Role of Crypto/Cybercurrencies in the PTB's loss of control?

[Ryan]

Hi All,

I was pondering Bitcoin and cyber/cryptocurrencies today and wondered if it would be possible to ask the C's some questions about them? Here's a few that came to mind:

Is Bitcoin 4D STO technology, or based upon STO principles?
Do Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have a role to play in causing the 'elite' to lose control of the planet?
Was computer security expert David Kleiman, "Satoshi Nakamoto"?
Is Elon Musk promoting cryptocurrencies because he knows they are a 'thorn in the side' of the PTB?
Is "Tether" a sort of 'trojan horse' for a digital US dollar?
Are legitimate cryptocurrency projects a good form of investment?
Are major cryptocurrencies likely to protect wealth through any coming economic downturn?

What do other people think? Anyone have any additional ideas on this subject?

 

[Recto]

Hi All,

I was pondering Bitcoin and cyber/cryptocurrencies today and wondered if it would be possible to ask the C's some questions about them? Here's a few that came to mind:

Is Bitcoin 4D STO technology, or based upon STO principles?
Do Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have a role to play in causing the 'elite' to lose control of the planet?
Was computer security expert David Kleiman, "Satoshi Nakamoto"?
Is Elon Musk promoting cryptocurrencies because he knows they are a 'thorn in the side' of the PTB?
Is "Tether" a sort of 'trojan horse' for a digital US dollar?
Are legitimate cryptocurrency projects a good form of investment?
Are major cryptocurrencies likely to protect wealth through any coming economic downturn?

What do other people think? Anyone have any additional ideas on this subject?

I'm also interested about an answer concerning blockchain technology as a concept and its potential relation to an STO inspired design. Just like computers' architecture being inspired from above. On that note, I have a few remarks to add on the questions you laid out if you don't mind.

In your questioning you seem to assume that some cryptocurrencies (including Bitcoin) either have been created as something opposing traditional finance STSness or haven't been corrupted so far by the PTB. While some projects are quite interesting from a privacy and decentralization of power standpoint (e.g. Bitcoin or Monero), there are still pretty good arguments in favor of a more skeptical analysis of the matter.

The transfer of the masses' money (including in physical form such as precious metals) to the digital space, whether to defy the PTB or out of greed, must raise serious concern about the big picture of all of this. As far I'm concerned, the digital format is something we shouldn't rely on as it is far too easy to manipulate and control (literally with the click of a button). We already see that today, you now have institutional players (hedge funds, banks, etc) who pour so much money into the system that they can manipulate prices at will. Worse, even if the cryptographic concepts behind some cryptocurrencies are theoretically incorruptible, the people implementing those principles as software are not. We have seen time and time again open source projects being derailed or coopted. How Bitcoin would be different ?

On a side note, I'm not sure the C's would give investment advice as it would infringe free will, IMO.

On the topic of Satoshi Nakamoto, the enigmatic persona behind the original Bitcoin concept, I find your question very (too ?) specific. Perhaps instead of focusing on a name it would be better to ask about whether it was a person or a group of people. And if they were connected to a human governmental or a 4D operation for instance. Which would loop back to your first question. Details on a specific person would come later, after all the list of hypothesized "Satoshi Nakamoto"s keeps growing by the day and it could very well be an attempt to muddy the waters by the true perpetrator(s).

But I agree with you, this disruptive concept came seemingly out of nowhere and already, in 10 years time, changed the way finance and IT operate in some fashion (which is no small feat). So asking questions on that topic should provide very interesting insights indeed.

 

[gottathink]

My problem with digital currency is I am concerned that it is what is needed to turn collection of our bio data (collected through electronic wearable devices and implants) into currency. Individuals would be rewarded in cryptocurrency for handing over rights to their most intimate information to large corporations. Particularly as The Longevity Industry has included ‘novel financial products’ as part of the industry’s development. Microsoft’s patent to operationalise this creeps me out!

WIPO - Search International and National Patent Collections

 

[gottathink]

My problem with digital currency is I am concerned that it is what is needed to turn collection of our bio data (collected through electronic wearable devices and implants) into currency. Individuals would be rewarded in cryptocurrency for handing over rights to their most intimate information to large corporations. Particularly as The Longevity Industry has included ‘novel financial products’ as part of the industry’s development. Microsoft’s patent to operationalise this creeps me out!

WIPO - Search International and National Patent Collections

View attachment 43601

Megatrends: longer lives and finance sector disruption - Longevity.Technology - Latest News, Opinions, Analysis and Research

Financing Longevity is the collision of megatrends and surfing the Silver Tsunami. Longevity Finance 1.0 author Margaretta Colangelo tells us how..

longevity.technology

 

[Onetrickponystar]

Interesting questions, especially now, during this crypto-bullmarket and all the GameStop-shenanigans going on. I think crypto is just the inevitable next step in our development and not STO or STS per se. Crypto could be something beautiful and self-empowering (STO), and some projects most def are IMO, but the crypto revolution we see will also speed up the route to a centralised, controlled cashless society. This would be more in line with the STS-agenda.

Right now quite some crypto is decentralised, and therefore maybe an inconvenience for the PTB. But it is very likely that when the dollar may fall, a centralised and controlled crypto will come into place. Bitcoin and other crypto could coexist, but to think decentralized crypto like BTC will be a global currency too optimistic. The PTB will never ever let that happen: they will create a blockchain based currency that enables them to keep control.

As for Elon Musk: as far as I'm concerned he is part of the establishment. His renegade persona, I think, is one carefully crafted, and therefore a facade. This role makes him more appealing to a lot of freer thinking people, compared to the other billionairs like Soros, Gates etc. But if you ask me: they are different sides of the same coin. The fact he likes to smoke pot and is a lolling & meming kinda crypto fan should distract to the fact he is IMO a big part of the PTB. There is no way he would come this far if he wasnt.

I think crypto is the future, and I think our fiat based economy is about to implode. The GameStop saga is particular interesting to watch in this regard: because this could eventually trigger a system crash. Is it good to invest? Well, I think it could never hurt to have some of your savings invested in crypto. Crypto (those with a fixed amount at least) won't inflate the way fiat does. But crypto has also proven to be very volatile, and no way immune to global fluctuations. The day dollar would fall, crypto will probably bleed out horribly as well. No one can can predict the future, but common sense let me to believe that having some crypto assets will be some sort of safety net, if there is a big crash at hand.

In line of what the C's tell is, there is one thing I keep thinking about: what if the internet shutdown, or even worse, a global EM-event occurs and all our digital infrastructure gets fried. What good would your digitally stored crypto be? In this particular wort case scenario it doesn't really matter if you have dollar, stocks or crypto: you would be better of with something more practical like cigarettes, guns, meds, a water filter, alcohol, maybe some solid gold or silver etc.

 

[Alejo]

I've been wondering a lot about Crypto too, most recently when I saw a sign at the laundromat where I go do my laundry for a vending machine inside that said: "Bitcoin available here!" which I found rather odd.

So I might sound rather pessimistic here, but it may have been born out of a sincere popular movement to escape the machinations of the financial market, but I think it has been quickly coopted and taken over by larger interest of the very PTB Bitcoin is supposed to be fighting against.

Then tonight I caught this as I was doing my rounds through the news:

Earlier today, NYDIG, a leading provider of investment and financial solutions for Bitcoin, announced that they were receiving $200 million in growth capital funding led by strategic partners Morgan Stanley, Soros Fund Management, FS Investments, Stone Ridge Holdings, Mass Mutual and New York Life. FinTech Collective and Bessemer Venture Partners, who previously funded NYDIG, also took part.

Robert Gutmann, co-founder and CEO of NYDIG, said that the participating firms were more than just investors: “they are partners, each well known to us for years.

NYDIG will be working with these firms on Bitcoin-related strategic initiatives spanning investment management, insurance, banking, clean energy, and philanthropy.” He also promised that through the $200 million investment from their strategic partners, NYDIG would deliver “an explosion of innovation in Bitcoin products and services.”

And so I thought, well... Large banks and investing firms have recognized the sentiment among the population and are about to turn it into a money making machine much like everything else.

 

[Trzon]

I'd also like to hear what the C's have to say about cryptos and CBDCs but please do not try to ask them for investment advice... In case of the PTA (Powers To Ask ) deciding to include questions about digital money in the next session I'll give you my personal thoughts that might be of help in preparing them.

Thought #1
Bitcoin's role is to step-by-step invite the younger generation to the USA's stock market which might get hurt by the baby boomers generation retiring and leaving it. It's as easy as redirecting the money flow from the bitcoin bubble to the stock bubble by flushing the former and pumping the latter. I'd really love to hear that GME shortsqueeze was a STO incident but imagine what pumping it further can do to the stock market - it will redirect the army of YOLO investors directly to the stock market.

Thought #2
Bitcoin is a STS invention which role is to enable the almost immediate adoption of digital money. This can be achieved both soft and hard way. Soft way is what we see now: people look at cryptos as the easy way of becoming rich and as soon as the first CBDC becomes available they'll rush to "buy it in the early adoption phase and hodl it until it goes to the moon". It can also be done the hard way: you destroy the electrical grid on the global scale and the only data that can be recovered is the data that was decentralized. In such scenario people will ask for blockchain based digital money by themselves.

Thought #3
Bitcoin is a STS invention aimed at dividing the population between the young generation and the old generation. The more you let the young generation gain wealth over the old generation the more superior they feel. It's like creating an army of young supremacits that will not only defend the NWO but help to push it to the "all time heights".

Thought #4
Bitcoin's role is to promote blockchain which will enable the tokenization of everything you own.


Sorry for not having any good thoughts about cryptos. I'd really want to see the STO aspect hidden in it and could even purposely loose my money to help it but my tinfoil hat keeps me from seeing any positive aspect of bitcoin.

 

[Scottie]

And so I thought, well... Large banks and investing firms have recognized the sentiment among the population and are about to turn it into a money making machine much like everything else.

The key word there, IMO, is 'sentiment'.

I finally got around to learning how blockchains and cryptos work. I was both fascinated and horrified.

The concept of a blockchain is so ridiculously simple that I can program a basic one in 5 minutes. It's the application of that blockchain idea that is rather interesting.

Of course, there are also some rather massive drawbacks. Imagine a world where everyone buys and sells using Bitcoin. The blockchain - which 'everyone has a copy of' would become enormous. The mining process, which is used to verify the authenticity of new blocks on the chain - would balloon from 76 terawatt-hours per year to many, many times that much. That's 76,000 nuclear reactors running at max power for 1 hour. That's a LOT of power, even spread out over a year.

And Bitcoin is finite. Historically, the PTB like creating money out of thin air. Are they really going to be happy with a very finite supply of Bitcoin?

Practically, it's not very feasible given human nature, the nature of the PTB, and human history in general.

I mentioned 'sentiment'. If you'd like to know the kind of sentiment that some people have surrounding Bitcoin and other cryptos, watch The Max Keiser Report. He'll regale you with tales of a New Capitalism based on Love and Peace (not war and suffering) that will even benefit the BIRDS because Bitcoin will reduce our global carbon footprint (even tho at the moment, only 30% of the above 76 TWh is from renewables). Occasionally, he'll run off the rails into talk of 'GloboCon' or a Global Consciousness Revolution. So yeah, buy in, people!!

There are other cryptos, and many of them are interesting. The potential applications are technically fascinating, and COULD - if applied the right way - lead to nifty new things. Then again, when was the last time that new tech was NOT used for more control? Still, we end up with useful tools, methods of communication, etc. even though Google is spying on us all the time. So I don't think it would be all bad.

But, as it stands, Bitcoin and other cryptos are not 100% distributed, they are not green, and as they are, they will probably not lead to Heaven on Earth.

Naturally, there are many, many more details to consider. There are also many more questions they raise, as well as many more questions we should be asking ourselves based on our rather broad historical perspective and our current understanding of social, political, cultural, and economic factors in play.

Given all the announcements coming this year from Mastercard, Visa, greater acceptance and trade involving cryptos, and government-backed cryptos like the e-yuan, I'm guessing that crypto values will skyrocket - very much like the dotcom bubble. I don't think that the inherent nature of cryptos will prevent massive wealth transfer - again - in a sort of 'Reverse-Gamestop' scenario. When the Big Boys get in on the action, watch out.

At the same time, it's probably a good idea to recall that other nations (BRICS) are gearing up for their own 'new economy' that will most likely be backed by gold in some way - if their massive stockpiling of the stuff is any indication. No doubt many twists and turns will follow... So who knows!

Finally, one should consider the 'insanity' that currently prevails in the above-mentioned social, political, and cultural areas. I'm pretty sure the economic realm is no exception. Plus, in the USA, you have a situation where apparently the will of the masses was ignored and Biden was installed. IOW, there is a LOT going on, and Bitcoin is only a tiny part of all that.

The recent NFT (non-fungible token) craze is wonderful evidence of the complete lunacy that has gripped people's minds when it comes to cryptos. Of course, chaos also means new possibilities - but they must be considered with a large dose of caution.

So, I think we can ask some questions at the next session, but the questions should be carefully thought out.

 

[Scottie]

I just realized something else about cryptos... It's not that they're all bad or anything, but rather that the "irrational exuberance" around them very much reminds me of the Q-anon/Trump nonsense.

Most likely, Bitcoin will not release the Kraken and crush the PTB and Wall Street and bring peace and harmony to all.

But they aren't going away, either. I guess we'll wait and see...

 

[Matty F]

I really can’t make my mind up about Bitcoin. I understand the decentralised and a limited supply aspect but I find the bitcoin people very cult like and round up on anyone who dismisses it on social media.

I listen to pro and anti bitcoin financial experts and they all make good arguments.
Catherine Austin Fitts makes good points about crypto currencies preparing people for a cashless society and the PTB have the power to take Bitcoin to $300,000 and to $0.

 

[cinnamon]

Just my 2 cents...

Crypto is enormously useful for the types pushing 'technofeudalism'...

Unlike cash - Bitcoin transactions are public. Everybody knowing everybody else's business..? Gives me the heebie-jeebies.

The 'smart contracts' blockchain business attempts to short-circuit contract law; there is no remedy for contract errors and such. This is why there are so many Ethereum forks. They change the whole currency every time something goes wrong! (Edit: I posted but do not have time within the editing window to fully flesh this out.)

If a state actor was to orchestrate a 51% attack on a blockchain, poof, it all goes up in smoke, the money is now whatever state actor's! It is "decentralized" until it isn't.

My understanding of crypto is that it is actually a negative yielding asset, not unlike gold - instead of paying storage costs as with gold, you instead pay for it with transaction fees. I do not know of any financial advisor who would ever recommend purchasing negative yielding assets except as a tail risk hedge, otherwise it is speculation that somebody else will pay more for the asset in question. A good tail risk hedge is one that is inversely correlated with other assets in time of crisis - if one is considering such an investment, maybe look at the asset correlations of cryptos with speculative stocks vs. treasury bonds. (This is not financial or investment advice, only personal commentary.)

Crypto / "deFi" makes traditional fractional reserve banking impossible - they cannot lend what they do not have - for all of the evils of the big banks, creation of capital in this way is generally a good thing, IMO. Keeping in mind that the supply of cryptocurrencies is often fixed and continuously decreases due to losses (forgot password to crypto wallet, etc.), moving to it exclusively would be profoundly deflationary and economically destructive - the institutions with the big crypto accounts become the new feudal lords.

Tether is possibly best understood as a 'wildcat bank', with the same problems.

Lots and lots of wishful thinking and very subtle traps going on with crypto currency while it's portrayed as a way to 'stick it to the man'.

I guess, are there questions about it that we cannot reason out for ourselves?

 

[BHelmet]

I can't say I fully comprehend cryptos. But Real Value? What IS that?

Perception creates reality.

Fiat has real value? Why? It is not backed by anything real anymore. It is no more real than crypto currency in a sense. People are used to thinking of it as real. And that is what gives it value. After all, you can hold a piece of paper in your hand that has numbers written on it! It is brought into by existence by the issuance of a mountain of debt. A negative black hole. Bonds? Are only as good as the issuer who promises to pay. The value of all fiat currency is on its way to zero. All that mountain of debt will be inflated away to be paid with worthless fiat and then will come the new digital system. They have told us this is what they are going to do. They will be able to track every transaction and cut off your government UBI if you are a trouble maker with the wrong kind of thoughts and actions. Total control. This is one time they are not lying.

The supposed beauty of the blockchain is that it is outside the system. (the system that is in the process of collapsing.) I think it is like the internet. Troublesome for the powers that be but too useful for their own plans. And anyway, Cryptos were probably created by the powers that be just like the internet, Facebook, Google, personal computers...all of it: by design.

Cryptos will be a storehouse of value outside the fiat system as the old system collapses and the new system is introduced. A couple of generations of humans have grown up in a digitized world and accept its reality and value, even though, really, it has none that you can touch with your finger. Only a small fraction of the population actually hold any cryptocurrencies. I suppose the greater fool theory applies to crypto currencies but what does that NOT apply to? But speculation does not always work on that principle.

Is my house worth twice what it was in 2013? No! It has doubled in price because the fiat currency dollar has lost a ton of value. Could bitcoin quadruple in "value" this year? Sure! My view is this: it is all one big game, is it not? So why not play it? Do we even have a choice? If you have money in a bank you are in the game and you stand to lose it all in this game of chance.

My fiat currency and investments that are denominated in fiat dollars which reside in the corrupt banking system are all going to take a huge dump at some point. But, I also hold physical metals. I have cases of Spam, tuna fish, cheap wine, pasta and olive oil. So why not crypto currency too? Even if it makes no rational sense, it is part of the game. Deal me in, I am playing. I may totally botch this hand... in fact there is no way to win the way things are headed, but, it will be interesting to see.

I think the future of crptocurrency is "open".

 

[Ryan]

Hi All,

Some interesting thoughts.

We have seen time and time again open source projects being derailed or coopted. How Bitcoin would be different ?

Major open source projects are extremely resistant to corruption. Even the NSA was unable to get a backdoor into the Linux source code. Bitcoin already has a large worldwide developer base, so many minds are able to review the code and spot errors or corruptions before they can be deployed. And almost as importantly, the sheer number of nodes running the Bitcoin network requires any protocol upgrade to have an extraordinarily high level of consensus and cooperation. Given the amount of wealth on the main network now, the likelihood of any major protocol change is effectively zero. Most innovation will take place on other blockchains with “inter-blockchain communication” becoming important for value transfers (for instance, wrapped tokens on facilitator networks such as Cosmos). Bitcoin will effectively serve as the global reserve currency for an emerging, flourishing and diverse ‘cybereconomy’.

On a side note, I'm not sure the C's would give investment advice as it would infringe free will, IMO.

It obviously doesn’t, because they already have. See some of the previous sessions.

I finally got around to learning how blockchains and cryptos work. I was both fascinated and horrified.

Sounds about right.

Of course, there are also some rather massive drawbacks. Imagine a world where everyone buys and sells using Bitcoin. The blockchain - which 'everyone has a copy of' would become enormous. The mining process, which is used to verify the authenticity of new blocks on the chain - would balloon from 76 terawatt-hours per year to many, many times that much. That's 76,000 nuclear reactors running at max power for 1 hour. That's a LOT of power, even spread out over a year.

And Bitcoin is finite. Historically, the PTB like creating money out of thin air. Are they really going to be happy with a very finite supply of Bitcoin?

Yep. Bitcoin is too inefficient to be used for day-to-day payments. The clearance times on transactions also make this impractical. However, as a store of wealth for relatively-infrequent exchange (what some refer to as the "digital gold" scenario), Bitcoin excels. There are solutions that are being worked on such as the "Lightning" network, but other blockchains seem to be making better ground in the payments area. I see not so much 'one chain to rule them all', but rather a 'network of decentralized networks' as the most realistic possibility, with Bitcoin as one of many 'networks of value' that has significant influence.

I mentioned 'sentiment'. If you'd like to know the kind of sentiment that some people have surrounding Bitcoin and other cryptos, watch The Max Keiser Report. He'll regale you with tales of a New Capitalism based on Love and Peace (not war and suffering) that will even benefit the BIRDS because Bitcoin will reduce our global carbon footprint (even tho at the moment, only 30% of the above 76 TWh is from renewables). Occasionally, he'll run off the rails into talk of 'GloboCon' or a Global Consciousness Revolution. So yeah, buy in, people!!

Yeah, somewhat ironically, Keiser is what the crypto community calls a "Bitcoin maximalist" or "maxi".

There are other cryptos, and many of them are interesting. The potential applications are technically fascinating, and COULD - if applied the right way - lead to nifty new things. Then again, when was the last time that new tech was NOT used for more control? Still, we end up with useful tools, methods of communication, etc. even though Google is spying on us all the time. So I don't think it would be all bad.

My thoughts exactly. One of the most interesting applications of blockchain, osit, is its ability to immutably store digital data. Publish an article or item of media to the blockchain (or simply just a file hash of such), and you've got a way to link that particular data to a point in time and prevent any kind of censorship or modification of the information.

But, as it stands, Bitcoin and other cryptos are not 100% distributed, they are not green, and as they are, they will probably not lead to Heaven on Earth.

Of course. Heaven on Earth would require a pretty big cultural shift in addition to better ways of distributing wealth.

Regarding other cryptocurrencies, there are those that could be considered "green" in terms of their power usage (way less than the power used for even one small datacentre), and there are projects with specifically stated green goals (for instance, SEEDS is one project that comes to mind, although I wouldn't necessarily endorse it).

Given all the announcements coming this year from Mastercard, Visa, greater acceptance and trade involving cryptos, and government-backed cryptos like the e-yuan, I'm guessing that crypto values will skyrocket - very much like the dotcom bubble. I don't think that the inherent nature of cryptos will prevent massive wealth transfer - again - in a sort of 'Reverse-Gamestop' scenario. When the Big Boys get in on the action, watch out.

Yep. I think we've already seen the "dotcom" style crypto bubble in 2017, and there will no doubt be other artificially-generated bubbles to 'harvest' people's wealth along the way to the mainstream usage of digital currencies. But just like individual investors who bought into Apple, Amazon etc in the early days made a fortune, so too do cryptocurrencies represent a unique opportunity right now, osit. It's just a matter of picking the ones that will become the mainstays of the digital currency sphere.

At the same time, it's probably a good idea to recall that other nations (BRICS) are gearing up for their own 'new economy' that will most likely be backed by gold in some way - if their massive stockpiling of the stuff is any indication. No doubt many twists and turns will follow... So who knows!

If the rumours of a Russian gold-backed digital currency are anything to go by, I'd say Russia has plans for 'the best of both worlds' in this regard. They also secured their recent Constitutional referendum by a blockchain, so (again) Russia is well ahead of the curve when it comes to the 'west', it seems.

The recent NFT (non-fungible token) craze is wonderful evidence of the complete lunacy that has gripped people's minds when it comes to cryptos. Of course, chaos also means new possibilities - but they must be considered with a large dose of caution.

LOL, come on Scottie, don't you want to see the limited-time-only, super-rare, once-in-a-lifetime Cassiopaean session quote NFTs?

I just realized something else about cryptos... It's not that they're all bad or anything, but rather that the "irrational exuberance" around them very much reminds me of the Q-anon/Trump nonsense.

Most likely, Bitcoin will not release the Kraken and crush the PTB and Wall Street and bring peace and harmony to all.

But they aren't going away, either. I guess we'll wait and see...

Indeed. From my observations of the cryptosphere, there's an interesting mixture of delusion wokeness, delusional exuberance, a lot of uninformed people and a few bright lights. Kinda reminds me of the early days of the Internet, which is why I like it, I guess.

The 'smart contracts' blockchain business attempts to short-circuit contract law; there is no remedy for contract errors and such. This is why there are so many Ethereum forks. They change the whole currency every time something goes wrong! (Edit: I posted but do not have time within the editing window to fully flesh this out.)

There are only two major Ethereum chains - Ethereum (ETH) and Ethereum Classic (ETC). Smart contracts aren't really about "short-circuiting" contract law, they're about delivering massive efficiencies that take greedy middlemen out of the equation.

If a state actor was to orchestrate a 51% attack on a blockchain, poof, it all goes up in smoke, the money is now whatever state actor's! It is "decentralized" until it isn't.

Your key word there is "If", and it doesn't necessarily mean the money all becomes the rogue actor's. It would simply require a fork of the chain at a point previous to the 51% takeover. This is problematic, but hardly devastating. Plus, the notion of a state actor being able to 51% the Bitcoin network using current technology is laughable.

My understanding of crypto is that it is actually a negative yielding asset, not unlike gold - instead of paying storage costs as with gold, you instead pay for it with transaction fees. I do not know of any financial advisor who would ever recommend purchasing negative yielding assets except as a tail risk hedge, otherwise it is speculation that somebody else will pay more for the asset in question. A good tail risk hedge is one that is inversely correlated with other assets in time of crisis - if one is considering such an investment, maybe look at the asset correlations of cryptos with speculative stocks vs. treasury bonds. (This is not financial or investment advice, only personal commentary.)

You only need to look at the returns on Bitcoin for the past ten years to know that the idea that crypto is a "negative yielding asset" is nonsense. Same regarding gold. If you factor fiat inflation into the evaluation, gold is worth thousands of times its value of a century ago.

Crypto / "deFi" makes traditional fractional reserve banking impossible - they cannot lend what they do not have - for all of the evils of the big banks, creation of capital in this way is generally a good thing, IMO.

Sorry, banks lending what they do not have is a good thing? I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Keeping in mind that the supply of cryptocurrencies is often fixed and continuously decreases due to losses (forgot password to crypto wallet, etc.), moving to it exclusively would be profoundly deflationary and economically destructive - the institutions with the big crypto accounts become the new feudal lords.

Bitcoin is really only deflationary in a negligible sense. And the supply of cryptocurrencies can fluctuate as necessary. Algorithmic stablecoins are a good example.

Lots and lots of wishful thinking and very subtle traps going on with crypto currency while it's portrayed as a way to 'stick it to the man'.

For sure. Lots of half-informed idiots out there.

 

[Weontv]

One thing to keep in mind is that the "powers that be" have levels as well, and that near the top of the pyramid are people in possession of technology that makes ours look stone agey. I can almost guarantee they have supercomputers capable of hacking the blockchain, and I dont personally see bitcoin being created by anyone but the powers that be.

I do think it is a great option for young people these days to make some money in this very brutal economic market, especially with the "pandemic" going on, and I am personally invested in crypto myself. I made 400% on an investment I made a few days ago, there are few places as far as I know where I can make those kinds of returns so quickly.

Whats stopping the "elites" from buying up huge percentages of hte crypto market? This is where I see a sort of fallacy of logic coming from the people who claim crypto is going to destroy fiat etc.. I am not very well studied on crypto in general but the way I see it is they can bottleneck the crypto market just as well as they have bottlednecked any other commodity and are probably already doing it.

In fact , with far less regulation and decentralization the opportunity for somebody with a huge chunk of capital to control the market is increased significantly.

I would also love to hear the C's thoughts on this.

 

[Scottie]

My thoughts exactly. One of the most interesting applications of blockchain, osit, is its ability to immutably store digital data. Publish an article or item of media to the blockchain (or simply just a file hash of such), and you've got a way to link that particular data to a point in time and prevent any kind of censorship or modification of the information.

That's nifty, but at the same time we've got crazy laws about 'the right to be forgotten' these days... How do you 'forget' something that's permanently stored on a blockchain?