I worked in tech for 34yrs. I don't own any crypto because it was so obviously a scam from day 1, and even the underlying blockchain tech is still, decades later, a solution looking for a problem*.
That said, much of "modern finance" (derivatives, securitisation, CDOs etc) are also so far removed (or leveraged) from "real assets" that their worth is essentially as fictitious as the worth assigned to crypto. They have value because everyone says they have value, until they don't (cf the GFC in 2008).
The big difference is ubiquity and liquidity.
There are long-established, kinda well-regulated mechanisms, all around the world, for exchanging those tokens of value that trade huge volumes ($trillions) every day, so you aren't locked into a proprietary "exchange" begging for your money back before your wife leaves you and takes the kids. There are also very well-established mechanisms for managing risk (hedging, insurance, etc) AND very well-established mechanisms for clawing value back if you get scammed ie the court system, where the laws and precedent are clear and well-established.
None of these are perfect (see Madoff) but they are "better" than some crypto scheme cooked up and promoted by shady people with opaque pasta who inevitably turn out to be conmen, or rapists, or both.
That said, part deux, the underlying "real assets" that underpin the traditional finance sector, normally shares, are increasingly as fictious and delusional as crypto too, with earnings-per-share that are negative (because the company has never made a profit) for shares with multi-billion dollar market caps, that trade on multiples that are 10x or 100x outside of the long-term multiples for that sector.
Even the valuations for 100yr old blue-chip companies that do make real things with real value are increasingly suspect, due to stock buy-back's that serve little purpose other than to manipulate the stock price so that it aligns with analyst expectations and/or allows the C-suite execs to hit their bonus targets.
Unfortunately, it's a game we all have to play, as we need somewhere to put our retirement savings etc, unless you want to go full prepper and build yourself a compound somewhere and kid yourself that you're self-sufficient, which lasts until you realise you really have no idea how to make antibiotics and those red streaks travelling up your leg from the scratch you got last week really don't look very good or you really need to buy some quality bull semen because your 4 cow "herd" is about 1 generation away from having 2 heads.
"The house of delusions is cheap to build but drafty to live in." A.E. Housman.
the real financial markets have also gone wacky in ways that are highly concerning. i don't see how any of this ends well but in the short term i don't see any reason why it should end: https://x.com/Cryptadamist/status/1856878957439725889
Sorry, I forgot to explain the asterisk * the one area where I have seen some genuinely innovative use cases for blockchain is in the area of decentralised identity. So, rather than handing all your personal information to a 3rd party you use blockchain and related crypto mechanisms to grant rights to access parts of your personal information. Rights that can be revoked on your terms whenever you want.
i'm highly skeptical that that's a good idea in any kind of important context (meaning outside of like, video games). what happens if someone gets your keys?
but crypto does have a real and innovative use case: money laundering. another good one is as a medium of exchange between a small cabal of kleptocratic states, which is where this is currently headed as Iran, Russia, and North Korea all massively ramp up their crypto infrastructure. https://x.com/Cryptadamist/status/1849500845236215874
I think the authentication mechanism is stronger than "just your blockchain key" ie leveraging biometrics, 2FA etc. Like any Web3 solution that has decentralized in the name it's not completely decentralized, it still requires "some mutually trusted certification provider" to attest/sign that "we attest that this digital identity is in fact Stephen Thair", akin to how you have a trust chain for SSL/TLS certificates. In reality that's probably going to be the usual suspects like Experian or national governments.
An important point is that You don't HAVE to link your DID to a "real identity" if you don't want to, and even if you do, you don't have to use that "public identity" for everything you do.
From the white paper:
"Conceptually, DIDs can fall into two classes: public DIDs and pairwise DIDs. Public DIDs
are IDs that users choose to knowingly
link themselves with data intended for the public - for example, a small bio that includes
a photograph and a brief description. Public
DIDs are suitable if you intend an activity or interaction to be linked to yourself in
a way that can be verified by others. But
having everything you do tied to a single
DID and traceable across the web poses
serious privacy and safety risks. This is why
pairwise DIDs are useful. Pairwise DIDs are
generated whenever users want to isolate
their interactions and prevent correlation.
For many users, pairwise DIDs might be the
primary mechanism they use to conduct
identity interactions"
Cryptadamus...Thank you for educating us on the 'clear and present danger' of cryptocurrencies. I think you are quite prescient on this. The magnitude of the disaster is a little difficult to quantify, but it exists. When you hear the Crypto Bros make comments with some variation of "exchange the gold in Fort Knox for Bitcoin to pay off the national debt", you begin to see the level of cataclysm we could be talking about. Perhaps impoverishment awaits us all with this kind of nonsense.
Like Molly White; great crypto writing but unfortunately her skepticism doesn’t translate to other things like Wikipedia (which is obviously a gatekeeper and not a true objective encyclopedia)
Hahaha 😂 Is Wikipedia anti crypto? It’s the last place I would look for anything authoritative. It’s a starting point for people who don’t know what crypto is, maybe! I doubt that Mollie has such influence. If she does I hope she corrects the article on the Franklin Scandal.
If you haven't heard Thomas Peterffy of Interactive Brokers on Bitcoin & Margin, please have a listen. The interesting part begins at about timestamp 10:15 in this video.
It would not surprise me if this is the future foretold...
fascinating... as the chair of IBKR which allows trading of crypto) he has access to incredibly good data.
fwiw i 100% agree with him. there will eventually be another bitcoin disaster, this one bigger than all the previous ones, maybe big enough to shake the actual financial system which prior to trump was safely walled off from crypto.
Of course, once again, the taxpayers will be called upon to bail out the moneychangers. As Jim Grant says, "the privatization of profit and the socialization of risk." The way Trump is embracing crypto, there seem to be multiple pathways to disaster. It is a headscratcher why a country with a "faith based currency" would want to allow other forms of under fiat the tent.
I worked in tech for 34yrs. I don't own any crypto because it was so obviously a scam from day 1, and even the underlying blockchain tech is still, decades later, a solution looking for a problem*.
That said, much of "modern finance" (derivatives, securitisation, CDOs etc) are also so far removed (or leveraged) from "real assets" that their worth is essentially as fictitious as the worth assigned to crypto. They have value because everyone says they have value, until they don't (cf the GFC in 2008).
The big difference is ubiquity and liquidity.
There are long-established, kinda well-regulated mechanisms, all around the world, for exchanging those tokens of value that trade huge volumes ($trillions) every day, so you aren't locked into a proprietary "exchange" begging for your money back before your wife leaves you and takes the kids. There are also very well-established mechanisms for managing risk (hedging, insurance, etc) AND very well-established mechanisms for clawing value back if you get scammed ie the court system, where the laws and precedent are clear and well-established.
None of these are perfect (see Madoff) but they are "better" than some crypto scheme cooked up and promoted by shady people with opaque pasta who inevitably turn out to be conmen, or rapists, or both.
That said, part deux, the underlying "real assets" that underpin the traditional finance sector, normally shares, are increasingly as fictious and delusional as crypto too, with earnings-per-share that are negative (because the company has never made a profit) for shares with multi-billion dollar market caps, that trade on multiples that are 10x or 100x outside of the long-term multiples for that sector.
Even the valuations for 100yr old blue-chip companies that do make real things with real value are increasingly suspect, due to stock buy-back's that serve little purpose other than to manipulate the stock price so that it aligns with analyst expectations and/or allows the C-suite execs to hit their bonus targets.
Unfortunately, it's a game we all have to play, as we need somewhere to put our retirement savings etc, unless you want to go full prepper and build yourself a compound somewhere and kid yourself that you're self-sufficient, which lasts until you realise you really have no idea how to make antibiotics and those red streaks travelling up your leg from the scratch you got last week really don't look very good or you really need to buy some quality bull semen because your 4 cow "herd" is about 1 generation away from having 2 heads.
"The house of delusions is cheap to build but drafty to live in." A.E. Housman.
the real financial markets have also gone wacky in ways that are highly concerning. i don't see how any of this ends well but in the short term i don't see any reason why it should end: https://x.com/Cryptadamist/status/1856878957439725889
but even that pales in comparison to the fact that DogeCoin is now worth more than the vast majority of S&P 500 companies: https://substack.com/@cryptadamus/note/c-76743050?
Sorry, I forgot to explain the asterisk * the one area where I have seen some genuinely innovative use cases for blockchain is in the area of decentralised identity. So, rather than handing all your personal information to a 3rd party you use blockchain and related crypto mechanisms to grant rights to access parts of your personal information. Rights that can be revoked on your terms whenever you want.
i'm highly skeptical that that's a good idea in any kind of important context (meaning outside of like, video games). what happens if someone gets your keys?
but crypto does have a real and innovative use case: money laundering. another good one is as a medium of exchange between a small cabal of kleptocratic states, which is where this is currently headed as Iran, Russia, and North Korea all massively ramp up their crypto infrastructure. https://x.com/Cryptadamist/status/1849500845236215874
Ah yes, I'm sure it's very useful for criminals and oligarchs!
The DID stuff is definitely worth a look at e.g. https://identity.foundation/ or https://aka.ms/didwhitepaper
I think the authentication mechanism is stronger than "just your blockchain key" ie leveraging biometrics, 2FA etc. Like any Web3 solution that has decentralized in the name it's not completely decentralized, it still requires "some mutually trusted certification provider" to attest/sign that "we attest that this digital identity is in fact Stephen Thair", akin to how you have a trust chain for SSL/TLS certificates. In reality that's probably going to be the usual suspects like Experian or national governments.
An important point is that You don't HAVE to link your DID to a "real identity" if you don't want to, and even if you do, you don't have to use that "public identity" for everything you do.
From the white paper:
"Conceptually, DIDs can fall into two classes: public DIDs and pairwise DIDs. Public DIDs are IDs that users choose to knowingly link themselves with data intended for the public - for example, a small bio that includes a photograph and a brief description. Public DIDs are suitable if you intend an activity or interaction to be linked to yourself in a way that can be verified by others. But having everything you do tied to a single DID and traceable across the web poses serious privacy and safety risks. This is why pairwise DIDs are useful. Pairwise DIDs are generated whenever users want to isolate their interactions and prevent correlation.
For many users, pairwise DIDs might be the primary mechanism they use to conduct identity interactions"
Cryptadamus...Thank you for educating us on the 'clear and present danger' of cryptocurrencies. I think you are quite prescient on this. The magnitude of the disaster is a little difficult to quantify, but it exists. When you hear the Crypto Bros make comments with some variation of "exchange the gold in Fort Knox for Bitcoin to pay off the national debt", you begin to see the level of cataclysm we could be talking about. Perhaps impoverishment awaits us all with this kind of nonsense.
we do what we can.
Like Molly White; great crypto writing but unfortunately her skepticism doesn’t translate to other things like Wikipedia (which is obviously a gatekeeper and not a true objective encyclopedia)
the bros on twitter are constantly accusing molly of forcing wikipedia to be anti-crypto
Hahaha 😂 Is Wikipedia anti crypto? It’s the last place I would look for anything authoritative. It’s a starting point for people who don’t know what crypto is, maybe! I doubt that Mollie has such influence. If she does I hope she corrects the article on the Franklin Scandal.
Hi Mr. Cryptadamus...
If you haven't heard Thomas Peterffy of Interactive Brokers on Bitcoin & Margin, please have a listen. The interesting part begins at about timestamp 10:15 in this video.
It would not surprise me if this is the future foretold...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2024-12-11/thomas-peterffy-talks-trump-m-a-cryptocurrencies-video
fascinating... as the chair of IBKR which allows trading of crypto) he has access to incredibly good data.
fwiw i 100% agree with him. there will eventually be another bitcoin disaster, this one bigger than all the previous ones, maybe big enough to shake the actual financial system which prior to trump was safely walled off from crypto.
the only question is when.
Of course, once again, the taxpayers will be called upon to bail out the moneychangers. As Jim Grant says, "the privatization of profit and the socialization of risk." The way Trump is embracing crypto, there seem to be multiple pathways to disaster. It is a headscratcher why a country with a "faith based currency" would want to allow other forms of under fiat the tent.
they've already drafted legislation to transfer most of a trillion dollars from american taxpayers into the hands of crypto bros
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/11/27/trump-strategic-bitcoin-reserve-plan/
Fantastic piece. 🫡
Good Stuff. Keep it up.
the “Nerd Reich” 💀💀
weak men bring hard times.