• toastmeister@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    I due not want my corporation holding Bitcoin, if I want exposure I’ll buy Bitcoin directly. They should be holding a bit of debt optimally.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      TBH if the choices are USD or BTC then I think the latter has a better future at the moment.

      • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        24 hours ago

        BTC is still less stable. It will need to stop being a pump and dump cycle target before it could claim a true future.

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          22 hours ago

          With a Market Cap of 2 Trillion it’s pretty difficult to impact the purchase price as an individual or group. Even a small nation would struggle with it.

          • Doom@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            22 hours ago

            You’d think that but as Bitcoin becomes tied to more and more those things become part of what holds up Bitcoin.

            Bird flu won’t affect Bitcoin valuation but could affect most fiat currency, but that’s only because of the system now. If Bitcoin became more prominent wouldn’t it be bound to thing more?

            • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              22 hours ago

              So you’re saying there is a group out there pumping and dumping hundreds of billions equivalence to USD?

              • Doom@ttrpg.network
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 hour ago

                I think you should learn more about the stock market. It’s literally a lie point blank and totally manipulated aggressively by actors who aren’t even THAT big.

              • hark@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                14 hours ago

                Yes. That bitcoin dogshit fell and rose with the covid fall and rise of stocks. You think bitcoin is some profound new form of currency, but it’s really just another avenue for wall street to steal from main street.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        21 hours ago

        I think the latter has a better future at the moment.

        Crypto ‘godfather’ of Bel-Air: Probe widens into L.A. deputies’ alleged links to mogul

        • Federal authorities accuse Adam Iza, a cryptocurrency entrepreneur, of financial conspiracies and extortion.
        • Prosecutors allege Iza used L.A. County sheriff’s deputies to carry out his criminal bidding.
        • Iza has pleaded not guilty. A judge ordered him jailed despite claims that he needs medical care after a cosmetic leg-lengthening procedure.

        If you want a deeper dive, check out the TrueAnon episode series Zort a three-parts-and-counting plunge into the seedy underbelly of Cryptocoin scams, extortion, leg-lengthening surgery, LASD rampant corruption, and age-gap discourse.

  • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    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.

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          21 hours ago

          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.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            20 hours ago

            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?

            • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              20 hours ago

              You’re either pretending this administration isn’t worse than any previous example or you are woefully naïve.

    • RedditIsDeddit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Businesses are following the lead of Microstrategy with keeping BTC on the treasury books to increase profits and hedge against inflation.

      • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        But now they’re essentially just a bitcoin proxy, they even changed the logo to have a bitcoin on it.

        Now that there’s lots of ETFs and stuff, why buy Microstrategy and not just bitcoin?

        • infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Their value-add is that they financialize their bitcoin holdings to grow their bitcoin-backed shares faster than the bitcoin itself. Higher risk than just holding bitcoin or ETFs that just hold bitcoin, but something like 30-40% better returns.

          In good times. We’re yet to see how they do in a bitcoin winter.

          • hark@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            15 hours ago

            What does “financialize their bitcoin holdings” mean? Do you mean they use leverage (i.e. debt) to buy bitcoin than they could otherwise? That’s nothing new and is a common ETF strategy (see BITX). And yeah, it also means the bad times hit much harder.

              • hark@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                13 hours ago

                Yep, that’s leverage. They sold notes which can be converted to shares of microstrategy. So while they don’t have to issue more shares right now (which would dilute shareholders and lower the value of individual shares), they will have to in the future given the conditions on the convertible notes. If they have to convert those notes into shares while the price of bitcoin is dropping, it’s a double whammy because the value of their holdings (which their value is entirely based on) drops AND they’re diluting individual shares by having to issue more shares. This wards off investors which will tank the price even more.

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          If you own a share of meta then you own a share of meta and meta owns a mix of assets ranging from physical to various liquidity, whether its USD or BTC there isn’t any difference in this regard.

    • Saleh@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      If i understood it correctly, meta wants to slap its own crypto-currency on everything.

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            22 hours ago
            1. 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.

            2. 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.

    • Psythik@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      19 hours ago

      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.

    • Revan343@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      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

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        I didn’t really parse what your comment is saying. Are you saying that whenever you buy BTC you later sell it for half your buy average? Or are you saying like 150%?

        Is it just you or are you implying that everyone loses/gains 50% from the magical BitGoblin?

  • Gsus4@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    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

    • fishy@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      63
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • Gsus4@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yeah, it’s like those people who fall for ads where people get rich going to the casino.

        • Ulrich@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          LOL they love to parade around the 1/10,000 winners and make them spokespeople for the casino for a week.

          • Honytawk@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 hours ago

            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.

      • Ledericas@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        i notice that is usually conservatives that buys into the scam, and the ones that peddle it too.

      • Ulrich@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        (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.

              • infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                23 hours ago

                There are definitely elements of this administration that want to see their particular shitcoin approved. We’ll see. It was quite the epic legal battle to even get bitcoin through that door. The SEC has rules for financial fundamentals that bitcoin legitimately met, which other coins would have a much harder time proving. But, this is the anything goes administration…

                edit - See other user’s comment noting that actually Etherium was also approved for use as a security last year.

      • markovs_gun@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 day ago

        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.

      • utopiah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        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.

        • Gsus4@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          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.

          • untakenusername@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            20 hours ago

            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

        • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          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.

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            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.

            • hark@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              14 hours ago

              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).

          • utopiah@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            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.

            • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 hours ago

              That is almost a fundamental statement, requiring logical proof.

              It’s like with a computer program that can contain vulnerabilities - fixing vulnerabilities might introduce new ones, and new functionality intended for security can contain new vulnerabilities in itself, possibly making the whole even less secure than without it.

          • ToadOfHypnosis@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Regulations aren’t perfect, but the banking industry has gotten vastly more full of scams since congress repealed Glass Steagall. Regulations offer a structure to punish fraud and scamming. We need clear defined rules to at least attempt to control markets from their worst possible outcomes.

            • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              Frankly movement is all that matters. Too deregulated looks like cryptocurrencies, too regulated looks like PSTN which every phreaker could own, because it relied upon laws for its defense, not technical robustness.

              There’s no system that remains working when just kept standing, all that matters is that we can quickly rebuild any part of it. Which is why modern legal systems and modern Web suck so much, they’ve lost that trait.

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        23 hours ago

        In what way is Bitcoin not fundamentally a scam? There are multiple interpretations of “Bitcoin is a scam” you can take, and honestly with most of them I think it’s been true the whole time.

        Edit: I think some folks are parsing my sentence incorrectly, and I can’t blame them. I didn’t do a great job communicating. When I said “in what way is it not a scam” I didn’t mean to make it sound like an exclamation like “how can you not think it’s a scam!?”, I am saying, “which specific way of people referring to it as a scam do you believe is wrong?”

        • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          23 hours ago

          Bitcoin is not directly a scam. Rather it is a vector for scams. It makes scamming just a bit easier until regulations catch up.

          Now, the various meme coins are directly scams. You are guaranteed to lose money buying into them.

        • MajesticElevator@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          It would be better to state how it is a scam

          Apart from that, well no big company or country profits from it. You’re not paying someone that’s actively trying to fuck you over. You’re not paying to fund a capitalistic villain that wants all the world money. You’re paying for an, at least the original goal was, uncensurable means of payment that’s decentralized and doesn’t rely on a government or a company.

          A pseudonymous and trustless way of paying people. Believe in the maths, not a regulated entity that might seize your money at any time.

          It’s the cypherpunk’s wet dream and I view it as such.

          Most people only view it as investment and “ponzi scheme” because they don’t care about this. They don’t care about not giving too much power to a few individuals and don’t hate banks.

          Any country can just print money and make what you have worthless, and it’s often done in poor countries as a way to wipe debts or similar bs. Crypto can shield them against that, which is probably the reason why it’s more used in those kind of countries (or in countries with oppressive governments)

          Bitcoin is one of the cleanest cryptos. It’s old, doesn’t work that well, but it’s not owned by anyone and it has a strong identity

          For anyone saying it’s only perceived value and doesn’t rely on anything, well it’s a bit like any market. How does it really differ from stocks for example? And crypto actually relies on the way of creating coins: mining, minting… which is known. If you don’t agree with it, don’t use it. The limited number of coins plays an important role in the price.

          • JackbyDev@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Someone could say crypto “is a scam” in that the proof of work aspect encourages miners to keep adding more hash rate to the network so long as it is profitable to do so and not whether the network actually needs it. It takes crazy amounts of energy for simple transactions.

            Someone could say crypto “is a scam” in that proof of stake algorithms (like Ether) is just a plot for the rich to get richer and favor early adopters who have more coins.

            Someone could say crypto “is a scam” in that it’s controlled by technology and not laws and can’t be fixed. Someone stealing it is more likely to get away with it because it’s not like a company can just revert fraud.

            Someone can say crypto “is a scam” because it doesn’t hold value. Stocks do hold value because you own a portion of that company and if they don’t reinvest their profits you get dividends. Money does hold value because even in the absence of a gold standard we’ve been using it long enough that it’s so ingrained in everything and everyone agrees it has value. Money has value in that the massive amount of financial regulations surrounding it creates a more stable value. Not everyone agrees crypto has value. Crypto is hardly regulated. Crypto wildly fluctuates in price.

            Someone could say crypto “is a scam” because it is often used in scams and makes it easier for scammers to be anonymous and lock down funds they steal.

            These are all the ways I could think of off the top of my head. I don’t because agree with all of them, and some I think are more valid arguments than others. The last one being the weakest since it feels odd to say scam instead of a trap or something.

            • MajesticElevator@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              23 hours ago

              Someone could say crypto “is a scam” in that the proof of work aspect encourages miners to keep adding more hash rate to the network so long as it is profitable to do so and not whether the network actually needs it. It takes crazy amounts of energy for simple transactions.

              I don’t see how it makes it a scam. But anyways, by definition, a bigger hash rate is always good.

              Someone could say crypto “is a scam” in that proof of stake algorithms (like Ether) is just a plot for the rich to get richer and favor early adopters who have more coins.

              You mean just like stocks, and banks, and real estate, and investing? Doesn’t make it a scam either. Find better algorithms. Crypto works because people use it. If something is better for everyone, it’ll end up gaining traction.

              Someone could say crypto “is a scam” in that it’s controlled by technology and not laws and can’t be fixed. Someone stealing it is more likely to get away with it because it’s not like a company can just revert fraud.

              I could see a valid reason in this but when you get into crypto, you know what to expect. I feel like I have been personally scammed by the banking system and PayPal through abusive reversals, which funnily enough, is fraud caused by the anti fraud system. Many people abuse this stuff.

              For the crypto value thing. Well yea. Not everyone agrees it has value, but that stands for pretty much everything. You could draw a parallel with art. Most people don’t give a fuck about your black and blue painting that apparently costs millions. People might also not care about a blue spider hat. It doesn’t make it a scam in any way. If people pay, then it has value to them. No one forced them to buy crypto. They’re not a great value store, they’re a risky investment and usage product, just like stocks. It doesn’t make it a scam.

              Someone could say crypto “is a scam” because it is often used in scams and makes it easier for scammers to be anonymous and lock down funds they steal.

              Not a scam but it would be a valid reason to hate it. Cash is the same. Government seizing crypto because it was linked at some point to a scam even though you’re not linked to it is a scam imo.

              I’m not really convinced by any of these reasons. They’re valid reason not to like crypto, but none of them makes it a scam.

              • JackbyDev@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                23 hours ago

                Someone could say crypto “is a scam” in that proof of stake algorithms (like Ether) is just a plot for the rich to get richer and favor early adopters who have more coins.

                You mean just like stocks, and banks, and real estate, and investing? Doesn’t make it a scam either. Find better algorithms. Crypto works because people use it. If something is better for everyone, it’ll end up gaining traction.

                No, stocks, banks, and real estate do not give you more of themselves by mere fact of owning them. Some stocks pay dividends, but you don’t get more stock for owning it, setting something up to buy more with dividends is your own decision. Banks give you interest, but that is not a function of how money works, that’s something the bank does. Owning property does not give you more property over time. None of these are like how a proof of stake algorithm works.

                Do I think it makes it a scam? No, not really. Do I think people saying it’s a scam because of that are wildly off base? Fuck no. It’s valid to be concerned about it. Do I think it’s better than proof of work? Yeah, probably. The arms race of increasing hash rate so long as it’s profitable energy wise is pretty nasty.

                • MajesticElevator@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  22 hours ago

                  I don’t agree with your first paragraph. It’s virtually the same as banks and stocks.

                  Banks give you interest, but that is not a function of how money works, that’s something the bank does

                  So is owning ETH… all ETH is not staked. And even if it was, how does it matter? In the end everyone gains the same percentage.

                  Apart from that, everyone uses compounding interests and most people reinvests dividends.

                  You’re free to unstake your ETH at any point.

          • MajesticElevator@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            For example, I mainly hold crypto that I’ll be using for payments, or those I deem technologically interesting.

            I’ve already made many crypto payments, know how they pretty much work, and prefer using them than paying by card, because fuck the banking system and those greedy visa/mastercard that takes huge cuts from payments. Also, anonymity benefit: don’t always want my name to be known, for example when donating to an individual or particular cause

            • boonhet@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 day ago

              I do hope you’re being real careful with your opsec if anonymity is important to you. Generally speaking, more people will know who paid who with crypto compared to bank transfers. Chains like Monero are an exception of course and yes, there are ways to anonymize other wallets too, but it requires a great deal of care, more than I personally trust myself.

              You’ve got a valid point for the card payments where there are huge fees the merchant has to pay (nearly 2% for many I think), but bank transfers are infinitely cheaper (free) and instant, compared to paying gas fees and waiting. Obviously this is not true for all banking systems yet, but it’s getting there.

              • MajesticElevator@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                22 hours ago

                Chains like Monero are an exception of course and yes, there are ways to anonymize other wallets too, but it requires a great deal of care, more than I personally trust myself.

                No worries, you got an XMR fan here. Churning and swapping to remove all leads

                My biggest problem with card payments is the fixed fee, which, for small payments, is enormous. When I donate to some content creator, I hate that 30% of what I send is cut into various fees, and that’s even before VAT and tax.

                Gas fees are only a thing in some cryptos. BCH, LTC, XMR have nearly non-existent fees.

                Wire bank transfers suck big time. Enormous fees when sending to foreign countries, and it’s also super slow.

                • boonhet@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  13 hours ago

                  Well in the EU you get instant free payments through SEPA and the US is trying to implement something similar with FedNow. Doesn’t solve the cross border issues, but Wise does once you can get the money on Wise. I get paid in dollars via ACH and they become euros real fast once I see them in my account. 1000 dollars converted is just under 3 dollars in fees and then the transfer from Wise to any other SEPA account is free and instant.

                  Now crypto could very well make this all even smoother worldwide but unfortunately we have governments and they like to see what’s going on. So no reputable merchants will ever be able to take XMR payments in most countries.

              • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                I think they didnt say part of their reasoning. Crypto is useful to buy things that are either illegal or not socially acceptable/available in your local area.

                • MajesticElevator@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  21 hours ago

                  It enables this, yes. Some may like it, some don’t.

                  I believe I should be free to buy porn, weed or start a seedbox. Not that I will do it, but being able to use the currency for what I deem acceptable gives a big feeling of freedom.

                • boonhet@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  Absolutely - if you’re good about your opsec. If you’re not, it’s almost worse than a bank transaction and for sure worse than cash.

            • Vinstaal0@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              They extra costs of creditcards is why I use a modern bankcard, but the US is really behind on that so for some things I need to use my CC

            • MajesticElevator@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              21 hours ago

              Your statement is technically true for everything you buy. You make the market price go up, so every owner benefits from it if they intend to sell at some point

              It’s the same for stocks, it’s the same for houses. Welcome to economics

            • JackbyDev@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              Right, but definitely not a ponzi scheme. Also, proof of stake is also definitely not a ponzi scheme.

        • infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          It’s not a scam. It’s also not immune from valid criticism, but people who call it a scam don’t understand it well enough to make those criticisms.

          • JackbyDev@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            I think you’re doing a disservice by saying everyone who calls it a scam doesn’t understand it well enough. It’s not like everyone saying it is a scam are doing it for the same reason. There’s a variety of reasons people have for doing it.

            • infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              People can all have different reasons for a thing and yet all still come to the wrong conclusion. Bitcoin just doesn’t meet the criteria for a scam. It’s one thing to not like or trust it for legitimate reasons. It’s another thing to denounce the thing you don’t like or trust with an invalid accusation.

              • JackbyDev@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                23 hours ago

                What’s the criteria for something being a scam in your opinion and why do you believe others whose criteria is different from yours don’t have legitimate reasons and make invalid accusations?

                • infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 day ago

                  No, it’s your accusation. You tell me why you think this FOSS software protocol is a scam and if I don’t think your arguments hold water, I’ll tell you why. You’ve got a navigator avatar, dev in your username, and a programming home instance. I imagine you’re capable of educating yourself enough to make some sound arguments on the topic and a bit of factual contribution to the discussion.

          • JackbyDev@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            I think you may have misunderstood. I’m saying people call it a scam for a variety of reasons, so when someone says it isn’t a scam, I’m asking which way of calling it a scam are they saying it’s not a scam in relation to.

            • Ulrich@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              In the way that none of those other ways are fundamental to it’s intended use by it’s creator as an actual currency.

          • miridius@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Decentralised currencies are fundamentally too expensive to operate, while providing dangerously little safety and a far worse user experience than fiat.

            The scam part is the idea that any crypto coin is an asset with inherent value, when in fact the price is created entirely by new investment, in other words it’s just a ponzi scheme

              • MajesticElevator@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 hours ago

                Not sure what your link is supposed to prove. I could make the exact same site but with problems related to the banking system, and trust me, it would be a lot worse.

            • JackbyDev@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              23 hours ago

              No, I don’t. But I do find it humourous you moderate a community called “how to sell drugs online fast” lol. And I genuinely don’t mean that in some sort of “you’re biased” way, truly.

              • MajesticElevator@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                22 hours ago

                Haha yea funny

                I like the show and I wanted to have a community for it on Lemmy rather than Reddit

                Apart from that, crypto usage increased due to dark net markets so there’s a real link

                It means you spied on me though 👀😂

    • Psythik@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      19 hours ago

      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.

        • Psythik@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          14 hours ago

          Your attack missed!

          You can pull the Enron card when talking about investments in general; your comments do 0 damage.

          • hark@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            14 hours ago

            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.

              • hark@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                13 hours ago

                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”.

      • Honytawk@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Even the “legit” parts are only used by people to try to get richt from it. It isn’t a currency and won’t ever be.

        And as an investment it is bad. At least with real investments the company actually uses the money to improve. Crypto is nothing more than a sock under your bed.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Most people shouldn’t buy them until more places accept them for payment.

        It’s not going to happen. You can’t price things when the value of the currency changes every 10 minutes.

        • infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          That is not what’s stopping people from paying for things in bitcoin. When you buy something in BTC you pay the equivalent to whatever you would have paid in the local fiat. And on the vendor side, merchant services often convert that paid BTC into fiat in the moment after the sale. Both parties are insulated from volatility in the context of the exchange. What actually keeps people from paying for day to day goods and services in BTC is Gresham’s Law, the observation that nobody wants to pay for purchases with an appreciating asset, so long as there’s also a depreciating asset they could pay with instead.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            I don’t know what you’re saying. If I charge a particular amount for a loaf of bread and then the cryptocurrency value drops halfway through the day then that person still has the bread but I now don’t have the money.

            The whole point of currency is to get away from the fluctuating value of exchange that everyone had to deal with when we used to buy things with gold and semi-precious stones.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              Vendors can immediately sell upon receipt. And prices rarely change that much in a day, usually it’s a few percent at most (within the credit card fee range), especially for the currencies targeted at actually being currencies instead of scams.

              • MajesticElevator@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                21 hours ago

                This ^

                Most vendors do frequently sell or convert to stablecoins to avoid this problem, and in times of uncertainty, they often charge more to cover the eventual losses

                • Honytawk@feddit.nl
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 hours ago

                  What is the point of using them if you are expected to switch them to an actual real fiat just to keep your value?

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          That happens to every currency, BTC is more volatile than many, but things can be priced.

          Also until twiddling is made illegal, prices can be set by some other currency or some function, and be calculated in BTC from that, and displayed on electronic price tags for example.

        • PieMePlenty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Never gonna happen is a bit of a stretch. It used to be a thing. Steam accepted bitcoin. They stopped accepting it due to volatility and high transaction fees at the time. You still price things in your local currency but convert at checkout. There are “plug and play” payment processors who can handle it now… Spar in Switzerland accepts it.

          But imo, its not something regular people should be using anyway.

            • PieMePlenty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              I thought your point was it was never happening? I provided examples where it did happen in the past and where its happening now. Volatility of the price vs USD is not the biggest issue if the payment processor gives the vendor USD back after the transaction. If the vendor believes in crypto, they can decide to keep it as well. Had Valve chosen to hold their crypto earnings in 2016 for a few years, they’d have seen even larger profits. But thats beside the point. I personally believe they canned it more because of transaction fees. At the time, bitcoin network was oversaturated due to an explosion of popularity which reduced it to unusable levels for everyday transactions.

              You should be focusing on why other vendors are still supporting crypto and asking yourself why.

              • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 day ago

                Fees are predictable. Volatility is not. If you can’t make sure the money you are paid retains its value then the price you are selling something for is also volatile rather than inert.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        I like GNU Taler, and I would like there to exist not just such a payment system, but also an electronic currency system without blockchains (global synchronization is a pain), unfortunately currencies are not like most applications.

        I also wrote two smartass paragraphs completely wrong after this, and now thinking about it - Taler is as good a solution as possible. It’s basically what can be done. You can’t decentralize an issuer or a bank, except for the BTC way. If you can, then you can’t plug it in seamlessly , you need some synchronization (would be a shame if a failed transaction made it into Taler as passed).

        If I understand that correctly.

        Gosh. It’s year 2025, I’ve achieved nothing. I was blabbering on these subjects in year 2011! I’ll be 29 in less than a month. But so cool that someone is making the humanity better.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          Taler is cool, but it solves a completely different set of problems vs cryptocurrencies, and is ripe for being replaced with alternatives, undermining its primary purpose.

          Here are a few of the problems being solved here:

          • transaction fees
          • privacy
          • decentralization
          • independence from fiat

          Taker largely attacks the first two, and cryptocurrencies largely attack the second two, and I’m mostly interested in the middle two. However, since Taler doesn’t do either of the last two, it’s subject to either being ignored (i.e. if no banks are willing to support it) or directly competed against with something that sacrifices one of the first two, and customers won’t get the option of Taler.

          I think Taler makes a ton of sense for something with its own currency, such as microtransactions or a browser extension for rewarding creators (say, in lieu of displaying ads). I don’t see benefits for banks who make a ton from credit cards. There are some cryptocurrencies that hit the last three (e.g. Monero), so that’s what I’m excited to see take off.

    • flightyhobler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      50
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Same way fiat is.

      Édit: damn, and I thought bitcoiners were obnoxious You guys take the cake with so much copium.

      • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        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

        • flightyhobler@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          I’m sure that if they found a set of keys for a Bitcoin wallet, they would just throw it away.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            I certainly wouldn’t keep anything in cryptocurrency. I would transfer it to something stable.

            • boonhet@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              I mean if I found a wallet with a million euros worth of bitcoin, I’d sell half and keep half. If it rises significantly, sell half of the remainder. And so on.

              If I found a wallet with like 5k worth of BTC on it though? Just sell it all right away, it’ll do more for me now than say 10k in 5 years which is an insane long term return tbf.

  • Mubelotix@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 days ago

    Funny to hear from the company that went all in to the point it renamed itself. The metaverse failure seems to have a big impact

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      The metaverse is for creating, not really for visiting. If you are an artist, creating worlds in 3d in VR might be interesting to you. I wouldnt look at it as a way to make money, more of a hobby tool.

      • Mubelotix@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yeah, and they can’t expect it to become mainstream if they build the experience around VR headsets

        • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Yeah turns out people don’t like wearing things on their head that are heavy, and quite a lot who don’t mind will get motion sickness anyways. Its an interesting creative tool, similar to a 3d printer in my opinion. Oh also beat saber is pretty great but thats like a single game.

            • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              16 hours ago

              I do too, its just not changing the world. I don’t have issues with motion sickness but it is a bit of a chore to wear a quest 2 for more than an hour or so. Still theres a bunch of great games and experiences on there.

  • porsche13@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    20 hours ago

    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.

    • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      15 hours ago

      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.

      • untakenusername@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        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

        • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          13 hours ago

          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.

    • Pulsar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

            • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              If bitcoin didn’t use 40 terawatts to mine and was more reasonable in its electricity demand then I don’t think that many people would care about it. It still wouldn’t make it useful but at least it wouldn’t be actively damaging the environment.

              We might even be able to find a use for it at that point. But as it stands now the energy requirements essentially make the technology not worth it given the very minor benefits.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            I hate that argument because it’s already been disproven. People use guns to kill people, often in heated situations.

            If everyone wasn’t wandering around with guns in their pockets all of the time then they wouldn’t be the opportunity to shoot someone. Things would massively improve if the law was simply adjusted to not allow people to carry guns in public and they’re only allowed to keep them in their house and other authorised locations such as gun rangers and designated hunting locations. The gun nuts will still be able to play with their toys, but the murder rate would drop.

      • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        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?

        • orosus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 day ago

          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.

          • Saleh@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 day ago

            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.

            • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              As soon as you could exchange it for real money it just became another tool of capital to move in secret.

              • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                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.

            • untakenusername@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              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.

          • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            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.

        • mudstickmcgee@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          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.

        • Rin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          Monero will:

          • never allow a gov to fuck me over by freezing assets
          • facilitate truly anonymous transactions over long (and short) distances.
          • enable me to mine it, allowing earn money from the power generated by my roof that’d do nothing otherwise. (in addition, it’s asic resistant, meaning it can’t be mined with GPUs well, only CPUs, which basically everyone has)
          • forego NFTs
          • Honytawk@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 hours ago
            • Monero will just allow other instances (including itself) to fuck you over.
            • That is just ripe for crime and terrorism
            • You are just trading (wasting) electricity for money at a bad rate
            • Cool, so they don’t fall for one of the blockchain scam, just all the other ones
            • Rin@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 hours ago
              • monero is foss?
              • just like money irl
              • they pay almost nothing in return for excess power,
              • i think you don’t know what you’re talking about
        • RedditIsDeddit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 day ago

          I know this is AI but I get tired of answering this question so this suffices:

          Here’s a breakdown of some notable positive uses:

          1. Financial Inclusion & Accessibility: Reaching the Unbanked: Cryptocurrencies can provide access to financial services for individuals lacking traditional bank accounts, potentially fostering economic empowerment and participation in the global economy. Lower Transaction Fees: Cryptocurrency transactions can have lower fees than traditional banking, particularly for cross-border payments, making it more affordable to send money internationally. Faster Transactions: Transactions can be processed much faster than traditional methods, sometimes near-instantaneously, benefiting businesses and individuals needing quick transfers, especially across borders.
          2. Enhanced Security & Transparency: Blockchain Security: Cryptocurrencies utilize blockchain technology, which is inherently secure due to its cryptographic nature and decentralized verification process, making fraud and manipulation difficult. Immutable Ledger: Once a transaction is recorded on the blockchain, it cannot be altered, ensuring transparency and auditability of financial activity. Privacy: While transactions are recorded, they are often pseudonymous, providing a degree of privacy for users, unlike traditional systems that may require extensive personal information.
          3. Innovation & Efficiency: Decentralized Finance (DeFi): Crypto is the backbone of DeFi, which aims to build more open and accessible financial systems, including lending, borrowing, and trading platforms. Smart Contracts: Blockchain enables the use of smart contracts, self-executing agreements that automate processes and reduce the need for intermediaries, improving efficiency and reducing costs. Supply Chain Management: Blockchain technology can enhance supply chain visibility and traceability, improving efficiency and accountability, and reducing fraud in the movement of goods.
          4. New Opportunities & Investment: Potential for Appreciation: Cryptocurrency can serve as an investment vehicle, with the potential for significant returns, though also carrying substantial risk due to market volatility. Diversification: Crypto can add diversification to investment portfolios, as its price movements are not always correlated with traditional assets like stocks and bonds. Fundraising: While Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) have become less prevalent, blockchain technology offers new avenues for fundraising for businesses and projects.
          5. Other Potential Uses: Governance & Voting: Blockchain can facilitate more transparent and secure voting systems, potentially improving democratic processes. Digital Identity: Blockchain-based digital identities can enhance security and privacy in various online interactions. Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs): NFTs have enabled new forms of digital ownership and creative expression, particularly in the art and collectibles space.
        • Guacamole@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          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