Who was the 1%?
The Cult of the Torment Nexus knows a scam when it sees one.
Coming soon: Meta announces they are buying bitcoin anyways, because fuck them plebs.
most of the shareholders aren’t ‘plebs’
I suppose compared to our lord zucc they might be
yeah honestly though a man with 200 billion is vastly more wealthy than someone with 100 million
It’s difficult to comprehend just how much more wealthy a billionaire is. If you spent $10 every ten minutes, it would take you about 70 days to go through $1 million. To reach a billion would take 190 years.
The difference between a million and a billion is approximately a billion
Just like MS’ shareholders did. Most of these big companies don’t need to at the moment given how successful they are under the current system but eventually they will.
There is no logical reason not to hold BTC on your balance sheet over short duration US treasuries. One is an appreciating asset that has been growing at 50-60% per year since inception, while the other can’t even keep up with inflation. And Trump has made it patently clear only four months in office that the US and the entire dollar system can’t be trusted anymore. Hence more and more foreign countries and entities moving their capital out of US stocks/bonds and into gold, international equities, bitcoin, etc.
There is no logical reason not to hold BTC on your balance sheet over short duration US treasuries.
One is stable and is backed by the full faith and credit of a nation, the other’s value is determined solely by the current speculative state of the market. For a company which requires stability, they don’t want to invest in an extremely volatile asset. That is a highly logical reason.
deleted by creator
holding BTC long term isn’t that risky
and the ‘full faith and credit of a nation’ uhhhh the nation in question is the US. not a bad idea to consider other things to put money into
uhhhh the nation in question is the US. not a bad idea to consider other things to put money into
I don’t disagree that the US has been quite destabilized as a financial player on the world stage, but the US still has an insane amount of influence over global trade, and holds a ton of power within its own economy.
To argue that Bitcoin is more strongly backed than the entire long-standing, heavily globally financially integrated nation is silly, especially considering, comparatively, how relatively few manufacturers of ASIC miners there are for Bitcoin that could theoretically heavily influence the distribution of hashrate over time if compelled, or how most transactions in crypto still require a financial middleman to offload into currencies like USD because businesses simply can’t operate well when transacting with BTC in most circumstances if that also requires holding onto the BTC afterwards.
holding BTC long term isn’t that risky
And the original post was comparing short term treasuries to Bitcoin, not long term ones.
And even then, Bitcoin’s long-term outlook is bleak considering the % of block rewards paid from fees hasn’t substantially increased to make up for the halvings, which if the trend continues, will result in the cost per block cratering over time, leading to heavily slashed overall hashrate protecting the network.
Meta: Fuck it, we ball. (commits PR to add Bitcoin)
Why would they in the first place? It would be like a newspaper buying gold. If investors want to buy bitcoin they can just do that.
Because holding USD is a liability these days.
Is it?
Seems like petrodollars have been riding high for decades.
!remindme in one year
Since you’ve missed the news, the USA has been overtaken by a fascist christian white supremacist party who gut social programs, cut science funding, literally completely disbanded the department of education, increased the defficit, and enacted large Tariffs on every other nation.
the USA has been overtaken by a fascist christian white supremacist party
For the third time (assuming you don’t count Congressional cycles) in twenty years. I’ve spent a solid 13 of the last 25 years living under a Christian Fascist presidency. Why am I supposed to assume that will devalue the dollar this time around?
You’re either pretending this administration isn’t worse than any previous example or you are woefully naïve.
If i understood it correctly, meta wants to slap its own crypto-currency on everything.
That was called Libre
Buying BTC doesn’t help them do that.
“our crypto is backed in value by bitcoin”
-
They’re selling shares of their company, META stocks, to the shareholders that then vote on their liquidity portfolios. Not selling Crypto. Owners of a hypothetical META crypto don’t benefit from or have any say in how the company operates.
-
Alternatively to BTC they could spend that money on holding their own hypothetical crypto so as to create market cap and buy/sell volumes appealing to crypto investors.
-
Apparently GameStop are considering it too.
Yeah but GameStop’s entire existence depends on crypto meme hype, while Meta’s depends on extracting our data as efficiently as possible
is gamestop even relevant anymore
Gamestop already did last week
I’m out of date then.
removed by mod
You can say the same about any technology advancement. The fire, wheel, black powder, electricity, radio, tv, internet, crypto, AI, etc. The problem doesn’t reside in the technology but in the people exploiting it for evil intentions.
Jesus christ it’s always the same excuses for the useless, planet-destroying grift that is bitcoin.
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people excuse.
“Bitcoin will be as useful as every other revolutionary technology as soon as we figure out a use for it that doesn’t already exist in a better form.”
- evangelists for over 15 years now.
And before somebody comes in and calls me a Luddite or whatever, I used to mine.
So what’s the positive uses of crypto then? You listed many things that are immensel useful like the wheel, fire, electricity, etc. Do you think crypto fits in that category?
I don’t want to say crypto in general, but Bitcoin in particular was born after the 2008 crisis, as a decentrized form of money, meaning storing value against the inflationary fiat money that the goverments can print in a centralized manner, destroying all your savings. I think any technology that empowers decentralization is positive. Same as fediverse. And in the case of bitcoin, having a decentrized money it’s a really positive tool for freedom to avoid centralizing the power in the governments. But I am curious on knowing why you say that there is no positive uses.
Well, the decentralization of Bitcoin only lasted so long. Now it is in the hand of a few large “mining” corporations who can afford the hardware and have access to cheap electricity.
As soon as you could exchange it for real money it just became another tool of capital to move in secret.
I believe any good thing you can say about crypto will eventually be coopted and controlled by capital.
The same is true for all “disruptive” technology unless it’s built specifically to be hostile to monied interests, like the fediverse - and even then, you have to continue defending it against incursions.
As long as those companies have to compete with each other for mining, there is some decentralization. Ofc it could be a ton more, some currencies like Monero use different hash functions that cant have custom chips made for them, making it easier for traditional CPUs to mine it, so large companies cant control vast amounts of the hash rate.
Why do you think freedom and decentralization is always good? I don’t think bitcoin improves lives and the majority of people view it as gambling rather than currency. Sometimes its useful to get around local regulations or to pay slightly less in fees that would normally go to a bank. Its just a different western union money transfer and yet people on here are talking about it like it represents freedom and the individual spirit or some nonsense. Its main use is to scam people out of money. Its secondary use is to facilitate purchase of illegal goods. A very small fraction of the whole is people using it as an actual currency.
I’ll put it this way, a small fraction of responsible heroin users does not make heroin as a whole a good thing.
Just an anecdote but never the less.
A couple of years ago I got a job at an animal shelter in a country that’s not the one I live in. For this I was paid 400€/m in cash to cover my bills back home during the time. So I went to the local BTCatm and even though they charge an insane markup (15/20% iirc) it was still cheaper than the “minimum fee” charged by the bank/western union.
As useful as the electricity or fire? Probably not. But as a tool for low paid workers that go to another country and is sending money home to their families without having to pay half of it in fees it’s pretty usefull.
Original purpose of BTC is to prevent government from controlling and inflating the supply of money. You can’t make 1000 BTC from thin air and put it into circulation. There is no company or CEO that controls it, it’s code is maintained by open community and network secured by globally distributed miners and nodes. That’s regarding BTC, other cryptocurrency nah
One can buy weed with crypto. I can’t do that with a bank card.
I guess, not everyone wants a centralised currency
deleted by creator
It’s used as money in Vietnam and Argentina.
Lmao
I would like to be shot out of a cannon with poop
With how volitile the USD is under ahem this administration, Bitcoin is probably the slightly less shittier option.
Seriously, I do not have faith in USD anymore. What’s left of my paycheck after bills all goes to BTC, and I sell what I need on demand to cover day to day costs. Been doing this since 2019 and it has paid off handsomely.
If only there were some other major currency, maybe controlled by some larger union of countries so that one country’s poor decisions can’t tank it
Greece has entered the chat
They also tried to create their own shitcoin back in the day: https://www.ft.com/content/a88fb591-72d5-4b6b-bb5d-223adfb893f3
ok, so the link was working the first time, but now it has a paywall…I’ll post the thing below:
spoiler
Facebook Libra: the inside story of how the company’s cryptocurrency dream died on linkedin (opens in a new window) current progress 13% Hannah Murphy and Kiran Stacey PublishedMar 10 2022 UpdatedMar 10 2022, 08:37 68 Stay informed with free updates Simply sign up to the Cryptocurrencies myFT Digest – delivered directly to your inbox. On June 24 2021, Jay Powell and Janet Yellen sat down for their weekly breakfast amid the austere surroundings of the US Treasury building on 1,500 Pennsylvania Avenue. There was only one major question on the agenda: should they give the green light for a global cryptocurrency designed by Facebook? The chair of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury secretary were both DC veterans; Powell had replaced Yellen at the top of the Fed. But neither had had to make such an unusual decision. An alliance of tech companies led by Facebook proposed to launch a product it hoped would profoundly change the world. Rather than adhering to the social media giant’s one-time mantra “move fast and break things”, executives had come to Washington to ask permission first. Powell laid out his position with his customary precision. As Fed chair, he told Yellen, he was willing to give the go-ahead for Facebook and its partners to trial Diem, as the digital currency backed by the US dollar was called at the time. He knew the Treasury had concerns, not least the possibility that such a currency could become a vehicle for money laundering or grow so popular as to threaten global monetary stability. But on balance, his staff thought Diem was designed carefully enough to avoid such outcomes and would have the added benefit of setting industry standards. The social media company’s reputation was sullied in Washington, following a series of controversies over data privacy, misinformation and alleged censorship. During his presidential bid the year before, Joe Biden said he had “never been a big fan” of Facebook’s founder Mark Zuckerberg, describing him as “a real problem”. And prominent Democrats and Republicans alike had already spoken out against Diem specifically. A cautious operator, Powell wanted backing from Yellen, who is close to the president and popular among progressives. After weeks of deliberation, Yellen had made up her mind: she was out. “Yellen told him it was his decision to make, but that she would not protect him from the political fallout if he did so,” says one person briefed on the conversation. “And that was the end of Facebook’s digital currency.” Diem’s leadership would spend the next six months in a last-ditch drive to rescue the project that began by attempting to woo government regulators, then trying to browbeat them and, in a final folly, exploring working with Zuckerberg’s one-time nemeses. But this January, Diem confirmed that it was winding down for good. The remains of Zuckerberg’s digital money dream would be sold to a little-known Californian bank for $182mn, marking one of the most spectacular, if little-noted, failures of his career. Over the past few months, the Financial Times has spoken to some 30 people involved with the project, including executives, developers, lobbyists and the regulators and politicians who ultimately killed it. (Many of them spoke on condition of anonymity because Facebook requires employees and partners to sign non-disclosure agreements.) What emerges is a picture of Silicon Valley executives who thought they could charge into finance and make billions, if only they could surmount technical and regulatory barriers. What they failed to realise was that the very fact Facebook had conceived the idea, doomed it. As one government official involved in the process puts it: “Diem spent years trying to reverse engineer their project to fix all of its faults. But they could never fix being linked to Facebook. It was their original sin.” Meta, as Facebook has since been rebranded, is one of a handful of tech companies now threatened with much stricter regulation, even break-up, by US politicians and regulators who have come to see it as a malignant force in American commerce and democracy. Nowhere has the divide between Silicon Valley and Capitol Hill been more clearly exposed than in the tortured downfall of Diem. David Marcus was soaking up the Caribbean sun. It was the winter of 2017, and the dapper, French-born executive was on holiday in the Dominican Republic. Marcus, 48, was the head of Facebook’s Messenger app and a close confidant of Zuckerberg’s. His silver hair and slick suits set him apart from his younger, scruffier colleagues. Peers jokingly called him the “George Clooney of Silicon Valley,” and he was seen as powerful within the company. Lying on the beach, Marcus indulged in some blue-sky thinking. What if he could find a way to create a global digital currency and integrate it into Facebook? Marcus was no stranger to the worlds of start-ups and digital payments. He sold his first company at 27. In 2011, a subsequent mobile payments start-up he founded was acquired by PayPal for $240mn. Within nine months, he was PayPal’s president. In 2014, Zuckerberg recruited him to run Messenger, which he’d help grow to more than 1.3bn users. But three years on, he was restless. Meanwhile, blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies had become useful tools for dark web criminals as well as the lofty obsessions of programmers and utopian technologists. But they had yet to be adopted by any big corporations. For Facebook’s more than two-billion-strong user base, crypto could offer a convenient and cheap way to move money around the world, Marcus thought. For the social media company itself, it could provide a treasure trove of data about what people spend their money on. Interrupting his holiday abroad, Marcus texted Zuckerberg to outline his ruminations. Intrigued, the CEO gave his blessing to explore the idea further. So Marcus began methodically crafting a tool beloved by Silicon Valley entrepreneurs: a memo outlining the new project’s objectives, defining success and quantifying how to get there. Morgan Beller was a 24-year-old whirlwind. Fast-talking and animated, she had been a partner at venture capital group Andreessen Horowitz before joining Facebook’s corporate development team in 2017. She was also a fierce blockchain advocate, who spent the latter part of that year trying to shop the technology to whichever Facebook executive would listen: why wasn’t the company embracing decentralisation and open protocols for its users? Could it get into bitcoin mining? Should Facebook groups be able to issue their own digital tokens? “It’s a really big company and taking really big risks is hard,” she tells the FT. “To give Facebook credit, the leadership was very receptive and very open. I didn’t have anyone say no, at least to meeting and brainstorming.” In early 2018, Marcus and Beller joined forces. At first, they worked in a small, empty room, walls adorned with whiteboards, on Facebook’s main campus in Menlo Park. Soon they moved to a larger, more secluded building on the outskirts of the company’s headquarters. Only employees with particular passes — the crypto experts, engineers and economists they brought on board — could access the facility. Their top-secret project was codenamed Libra. The team was “paranoid about leaks”, says Beller and was “like a secret Swat operation”. This would be the first of several incarnations, each intended to conform to the difficulties and demands of launching a digital currency from within Facebook. Initially, the dream was for Libra to be like bitcoin, a currency owned by no one group and built on open-source technology. This would allow individuals to store, spend and transfer money across borders with close to zero transaction fees. Unlike bitcoin, it would be backed by something real: a reserve of low-risk assets including bank deposits in various currencies and US Treasuries. (This kind of crypto is known as stablecoin.) Facebook declined to comment. Marcus, who also declined to be interviewed, wrote in a statement: “Libra was about building a protocol for money on the internet to enable people and businesses who are currently left behind by the current system to access sound digital money and cheap payments.” To get the project off the ground — before it was to become fully decentralised — leadership was needed to develop the technology. Marcus and Beller were conscious that Facebook alone should not be seen as directing the effort. So they created a non-profit association, also called Libra, of which Facebook was to be one of many members. To avoid appearing US-centric, it would be technically based in Switzerland, a more neutral financial centre that was also an emerging crypto hub at the time. (Marcus and Beller continued to work primarily from California.) Weekly newsletter For the latest news and views on fintech from the FT’s network of correspondents around the world, sign up to our weekly newsletter #fintechFT Sign up here with one click The set-up proved convincing. By mid-2019, Marcus and Beller’s pitching had brought on board some 28 companies and non-profits, including Uber, Vodafone, Spotify, Visa and Mastercard as founding members. Each would have equal voting rights and pay $10mn into the reserve; each would guide the project’s development and, eventually, integrate Libra into its services, bringing the digital coin to consumers worldwide. On top of being an equal founding member, Facebook would build its own digital wallet for the
Do the shareholders not realize how much easier it is to bribe the president with crypto?
I don’t think people who give or take bribes usually like having a permanent history of the transaction.
Why would they care? Perfectly legal in the US. And consumers/citizens obviously don’t care either.
Big incentive to keep trump in power if your bribery of him is public record. Someone else might do something about it
corpos might not necessarily want this.
sometimes they want to get rid of these people when public opinion about them is too dirty, and get a fresh puppet in.
Workarounds for the shortcomings certainly make bribes possible with crypto but not exactly easier than with traditional currencies.
Bribery isn’t illegal, theres no need to be coy and secretive about it.
BECAUSE CRYPTO IS A SCAM
My portfolio disagrees.
Y’all should have bought BTC when the price was hovering around $19K about 3 years ago. I told you the price was going to go up, but no one listened. Now it’s at $105K, I’m $60k richer, and y’all are still whining and complaining that it’s a “scam”.
Hate to break it to you, but bitcoin isn’t to crash and burn anytime soon. It’s still early; buy in now or regret it for the rest of your life.
It won’t crash indeed, cause it is too useful to scam people.
My Enron stock disagrees.
Your attack missed!
You can pull the Enron card when talking about investments in general; your comments do 0 damage.
The point did fly over your head, you’re right about that. Pointing at the current value of your scam investment as proof of it not being a scam does not make it legitimate.
deleted by creator
What argument? You pointed to the price of bitcoin going up and I pointed out that scams go up in value. Then you think it doesn’t apply to bitcoin because…? Oh, that’s right, you didn’t make any argument other than “number went up”.
Fundamentally, no. That’s just what it’s become.
Idk. I’ve been reading about Bitcoin since the very beginning and while I don’t think it’s necessarily a “scam” the whole project was based on a flawed hyper-libertarian economic theory that inflationary currency is inherently evil and that the ideal currency has a fixed quantity, requires effort to produce, and becomes rarer over time. From that standpoint, I feel like Bitcoin has failed in its original mission. You simply cannot use it as a day to day currency and everyone is just using it to gamble essentially. I do agree that if crypto had been an outright scam from the beginning, Satoshi would have rugpulled already, though.
I agree and in fact I feel the same with AI.
Fundamental cryptocurrency is fascinating. It is mathematically sound, just like cryptography in general (computational complexity, one way functions, etc) and it had the theoretical potential to change existing political and economical structures. Unfortunately (arguably) the very foundation it is based on, namely mining for greed, brought a different community who inexorably modified not the technology itself but its usages. What was initially a potential infrastructure for exchange of value became a way to speculate, buy and sell goods and services banned, ransomware, scam payments, etc).
AI also is fascinating as a research fields. It asks deep question with complex answers. Research for centuries about it lead to not just interesting philosophical questions, like what it’s like to be think, to be human, and mathematics used in all walks of life, like in logistics for your parcel to get delivered this morning. Yet… gradually the field, or at least its commercialization, got captured by venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, regulators, who main interest was greed. This in turn changed what was until then open to something closed, something small to something required gigantic infrastructure capturing resources hitherto used for farming, polluting due to lack of proper permit for temporary electricity sources, etc. The pinnacle right now being regulation to ban regulation on AI in the US.
So… yes, technology itself can be fascinating, useful, even important and yet how we collectively, as a society, decide to use it remains what matters, the actual impact of an idea rather than its idealization.
Apart from all the other deflationary stuff…
I can’t get past the adjustable difficulty lottery system they use for mining blocks every 10m… :/ there has to be a better way.
It’s like diagonalizing huge matrices repeatedly just as a wait() function.
there’s better methods than how Bitcoin works (PoW) like Proof of Stake, but that has its own problems, like bringing more centralization to the network. Like how with bitcoin if a miner controls more than half of the global hash rates, they can mint more money than should be, in a currency with PoS they could just buy half of the coins and do it. They probably wouldn’t because its not in their self interest, but its still a problem
The purpose of a system is what it does. Crypto is used to bypass regulations, generally for illegal or immoral things. Its also been used as a ponzi scheme over and over, I guess we call them rug pulls now but its the same bullshit.
Crypto is for gamblers or drug addicts, generally. Sometimes they are both. Sort of reminds me of the mortgage crisis in 2008 with people saying it wasnt the system just people abusing it. The system was built and modified to enable abuse.
Crypto is not used to bypass regulations. Failure to regulate is on the state, not the crypto. It is easier to regulate crypto because of the public multiple ledger system that is the Blockchain, allowing you to trace tokens all the way back to their conception.
The purpose of Crypto is that it removes the need for a bank for transactions and holding of nonphysical currency. Adoption rate proportional to total population is what gives them stability and makes them less susceptible to scams or pump and dumps.
Crypto is not used to bypass regulations.
From the very beginning it was sold as a way to work outside the existing banking system and all it did was recreate the earlier days of banking with little-to-no regulation.
It is easier to regulate crypto because of the public multiple ledger system that is the Blockchain, allowing you to trace tokens all the way back to their conception.
The key to regulation is enforcement. While some regulation was put on the books, the government has been very lax with enforcement. Obvious pump and dump schemes, which would be illegal with securities, are left completely alone with crypto. Ridiculous amounts of leverage has been used to pump up the value of bitcoin, including fraudulent printing (see Tether). Also, while the bitcoin ledger is public, you can shuffle and obscure entry and exit points enough to make it anonymous.
The purpose of Crypto is that it removes the need for a bank for transactions and holding of nonphysical currency. Adoption rate proportional to total population is what gives them stability and makes them less susceptible to scams or pump and dumps.
It removes the bank and introduces mining consensus. In the case of bitcoin, this consensus is slow and costly so people have built more centralized networks on top of it. Those are your new banks right there. Plus there is the issue of mining pools becoming too large and thus having more say in the consensus. Now talk about Proof of Stake and you’ll find it’s just a system where the more you hold, the more power you have (i.e. like the rich who hold more money).
The purpose of a system is what it does.
Right, reminds me of the hacker mindset or more recently the workshop I did on “Future wheel foresight” with Karin Hannes. One can try their best to predict how an invention might be used but in practice it goes beyond what its inventors want it to be, it is truly about how what “it” does through actual usage.
What any unregulated market becomes.
I had an acquaintance ask me about my opinion on crypto a few years ago and I explained it only has the perceived value and is highly volatile as a result, and that all but a few coins were basically rug pulls waiting to happen. He was satisfied with that and moved on. About a year later crypto had roughly doubled in value and he gave me shit about bad advice (it was an opinion not investment advice) and proceeded to move $10k into some coin I’d never heard of. About a month later a mutual friend said the other guy had lost like $8k of his $10k investment. Next time I saw the acquaintance there was no mention of crypto.
Yeah, it’s like those people who fall for ads where people get rich going to the casino.
LOL they love to parade around the 1/10,000 winners and make them spokespeople for the casino for a week.
It is the way all lottery works.
You are more likely to be hit by lightning than to win the lottery. Yet people believe they will win every time.
i notice that is usually conservatives that buys into the scam, and the ones that peddle it too.
(it was an opinion not investment advice)
If you did give them advice, would it be different?
some coin I’d never heard of
The problem is this person was looking at the market as a whole and then investing in some niche coin. At this point any coin that’s not well-established is mostly likely pure grift.
It’s not, but there are plenty of crypto scams. It’s not an investment and it’s also not a particularly good store of value, but it is decent for P2P transactions, with some coins also providing privacy.
If that’s not your use case, don’t buy cryptocurrencues. Most people shouldn’t buy them until more places accept them for payment.
Same way fiat is.
Édit: damn, and I thought bitcoiners were obnoxious You guys take the cake with so much copium.
Oh stop it
What’s the GDP of Bitcoinistan?
Probably the same as North Korea, with the amount of money laundering, ransomware, propaganda and scams they do 😄
Can’t be any worse than the GDP of the 2025 fascist USA
They’re the same with AI. Had these people been interested years ago, they would be sitting pretty. But they kept telling everyone it’s garbage. Now it’s just sunk costs for them
I’m sure that if they found a set of keys for a Bitcoin wallet, they would just throw it away.
Monero is the only good crypto
No, but one of the good ones
deleted by creator
I bet Zuck is regretting not going forward with their crypto scheme
Who even made the proposal?
Why not Dogecoin?
yeah people don’t understand DOGE might be the best investment known to mankind
spoiler
because some people on this thread cant take a joke, \s
That was so funny I forgot to laugh.