
In fact, some crypto enthusiasts argue that to right-click and save an NFT is no more theft than taking a photograph of the Mona Lisa would be. However, if you start using that photo of the Mona Lisa or that copy of an NFT—by setting it as your profile picture, for example—then you enter a legal gray zone.Feb 4, 2022
Given that things people are minting can be right-click/saved, you're going to have a hell of a time with that from both the NFT owner's side, the original artist's side (since so many are fraudulently minted to begin with), and a lot of middlemen. They need a real answer to authenticity before minting, other than "mint it first." No one has time for that many lawsuits - unless you're a big business, which is what people were trying to avoid in the first place (although building a company to handle that will make someone a fu@#$kton of money at some point).

The biggest issue is that the crypto community ~doesn't care~ that they have this issue - they just shrug and go "mint it first!" - and that will turn significant portions of the population against them. And since you now have to prove that you were the creator BEFORE selling it, or had said rights, without having been the person minting it (since so many don't, won't, and never will care) you're effectively in the same place. The blockchain is useless without a prior proof of ownership, and if you have that, why use the blockchain? Proving who you sold it to and who has rights to it? We do that already...
 

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
2,989
No, fraud was not the major cause of the burst. It was due to companies that no tangible worth, no great new ideas, but got got investors to pour money into them because venture capitalists were afraid of missing out on the next big thing and bought into the hype.
Yet, https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/us-v-elizabeth-holmes-et-al
https://www.theguardian.com/technol...-finds-theranos-founder-guilty-on-four-counts

you could be right, but from an exterior point of view, the lie about having a great and working technology is what attracted a lot of capital.

And that something that can and does happen in real estate, mining, oil and so on, in very tangible markets.

I think he was primarily talking about Theranos, but the point on the .com bubble is valid.
I am a bit lost here, what is the point about the .com bubble exactly ? If it is that the Internet was just a pure hype that popped and had no value that sound quite false and if true I am not sure what would be the point exactly regarding the conversation, that would not make the stock market (or what we want to call where people owning portion or a whole company wanting to sell them to anyone in the public to the highest bidder would be) having no value for society.
 

rinaldo00

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,977
I am a bit lost here, what is the point about the .com bubble exactly ? If it is that the Internet was just a pure hype that popped and had no value that sound quite false and if true I am not sure what would be the point exactly regarding the conversation, that would not make the stock market (or what we want to call where people owning portion or a whole company wanting to sell them to anyone in the public to the highest bidder would be) having no value for society.
My point is that the stock market is extremely flawed. What once was used as a means to finance a new or a growing company has now become a plaything. The stock market as designed was an extremely useful tool. However, it is now filled with speculators (i.e. gamblers) that ruined the fundamentals.
 

lopoetve

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,962
My point is that the stock market is extremely flawed. What once was used as a means to finance a new or a growing company has now become a plaything. The stock market as designed was an extremely useful tool. However, it is now filled with speculators (i.e. gamblers) that ruined the fundamentals.
Yes, and no. It's always been about gambling a bit - sure - but you also have ALL the information (or close to). The SEC requires you to file forms. There are penalties for lying. There are people paid to search through and find the lies, should they exist. All the data is there in a 10K - you just have to know how to read it, which is a totally different issue. There is no requirement for a SPAC or DAO or crypto group to publish ANYTHING about how they operate - for better or worse. There's also effectively no regulation for how they operate, what they back, etc - it's a black box, and that makes it even ~more~ gambling than the stock market.

Also - financing the company was only one purpose. The other was to derive value of the underlying company that could be sold/reinvested/moved around as necessary. That's the one part crypto technically also gets right - it's just that it's completely unregulated and far far more risky.
 

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
2,989
My point is that the stock market is extremely flawed. What once was used as a means to finance a new or a growing company has now become a plaything. The stock market as designed was an extremely useful tool. However, it is now filled with speculators (i.e. gamblers) that ruined the fundamentals.

That seem both a bit of an angelic view of the past 200 years and a bit of dark one of today, why would a company particularly care that the people buying in their IPO are speculators and the distinction between a speculator and a non-speculator for a non fix return asset seem thin to me, 100% of people buying stock are speculators no ?

Netflix did finance is growth via stock before being able to do it via debt (and I imagine that it stock value helped it quite a bit to get bonds buyer and other debt).

Apple, Nvidia, Google, Amazon, Tesla, Facebook many of now giant company used the strategy to sell a percentage of their equity to speculator during their starting/growing phase no ?
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,391
I think NFTs are stupid but there IS a way to justify them.
It's the equivalent of a child justifying his actions.
The art market is just as phony but the notion that I can prove that I own the original is the same. Just as you can sue and prosecute people that deal in forged art people will sue over NFT ownership.
NFT's are not about art. The image you see in the NFT represents a number that is truly what you own. The fact that NFT's haven't been sued to hell and back is probably due to artists having no money to hire lawyers. The reason for the image is to attract customers because humans need to see something. Like why we call BitCoin a coin when in reality it isn't, but lots idiots went and bought physical coins thinking they now have a bitcoin. People are generally stupid when it comes to this sort of stuff and NFT's are exploiting this.

Here's an analysis from a real lawyer.

Is it illegal to steal NFT?
In fact, some crypto enthusiasts argue that to right-click and save an NFT is no more theft than taking a photograph of the Mona Lisa would be. However, if you start using that photo of the Mona Lisa or that copy of an NFT—by setting it as your profile picture, for example—then you enter a legal gray zone.Feb 4, 2022
Everything that hasn't been taken to court is technically a gray zone. Doesn't make it illegal or legal, just means nobody has went to court over it yet. Most likely because they would lose and the court would rule in favor of the copyright owner of the image, which neither the NFT or the person right clicking and saving has any rights to. If the NFT does own the copyright then you have a bigger problem as many NFT's are taking artwork they don't own and are using it in a very fair use kinda way. The court would easily push NFT's to remove images they don't legally own or otherwise face a lawsuit. But then you run into issues with people on forums and websites who use an image they didn't create as an avatar. Then you have images that are generated for NFT's would could be considered not copyrighted artwork since no human actually made the image, since only work generated by humans can be considered copyrightable.
 

rinaldo00

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,977
That seem both a bit of an angelic view of the past 200 years and a bit of dark one of today, why would a company particularly care that the people buying in their IPO are speculators and the distinction between a speculator and a non-speculator for a non fix return asset seem thin to me, 100% of people buying stock are speculators no ?

Netflix did finance is growth via stock before being able to do it via debt (and I imagine that it stock value helped it quite a bit to get bonds buyer and other debt).

Apple, Nvidia, Google, Amazon, Tesla, Facebook many of now giant company used the strategy to sell a percentage of their equity to speculator during their starting/growing phase no ?
You want to focus on all the good things that the stock market does and none of the bad. By no means has the past 200 years been angelic but things have gotten much worse in the modern age do to technology.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/12/art-of-speculation.asp
I think I am getting too far off topic so I will end this with a quote from the linked article that I agree with.

John Maynard Keynes went on to say that "casinos should, in the public interest, be inaccessible and expensive. And perhaps the same is true of stock exchanges."2 Keynes knew in the early 20th century what statistics appear to show today. Trying to beat the market is as difficult as trying to beat a casino.
 

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
2,989
You want to focus on all the good things that the stock market does and none of the bad. By no means has the past 200 years been angelic but things have gotten much worse in the modern age do to technology.
If one claim it has no value that obviously what one position would take.

The fact that it became harder and harder to beat the market, because they got more and more efficient is not a big issue, and does not mean that nurse and teacher should not pull their money together and invest part of their money in it for their retirement funds, a lot of investor are quite happy to make the market return and never beat it.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
34,999
OK, that made me laugh.

The only thing that matters is expertise.

Thee people have dedicated their lives to researching complex aspects of economics and econometrics.

To even suggest that a non-expert who watched a YouTube video of another non-expert has anything of significance to add to the topic is absolutely preposterous.

15875772_1397390033606985_7215192002378334208_n-480x480.jpg
 

rinaldo00

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,977
The only thing that matters is expertise.

Thee people have dedicated their lives to researching complex aspects of economics and econometrics.

To even suggest that a non-expert who watched a YouTube video of another non-expert has anything of significance to add to the topic is absolutely preposterous.
Yes, yes, expertise like Paul Krugman. LOL
 

rinaldo00

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,977
If one claim it has no value that obviously what one position would take.

The fact that it became harder and harder to beat the market, because they got more and more efficient is not a big issue, and does not mean that nurse and teacher should not pull their money together and invest part of their money in it for their retirement funds, a lot of investor are quite happy to make the market return and never beat it.
Sigh, I never said the stock market has no value, stop claiming that I did. But you seem unwilling to admit that there is amazing wrong with it. That companies can be over valued, that their stock market value can go to zero, that those companies have no intrinsic value, and because of that billions of dollars of wealth can be wiped out never to return.
 

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
2,989
Sigh, I never said the stock market has no value, stop claiming that I did. But you seem unwilling to admit that there is amazing wrong with it. That companies can be over valued, that their stock market value can go to zero, that those companies have no intrinsic value, and because of that billions of dollars of wealth can be wiped out never to return.
That what the discussion was all about and was debated, someone claiming that the stock market had no value and people giving argument for it to be the case, that was an honest mistake, like I said I feel like I lost the plot because the argument put forward was not making any sense.

But you seem unwilling to admit that there is amazing wrong with it.
That was not the debate at all, it is trivial that there is amazing wrong hapenning with the stock market (not sure if it is particularly worse than private equity).

The fact that stock value of a company can go to zero does not sound all like a wrong, let alone an amazing wrong, same for billions being wiped to never return.
 

rinaldo00

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,977
It was this post that I had trouble with
LukeTbk said:
You think that the ability for a company to get investors via something that is like a stock market has no value ?

If Apple tank tomorrow just because every owner outside me sells their stock, why should I care outside, gaining the opportunity to own 100% of Apple for free being a marvellous blessing and making me the richest person that ever lived ?


Maybe I misunderstood it because your English confuses me a bit sometimes. I thought you were trying to say that if a companies stock loses all its value so you could buy 100% of it and be happy because the company had real value and now you owned it.

That is why I replied sure, that is true of Apple but not of all companies. I thought you were trying to say that the stock market was always safe because even if a companies STOCK was worthless due to a huge sell off that a company would still have intrinsic value.

I had lost the plot myself.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
34,999
Yes, yes, expertise like Paul Krugman. LOL

He is a Nobel laureate. What are your economic credentials?

Again, expertise matters. It doesn't matter if you agree with them. The experts are always going to be much more likely to be right, than those who are not experts, and if you disagree with them, it is likely you who are wrong, 99.99% of the time.

Different people have different areas of expertise. If I need advice on plumbing or electrical wiring (which I often do, as I am not great with that stuff), I'll seek a licensed plumber or electrician. If I want to know about topics like Economics, you can't do much better than a Nobel prize winner in the subject.

The disregarding of expertise is the biggest cancer of all in modern America. Not all opinions are equal.
 
Last edited:

rinaldo00

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,977
He is a Nobel laureate. What are your economic credentials?

Again, expertise matters. It doesn't matter if you agree with them. The experts are always going to be much more likely to be right, than those who are not experts, and if you disagree with them, it is likely you who are wrong, 99.99% of the time.

Different people have different areas of expertise. If I need advice on plumbing or electrical wiring (which I often do, as I am not great with that stuff), I'll seek a licensed plumber or electrician. If I want to know about topics like Economics, you can't do much better than a Nobel prize winner in the subject.

The disregarding of expertise is the biggest cancer of all in modern America. Not all opinions are equal.
I have an undergraduate degree in mathematics and a graduate degree in engineering but I took a class in economics. I have a low opinion of economists for a wide range of reasons that is way off topic.

Milton Friedman is a Nobel prize winner, what do you think of him?

BTW Not all expertise is equal.
 

blade52x

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
3,167
If you're seriously asking this then you're an investor of NFT's. Kiss your money goodbye. The blockchain is just a very stupid form of encryption. We have encryption and it works really well. A VPN is another, and I don't mean commercial VPN's but a personal VPN tunnel like WireGuard. There's lots more and none require the complexity and inefficiency of the block chain. NFT's are just blockchain technology that is currently used to distribute information you that own it. That's literally all NFT's do now.

I'm not an investor of digital jpegs, but I'm well aware of the significance of the NFT and where it will lead. I missed the NFT boat because I thought it was stupid too. And still think digital jpegs are stupid. But there's a lot great uses cases I foresee when we're talking about being able to exchange items, both physical and digital, without boundaries. And all of these use cases are only to increase the demand for crypto.

Blockchains are not tamper-proof, but they're about close as we'll get with hundreds of thousands of nodes securing the network. Oh and they're also anonymously plug and play, and can have applications (albeit limited right now) built on top of them. Literally any application that exists, can connect to a blockchain and use it for whatever that application needs. So, I'm still waiting to hear of these technologies that rival the security AND flexibility, and removal of overhead of decentralized blockchain. And by overhead I mean the lack of needing to maintain a web server, licenses, and so on.

And I'm not saying blockchain is the go to choice for any business. In fact, it's not. But to say it's useless is just being an ignorant old man yelling at cl... blockchain.
 

NightReaver

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
1,800
The disregarding of expertise is the biggest cancer of all in modern America. Not all opinions are equal.
No, but blind deference can be just as bad. Not saying you're doing that, but some people usually invoke the opinion of experts to shut a conversation down. Especially something with as many interpretations as how economics work. Flying a plane is a much more hard and understood science.
 

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
2,989
That is why I replied sure, that is true of Apple but not of all companies. I thought you were trying to say that the stock market was always safe because even if a companies STOCK was worthless due to a huge sell off that a company would still have intrinsic value.
Well it tends to be true of all stock that one person buy and keep, that person think that it has value and would love to become the sold stockholder for $0 having the option.

I am not saying that it is always self a company can lose value because it lost intrinsic value (and one can obviously mis estimate the intrensic value and it's evaluation of all the future income), but if it looses all is value just because people sells... why that would not be good news for the people that think otherwise ?
 

rinaldo00

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,977
Well it tends to be true of all stock that one person buy and keep, that person think that it has value and would love to become the sold stockholder for $0 having the option.

I am not saying that it is always self a company can lose value because it lost intrinsic value (and one can obviously mis estimate the intrensic value and it's evaluation of all the future income), but if it looses all is value just because people sells... why that would not be good news for the people that think otherwise ?
Well sure, it works both ways. Investors can think a company has intrinsic value were there is none and investors can pass on companies that they think have no intrinsic value that become big successes.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,391
The only thing that matters is expertise.

Thee people have dedicated their lives to researching complex aspects of economics and econometrics.
And they'd be wrong because almost nobody has done a good job predicting the economy. Except for Yanis Varoufakis as he's my confirmation bias.
To even suggest that a non-expert who watched a YouTube video of another non-expert has anything of significance to add to the topic is absolutely preposterous.
Who exactly here should we listen to about anything economics? Some people here truly believe that NFT's have a purpose. NFT's are stupid. They are stupid.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,391
Sigh, I never said the stock market has no value, stop claiming that I did. But you seem unwilling to admit that there is amazing wrong with it. That companies can be over valued, that their stock market value can go to zero, that those companies have no intrinsic value, and because of that billions of dollars of wealth can be wiped out never to return.
Stock market doesn't care about the value of the company but the confidence it brings. GameStop should have opened up a lot of peoples eyes in how fucked the stock market really is. We all know GameStop has no future but with enough people behind it, the stock did exceptionally well for a long time. The answer was, "we like the stock". NFT's work the same way. They just like the jpeg.
And I'm not saying blockchain is the go to choice for any business. In fact, it's not. But to say it's useless is just being an ignorant old man yelling at cl... blockchain.
It's useless because I have yet to hear anything that justifies it's existence. NFT's in particular have no reason to exist other than to play on peoples ignorance on how NFT's work. Nobody here has given me a good explanation why NFT's and the blockchain help in anything. Also, I do yell at clouds because they're someone else's computer.
The disregarding of expertise is the biggest cancer of all in modern America. Not all opinions are equal.
You want to be an expert then work towards it. Too many experts are really not experts. Remember when experts said that the amount of lead in the environment was normal? Or when experts say things like clean coal? Or that you can recycle plastic? I have too much personal experience with so called experts. I don't have enough fingers to count how many times I've had to fix an experts work. It's the same reason why nobody trusts the media, because there's so much misinformation. You can't expect trust when so many have broken that trust.
 

GregTombstone

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
140
Crypto is the ultimate expression of Capitalism. Energy to Money without the need for costly workers . Like 90% of the financial system it is a leech on humanity. To quote from that classic western " the outlaw josey wales" , "don't piss on my back and tell me its raining "
 
Top