The crypto crisis has created an advertising vacuum(digiday.com)
digiday.com
The crypto crisis has created an advertising vacuum
https://digiday.com/marketing/advertising-has-taken-a-hit-the-crypto-crisis-has-created-an-advertising-vacuum/
145 comments
Hacker News has gotten overwhelmingly anti-crypto to an extent it’s as bad an echo chamber as many pro-crypto echo chambers.
People have such a hatred for crypto they are overjoyed to celebrate a crypto crash. They were annoyed people they disliked were getting rich and now feel “vindicated” the bubble is popping.
But…have people actually looked around? Airbnb stock is down 80% in the last 6 months. Netflix, Twilio, DoorDash, and many many other companies have taken a similar beating.
Bitcoin has actually done much better then most of the tech stocks, especially if you look at a 2 year chart.
Amazing to see all this gravedancing when the crypto crash isn’t a crypto crash at all but a speculative asset crash and most of our jobs fall into that category.
Another funny dynamic is many pro-crypto subreddits hate NFTs but similarly we’re seeing gravedancing over monkey JPEGs even though the bored apes have held up better then many “serious” crypto projects.
My point is that people want confirmation bias for their narrative. And they are overjoyed to celebrate crypto crashing to extent it confirms their narrative it’s a big Ponzi scam that was due for a crash. But they seem less eager to be intellectually honest and work in the rest of what’s going on into that narrative.
If bitcoin falling 60% proves it was a scam what does Airbnb falling 80% say about Airbnb. And I know your answer will be they have a business model with cash flow. But these are all “a priori” assumptions. The crash is viewed in a different lens based not on evidence but on what we believe to be true beforehand.
Tech bros celebrating the death of crypto bros are knee deep in the icey waters of the Titanic sinking celebrating the guy whose shoulder deep as they both continue to sink, but due to preconceived notions refuse to realize they’re all about to drown from the same iceberg crash.
People have such a hatred for crypto they are overjoyed to celebrate a crypto crash. They were annoyed people they disliked were getting rich and now feel “vindicated” the bubble is popping.
But…have people actually looked around? Airbnb stock is down 80% in the last 6 months. Netflix, Twilio, DoorDash, and many many other companies have taken a similar beating.
Bitcoin has actually done much better then most of the tech stocks, especially if you look at a 2 year chart.
Amazing to see all this gravedancing when the crypto crash isn’t a crypto crash at all but a speculative asset crash and most of our jobs fall into that category.
Another funny dynamic is many pro-crypto subreddits hate NFTs but similarly we’re seeing gravedancing over monkey JPEGs even though the bored apes have held up better then many “serious” crypto projects.
My point is that people want confirmation bias for their narrative. And they are overjoyed to celebrate crypto crashing to extent it confirms their narrative it’s a big Ponzi scam that was due for a crash. But they seem less eager to be intellectually honest and work in the rest of what’s going on into that narrative.
If bitcoin falling 60% proves it was a scam what does Airbnb falling 80% say about Airbnb. And I know your answer will be they have a business model with cash flow. But these are all “a priori” assumptions. The crash is viewed in a different lens based not on evidence but on what we believe to be true beforehand.
Tech bros celebrating the death of crypto bros are knee deep in the icey waters of the Titanic sinking celebrating the guy whose shoulder deep as they both continue to sink, but due to preconceived notions refuse to realize they’re all about to drown from the same iceberg crash.
> Bitcoin has actually done much better then most of the tech stocks, especially if you look at a 2 year chart.
Only if you look at the 2-year chart (or longer). That includes the tail end of the Tether-fueled market manipulation drive, and at longer scales the entire speculative boom.
Anyway, why are you so concerned about people being "anti-crypto"? You seem to think that everyone makes value judgements based only on how well something performs financially.
That might be relevant if you are an investor. But I am sure there will be more services like AirBnB if it fails, as the concept is sound. Cryptocurrencies on the other hand have certainly enjoyed their time in limelight for a while already, but have failed to deliver any meaningful mass market products (if you discount investing - which is indeed exactly akin to buying AirBnB stock without ever going on a holiday.)
Only if you look at the 2-year chart (or longer). That includes the tail end of the Tether-fueled market manipulation drive, and at longer scales the entire speculative boom.
Anyway, why are you so concerned about people being "anti-crypto"? You seem to think that everyone makes value judgements based only on how well something performs financially.
That might be relevant if you are an investor. But I am sure there will be more services like AirBnB if it fails, as the concept is sound. Cryptocurrencies on the other hand have certainly enjoyed their time in limelight for a while already, but have failed to deliver any meaningful mass market products (if you discount investing - which is indeed exactly akin to buying AirBnB stock without ever going on a holiday.)
> Hacker News has gotten overwhelmingly anti-crypto to an extent it’s as bad an echo chamber as many pro-crypto echo chambers.
I think it's reasonably skeptical. There is a balance here.
> People have such a hatred for crypto they are overjoyed to celebrate a crypto crash. They were annoyed people they disliked were getting rich and now feel “vindicated” the bubble is popping.
I like crypto and even I am rooting for the crash. There is simply too much hype and investment in useless projects, it distracts from the actually useful crypto projects, and is generally bad for the development of cryptocurrency as a whole
I think it's reasonably skeptical. There is a balance here.
> People have such a hatred for crypto they are overjoyed to celebrate a crypto crash. They were annoyed people they disliked were getting rich and now feel “vindicated” the bubble is popping.
I like crypto and even I am rooting for the crash. There is simply too much hype and investment in useless projects, it distracts from the actually useful crypto projects, and is generally bad for the development of cryptocurrency as a whole
What do you think is the most useful crypto project?
Right now it is probably monero. It does one thing (anonymous transactions) and does it alright.
But I think we will see increased adoption of less decentralized and anonymous systems like GNU Taler or Nano for micropayments, which are generally lower-risk and hinge more on per-transaction fees. I think that is the "real" use-case of cryptocurrency besides buying drugs on the DN- to serve as an micropayment/spam-prevention system and an alternative to advertisement-based funding for websites.
Output obfuscation is a really useful feature, but it comes at a pretty great cost of bandwidth. I think this area will continue to improve in the future.
But I think we will see increased adoption of less decentralized and anonymous systems like GNU Taler or Nano for micropayments, which are generally lower-risk and hinge more on per-transaction fees. I think that is the "real" use-case of cryptocurrency besides buying drugs on the DN- to serve as an micropayment/spam-prevention system and an alternative to advertisement-based funding for websites.
Output obfuscation is a really useful feature, but it comes at a pretty great cost of bandwidth. I think this area will continue to improve in the future.
Airbnb is down 58% from its 52-week high. I'm not sure the point you're making though. Even if high-flying stocks went down 99% that's not a defense of crypto per se. "Stocks go down" isn't a redemption of the crypto narrative.
That said, if you did want to use tech stocks as a comparison, Bitcoin is the flagship asset of crypto, and meant to be the most stable (deflationary etc.) so more akin to Apple. Apple is essentially flat over the past year.
That said, if you did want to use tech stocks as a comparison, Bitcoin is the flagship asset of crypto, and meant to be the most stable (deflationary etc.) so more akin to Apple. Apple is essentially flat over the past year.
> "Stocks go down" isn't a redemption of the crypto narrative.
It’s not, but “reality catching up on speculative, excessive growth” isn’t purely a cryptocurrency thing; they’re just so much a symptom of everyone wanting in on that tech stonks that only VCs could afford.
It’s funny how “the Uber of X” was an admirable description, considering that whole economic model is being questioned right now. Perhaps it just wasn’t the case that Uber was the Uber of Uber.
It’s not, but “reality catching up on speculative, excessive growth” isn’t purely a cryptocurrency thing; they’re just so much a symptom of everyone wanting in on that tech stonks that only VCs could afford.
It’s funny how “the Uber of X” was an admirable description, considering that whole economic model is being questioned right now. Perhaps it just wasn’t the case that Uber was the Uber of Uber.
There are two (at least) events playing out right now. The first is an asset bubble being pricked by cheap capital being removed from the market due to the fed raising interest rates after a decade or so of monetary policy that forced people to seek out yield wherever they could. That event is playing out in both crypto and stocks, which is what people seem to be pointing at to say the assets are the same.
The second is the collapse of a bunch of crypto schemes (yield farming, leveraged funds, black box firms etc.). These two things are fundamentally different.
Focusing on the first one only since that's what crypto adherents seem to defend with the "it's just like tech stocks" claim (putting aside that crypto was supposed to be different than stocks, and deflationary), what I haven't seen them explain is how "excessive growth" would even be defined in a crypto asset. In stocks, I can point to a price-to-earnings ratio or a price-to-sales ratio to describe how a business is trading far beyond a value that even has hopes of being realized. In Bitcoin, or even worse some shitcoin used for nothing at all, what can I use to distinguish between "excessive" growth and appropriate growth?
There is a critique that can be made of the stock market that it is essentially a speculative game largely divorced from the underlying business fundamentals, and that crypto assets are just a pure form of speculative capital chasing returns. I don't think that's really true though, because stocks do seem to show significant correlation to the underlying business performance. That's why Apple is flat YoY while Airbnb is down 60%.
The second is the collapse of a bunch of crypto schemes (yield farming, leveraged funds, black box firms etc.). These two things are fundamentally different.
Focusing on the first one only since that's what crypto adherents seem to defend with the "it's just like tech stocks" claim (putting aside that crypto was supposed to be different than stocks, and deflationary), what I haven't seen them explain is how "excessive growth" would even be defined in a crypto asset. In stocks, I can point to a price-to-earnings ratio or a price-to-sales ratio to describe how a business is trading far beyond a value that even has hopes of being realized. In Bitcoin, or even worse some shitcoin used for nothing at all, what can I use to distinguish between "excessive" growth and appropriate growth?
There is a critique that can be made of the stock market that it is essentially a speculative game largely divorced from the underlying business fundamentals, and that crypto assets are just a pure form of speculative capital chasing returns. I don't think that's really true though, because stocks do seem to show significant correlation to the underlying business performance. That's why Apple is flat YoY while Airbnb is down 60%.
> In stocks, I can point to a price-to-earnings ratio or a price-to-sales ratio
> In Bitcoin, [...] what can I use to distinguish between "excessive" growth and appropriate growth?
I suppose it depends on what you think Bitcoin is.
It sounds like you think it's a stock.
The SEC thinks it's a commodity.
Clearly it was intended to be a currency, although a very gold-like one.
https://journal.bitcoinreserve.com/can-we-calculate-bitcoins...
[...] researchers determine bitcoin's value based on its use in the following "addressable" markets—areas in which the asset can find the most use:
The unbanked, Tax evasion, Remittance, Online transactions, Store of value, Micropayments, Reserve currency, Offshore accounts, Medium of exchange
Reserve currency counts among bitcoin's many capturable "markets." Arguably this market is one in which bitcoin could wholly dominate—by becoming a global reserve currency.
(...the article goes into more depth.)
> There is a critique that can be made of the stock market that it is essentially a speculative game
Stocks have clear utility:
You don't have to own literal grain to be invested in our food supplies.
And you can hedge some of the risk of literally owning grain to people with money.
Whatever the underlying value of an asset is, the asset itself provides ability for hedging, which itself is valuable.
> In Bitcoin, [...] what can I use to distinguish between "excessive" growth and appropriate growth?
I suppose it depends on what you think Bitcoin is.
It sounds like you think it's a stock.
The SEC thinks it's a commodity.
Clearly it was intended to be a currency, although a very gold-like one.
https://journal.bitcoinreserve.com/can-we-calculate-bitcoins...
[...] researchers determine bitcoin's value based on its use in the following "addressable" markets—areas in which the asset can find the most use:
The unbanked, Tax evasion, Remittance, Online transactions, Store of value, Micropayments, Reserve currency, Offshore accounts, Medium of exchange
Reserve currency counts among bitcoin's many capturable "markets." Arguably this market is one in which bitcoin could wholly dominate—by becoming a global reserve currency.
(...the article goes into more depth.)
> There is a critique that can be made of the stock market that it is essentially a speculative game
Stocks have clear utility:
You don't have to own literal grain to be invested in our food supplies.
And you can hedge some of the risk of literally owning grain to people with money.
Whatever the underlying value of an asset is, the asset itself provides ability for hedging, which itself is valuable.
> They were annoyed people they disliked were getting rich and now feel “vindicated” the bubble is popping.
This doesn't accurately reflect the source of my opprobrium, or many other commenters here. I don't particularly care about whether cryptocurrencies make people stinking rich. I care that they're terrible for the planet, morally and civically corrosive, and have hurt people that I care about (in the forms of scams, lies, and false advertising around returns).
As far as I concerned, many (but not all) of these critiques apply to the last 15 years of startups as well. The proximate causes might be slightly different (adtech and cheap VC money), but the outcomes are very similar. So you won't find me dancing on one grave and sobbing over the other. I'll be practicing my Hopak[1] instead.
[1]: https://www.britannica.com/art/hopak
This doesn't accurately reflect the source of my opprobrium, or many other commenters here. I don't particularly care about whether cryptocurrencies make people stinking rich. I care that they're terrible for the planet, morally and civically corrosive, and have hurt people that I care about (in the forms of scams, lies, and false advertising around returns).
As far as I concerned, many (but not all) of these critiques apply to the last 15 years of startups as well. The proximate causes might be slightly different (adtech and cheap VC money), but the outcomes are very similar. So you won't find me dancing on one grave and sobbing over the other. I'll be practicing my Hopak[1] instead.
[1]: https://www.britannica.com/art/hopak
I absolutely fall in the category of crypto haters, for technical, political and moral reasons, and I can't help but feel some joy and excitement when I see it crashing.
Of course I am aware of my strong bias, I don't think I will ever be neutral on this subject, but it does not matter as this bias is only affecting my personal decisions.
Is it even possible to build a neutral judgment on this thing?
Of course I am aware of my strong bias, I don't think I will ever be neutral on this subject, but it does not matter as this bias is only affecting my personal decisions.
Is it even possible to build a neutral judgment on this thing?
The point I derive from this is: Cryptocurrency hate will distract you from seeing the bigger picture and dealing with it.
Celebrating that bad things burn when good things burn for the same reason (economic downturn) seems like it’s either uninformed or a coping strategy.
Celebrating that bad things burn when good things burn for the same reason (economic downturn) seems like it’s either uninformed or a coping strategy.
It's the scapegoating impulse, which is extremely strong right now. We know there are many things going wrong, but our way of addressing them is a total crapshoot. And it's easier to illustrate an enemy to fight against and a preexisting concept to defend than to do anything new, so there's always a lot of support for that.
Well, those of us who work on problems that need solutions and products that solve those real problems, we don’t need to worry. We’re just enjoying our popcorn watching the show.
I have however reliably found that the HN crowd has rarely been emotional in arguments regarding crypto. For some reason, the anti-crypto arguments being thrown around here have been very convincing, and the pro-crypto arguments less so. But no one here has “silenced” anyone, it’s a public forum.
However, if I were in crypto, I would be extremely worried that one of the biggest tech communities, with “hacker” in the name isn’t really on board with crypto.
I have however reliably found that the HN crowd has rarely been emotional in arguments regarding crypto. For some reason, the anti-crypto arguments being thrown around here have been very convincing, and the pro-crypto arguments less so. But no one here has “silenced” anyone, it’s a public forum.
However, if I were in crypto, I would be extremely worried that one of the biggest tech communities, with “hacker” in the name isn’t really on board with crypto.
It's different and connected:
Different because shares still give you a part of a real business and equal because it showed that money was too cheap.
I'm not anti crypto just because, I have plenty of good reasons.
And no real cryptobro was able to convince me with good argument s otherwise.
Of course the share prices General looked weird that's why I didn't invest last time I wanted to.
Different because shares still give you a part of a real business and equal because it showed that money was too cheap.
I'm not anti crypto just because, I have plenty of good reasons.
And no real cryptobro was able to convince me with good argument s otherwise.
Of course the share prices General looked weird that's why I didn't invest last time I wanted to.
We still haven't seen a month of negative employment numbers yet.
The fed rate is still under 2%, it was 2.41% in March of 2019, there's still room to continue to take the punchbowl away.
Gas prices are still high and inflation is still pretty much on a tear. It took a bit of a pause but $110/bbl oil is still quite high.
This is not even a recession yet.
At the same time though the fed tacking on 50 and 75 bp rate hikes and talking about how they want to puncture the housing market sounds like we're definitely going to have one. And I don't think that is just all talk since we've seen actual increases in real labor costs, unionization and a large overhang of jobs, along with worker sentiment towards job hopping and zero job loyalty.
So I very much think we're only at the start here. The Fed is going to continue to jack up rates until something(s) in the real economy significantly pops. And Zuckerberg and Musk have been talking tough-economy talk and they're likely bellweathers for what the CEO/billionaire class is thinking.
I don't think we've seen the crypto crash yet.
When (not if) Coinbase pops then I think we'll be in the middle of it.
The fed rate is still under 2%, it was 2.41% in March of 2019, there's still room to continue to take the punchbowl away.
Gas prices are still high and inflation is still pretty much on a tear. It took a bit of a pause but $110/bbl oil is still quite high.
This is not even a recession yet.
At the same time though the fed tacking on 50 and 75 bp rate hikes and talking about how they want to puncture the housing market sounds like we're definitely going to have one. And I don't think that is just all talk since we've seen actual increases in real labor costs, unionization and a large overhang of jobs, along with worker sentiment towards job hopping and zero job loyalty.
So I very much think we're only at the start here. The Fed is going to continue to jack up rates until something(s) in the real economy significantly pops. And Zuckerberg and Musk have been talking tough-economy talk and they're likely bellweathers for what the CEO/billionaire class is thinking.
I don't think we've seen the crypto crash yet.
When (not if) Coinbase pops then I think we'll be in the middle of it.
The difference, as always, is leverage. I don’t think there is as much leverage built on top of Airbnb stock as there is on Bitcoin. Airbnb crashing 80% didn’t take any funds out of business.
Crypto was foisted on us so hard in the past 2 years that people are celebrating it's downfall because it means not being insulted by the marketing of it all. It was vapor, it was a scam that created desperation in many people during some of the most troubling times we've had in history.
I had to work extra hard to try and convince family members to not sink their hard earned savings into it, and worried that the hype train would affect many I knew when it actually did crash, during one of the worst economic periods in recent history...
It did crash hard, despite how many promises were made. NFTs also were proven to be insecure. Web 3.0 was based on totally fraudulent claims by opportunistic people... That is why people are celebrating the current peril it is in, and also why no one accountable ever really wants to step up and own the failure of it all.
I had to work extra hard to try and convince family members to not sink their hard earned savings into it, and worried that the hype train would affect many I knew when it actually did crash, during one of the worst economic periods in recent history...
It did crash hard, despite how many promises were made. NFTs also were proven to be insecure. Web 3.0 was based on totally fraudulent claims by opportunistic people... That is why people are celebrating the current peril it is in, and also why no one accountable ever really wants to step up and own the failure of it all.
[deleted]
From what I can see, ABNB stock closed at 91.41 on Friday, and the 52 week high was 212.58. That comes out to the stock being down 57% by my calculations, but could be I’m missing something.
Still down a lot, but not quite 80%.
Still down a lot, but not quite 80%.
> 2 year chart
That's a horrible timeframe to look at because you're really just looking at the covid economy. The 20% drop in the S&P 500 is the meaningful number for the broader economy.
That's a horrible timeframe to look at because you're really just looking at the covid economy. The 20% drop in the S&P 500 is the meaningful number for the broader economy.
> They were annoyed people they disliked were getting rich and now feel “vindicated” the bubble is popping.
No, I was annoyed that people were being scammed. The bulk of this crypto advertising was aimed at selling extremely dubious products to normal people who had no idea what they were getting themselves into. If another crypto ad is never placed, the world will be a better place.
No, I was annoyed that people were being scammed. The bulk of this crypto advertising was aimed at selling extremely dubious products to normal people who had no idea what they were getting themselves into. If another crypto ad is never placed, the world will be a better place.
Well said. I'm actually laughing at both the extreme delusional anti-crypto folks and the extreme pro-crypto folks since they will both be disappointed with their vision(s) of either all of them being destroyed or all projects succeeding.
Not all these projects will survive, 90% of crypto projects will die, just like the 90% of these startups failing and the fact that we are seeing the many projects and startups getting wiped out in this crash, like the dotcom crash we will see the projects that have utility continue to survive this crash.
Like in the replies to your comment, many of the angry anti-crypto folk continue to fall into the absolutism trap and the only absolute that exists: is none. Just look at the free software-foundation, after 37 years of fighting the likes of Google, Microsoft, Facebook, etc of trying to get rid of all non-free software, it has completely failed and the tech bros have hijacked the point of open-source. It has gotten so bad in that realisation that there are now tech bros that are branded as 'traitors' in this noble conquest of ridding all non-free software.
Now the tech-bros are screaming at destroying all crypto-projects towards the crypto-bros. Destroying 'all of them' doesn't seem to be going well for them and they are no better than the crypto maximalists in aiming for this goal.
Not all these projects will survive, 90% of crypto projects will die, just like the 90% of these startups failing and the fact that we are seeing the many projects and startups getting wiped out in this crash, like the dotcom crash we will see the projects that have utility continue to survive this crash.
Like in the replies to your comment, many of the angry anti-crypto folk continue to fall into the absolutism trap and the only absolute that exists: is none. Just look at the free software-foundation, after 37 years of fighting the likes of Google, Microsoft, Facebook, etc of trying to get rid of all non-free software, it has completely failed and the tech bros have hijacked the point of open-source. It has gotten so bad in that realisation that there are now tech bros that are branded as 'traitors' in this noble conquest of ridding all non-free software.
Now the tech-bros are screaming at destroying all crypto-projects towards the crypto-bros. Destroying 'all of them' doesn't seem to be going well for them and they are no better than the crypto maximalists in aiming for this goal.
When startups fail, VCs lose a bunch of investor money. When crypto products fail, a bunch of retail investors/users lured by Super Bowl ads lose (sometimes) all their savings. The difference is stark. Having 90% of crypto projects fail is going to leave a trail of human misery.
It turns out that some things are just bad, and pretending there's a false balance is just being half-way to scam town.
Yeah being purely positive or negative isn't any good. Although BTC shouldn't be benchmarked with Airbnb but with USD/EUR...
Bitcoin itself isn't a scam, in fact it has (or had) really ambitious goals. But the dynamics in the last years are quite scammy because not many things are bought with BTC. Maybe PoS will bring something new
Bitcoin itself isn't a scam, in fact it has (or had) really ambitious goals. But the dynamics in the last years are quite scammy because not many things are bought with BTC. Maybe PoS will bring something new
airbnb is crazy expensive still. Still market cap of $60bil, 4x Expedia. For a booking website? smdh
I don’t support the grave dancing. Especially because it sometimes involves real graves - people have certainly died (typically suicide) from this crypto downturn.
I think celebrating this “crash” is primarily driven by the cryptocurrency community being so insufferably obnoxious to promote their self-serving agenda (“Have fun staying poor”). There’s a natural desire to celebrate the downfall of a community that has been exhibiting such a condescending superiority complex during this run.
I suspect that suicide rates, other wider societal effects, etc are higher with cryptocurrency because (in addition to other factors) it becomes the entire identity to most people in the space - hence the obnoxious Thanksgiving crypto bro archetype.
For these people the crypto crash is more deeply felt because I’m sure for many of them it’s about much more than the financials. They take it really personally to the point where it can strike to the core of who they are. This is especially dangerous given other than constantly hawking their favorite coin they are handing a significant portion of their well-being to a market they have absolutely no control over. Scary.
They also tend to be risk seeking to the point of desperate/reckless, inexperienced, easily influenced, generally unsophisticated, etc. It’s the shoeshine boy giving stock tips. I also think that due to the volatility it likely attracts legitimate gambling addicts at a much higher rate (and the resulting jump in suicides and shattered lives).
I can’t recall it being common to post suicide hotline numbers on various forums, etc when a stock goes down 80%…
If I’m doing any grave dancing at all it’s due to the most obnoxious of them just finally shutting up about crypto. It gets old so quickly.
I have a contact on LinkedIn who is a high level executive at a crypto company you’ve heard of. His activity on LinkedIn is the most childish, obnoxious, and often times offensive I’ve ever seen from a professional in a professional setting. It blows my mind this is how he conducts himself in public on a professional social media platform.
His conduct along with activity, stories, interviews of other major figures (think SBF-types) adds yet another data point on just how far blockchain is from real relevance to the general public.
I keep thinking - if an executive at that level from a bank or any non-crypto related financial anything made these posts they would be fired more or less instantly. This guy was promoted to his current position a few months ago.
He went from at least one absolutely ridiculous FOMO/if you don’t buy in you’re a moron/have fun staying poor post daily to first disappearing for a week (likely managing fallout) to now occasionally posting some lighthearted saying maybe once a week or so.
Humble pie.
Even though I essentially can’t stand this person (and many like them on Twitter) I find their personalities and activity to be a really interesting observation into the space.
I think celebrating this “crash” is primarily driven by the cryptocurrency community being so insufferably obnoxious to promote their self-serving agenda (“Have fun staying poor”). There’s a natural desire to celebrate the downfall of a community that has been exhibiting such a condescending superiority complex during this run.
I suspect that suicide rates, other wider societal effects, etc are higher with cryptocurrency because (in addition to other factors) it becomes the entire identity to most people in the space - hence the obnoxious Thanksgiving crypto bro archetype.
For these people the crypto crash is more deeply felt because I’m sure for many of them it’s about much more than the financials. They take it really personally to the point where it can strike to the core of who they are. This is especially dangerous given other than constantly hawking their favorite coin they are handing a significant portion of their well-being to a market they have absolutely no control over. Scary.
They also tend to be risk seeking to the point of desperate/reckless, inexperienced, easily influenced, generally unsophisticated, etc. It’s the shoeshine boy giving stock tips. I also think that due to the volatility it likely attracts legitimate gambling addicts at a much higher rate (and the resulting jump in suicides and shattered lives).
I can’t recall it being common to post suicide hotline numbers on various forums, etc when a stock goes down 80%…
If I’m doing any grave dancing at all it’s due to the most obnoxious of them just finally shutting up about crypto. It gets old so quickly.
I have a contact on LinkedIn who is a high level executive at a crypto company you’ve heard of. His activity on LinkedIn is the most childish, obnoxious, and often times offensive I’ve ever seen from a professional in a professional setting. It blows my mind this is how he conducts himself in public on a professional social media platform.
His conduct along with activity, stories, interviews of other major figures (think SBF-types) adds yet another data point on just how far blockchain is from real relevance to the general public.
I keep thinking - if an executive at that level from a bank or any non-crypto related financial anything made these posts they would be fired more or less instantly. This guy was promoted to his current position a few months ago.
He went from at least one absolutely ridiculous FOMO/if you don’t buy in you’re a moron/have fun staying poor post daily to first disappearing for a week (likely managing fallout) to now occasionally posting some lighthearted saying maybe once a week or so.
Humble pie.
Even though I essentially can’t stand this person (and many like them on Twitter) I find their personalities and activity to be a really interesting observation into the space.
Actually, anti-crypto sentiment is good and pro-crypto sentiment isn’t. “Both-sidesing” this is nonsense.
are cryptocurrency supporters "literally hitler" now?
This is not responsive to my comment.
You're stating that there is a non-negotiable right and wrong, and that cryptocurrency is in-defensively wrong (e.g. "Literally Hitler"). I ask you to justify your position then.
> are cryptocurrency supporters "literally hitler" now?
If you really wanted to see someone argue that position nobody-but-you brought up, here you go: https://youtu.be/XpH3O6mnZvw
If you really wanted to see someone argue that position nobody-but-you brought up, here you go: https://youtu.be/XpH3O6mnZvw
I hate crypto with passion, from the beginning, but intellectually I am still on the fence.
It might be as bad, shallow and devoid of value as any other Ponzi scheme of Tulip Mania, and this is sentiment I have about it, but this is not proof.
What if the haters are too biased to see the real value of the so-called "blockchain"?
Only History will tell.
It might be as bad, shallow and devoid of value as any other Ponzi scheme of Tulip Mania, and this is sentiment I have about it, but this is not proof.
What if the haters are too biased to see the real value of the so-called "blockchain"?
Only History will tell.
> Only History will tell.
We've had more than ten years of crypto/blockchain history already. We don't need more time to tell -- we have many years of it already being awful. History is already telling us.
We've had more than ten years of crypto/blockchain history already. We don't need more time to tell -- we have many years of it already being awful. History is already telling us.
We have a winner.
It’s a demonstration of the societal value of bad businesses going under. There are certain ideas that people just cannot be swayed against by evidence, especially if they have skin in the game.
The real destructiveness of crypto is the other ideas that have been starved for oxygen during this bubble. I am glad it looks like we are beginning to move on.
The real destructiveness of crypto is the other ideas that have been starved for oxygen during this bubble. I am glad it looks like we are beginning to move on.
> It’s a demonstration of the societal value of bad businesses going under.
I always think about this when I see people rail against short sellers, as if the whole idea of betting against a company is morally wrong.
Short sellers are one of the only checks against overly inflated equity prices. If the only people allowed to participate in a market are the believers, you are going to get a very distorted view of the actual value of assets.
For the market to do its thing, you need failure.
I always think about this when I see people rail against short sellers, as if the whole idea of betting against a company is morally wrong.
Short sellers are one of the only checks against overly inflated equity prices. If the only people allowed to participate in a market are the believers, you are going to get a very distorted view of the actual value of assets.
For the market to do its thing, you need failure.
Now consider all the ideas starved for attention coddling old wealth, salary feudalism, military industrial complex, and consumption of resources ostensibly to send future humans who don’t exist yet into space, at the expense of people living now. Basically anyone who comes along is joining an in progress game of Monopoly.
The real destructiveness of business as usual.
“When a man’s salary…” is how the saying starts.
The real destructiveness of business as usual.
“When a man’s salary…” is how the saying starts.
> Seriously, during other crashes, I remember thinking of the real negative externalities that happened during the crash, e.g. many economists have drawn lines to the current housing supply crunch due to underinvestment after the Great Recession.
Don’t underestimate what can come still. Based on the high price to equity ratios in the stock market, it is likely that the "correction" will correct more. This is also in line with the recent rounds of layoffs. Crypto going down first makes sense due to the amount of speculation. I‘m really curious whether we‘ll get a Lehman Brothers moment in 2022.
Don’t underestimate what can come still. Based on the high price to equity ratios in the stock market, it is likely that the "correction" will correct more. This is also in line with the recent rounds of layoffs. Crypto going down first makes sense due to the amount of speculation. I‘m really curious whether we‘ll get a Lehman Brothers moment in 2022.
What’s interesting about this crash is prices are still so high. Bitcoin is close to 20,000$ right now. So there are still huge paper losses, but I doubt that many bought in at just 20+k.
It’s odd to look prices dropping to 1/3 and think thing things could get a lot worse or it could turn into just another blip on a larger upwards trajectory.
It’s odd to look prices dropping to 1/3 and think thing things could get a lot worse or it could turn into just another blip on a larger upwards trajectory.
A ton of people bought Bitcoin at >$20k. It reached that milestone even before Elon Musk started promoting it about 18 months ago, and that's when the hype really started.
I suspect that most retail Bitcoin holders bought it last year and are down 30-70%. The people who post on HN are very much outliers, having known about Bitcoin for a decade. The real retail volume in 2021 came from relatively uninformed people buying their first crypto.
Also, there are the publicly listed corporate whales. Tesla has 42,000 Bitcoins bought at an average price of $31,620. MicroStrategy has over 130,000 Bitcoins bought at an average price around $30k as well.
Public company accounting standards require these companies to mark down their crypto holdings regularly, so it seems that Tesla will be booking a roughly $420M loss for the past quarter, and MSTR has lost a whopping $1.3 billion. (I'm sure Musk appreciates that the loss is close to 420 though, even if Tesla shareholders don't.)
I suspect that most retail Bitcoin holders bought it last year and are down 30-70%. The people who post on HN are very much outliers, having known about Bitcoin for a decade. The real retail volume in 2021 came from relatively uninformed people buying their first crypto.
Also, there are the publicly listed corporate whales. Tesla has 42,000 Bitcoins bought at an average price of $31,620. MicroStrategy has over 130,000 Bitcoins bought at an average price around $30k as well.
Public company accounting standards require these companies to mark down their crypto holdings regularly, so it seems that Tesla will be booking a roughly $420M loss for the past quarter, and MSTR has lost a whopping $1.3 billion. (I'm sure Musk appreciates that the loss is close to 420 though, even if Tesla shareholders don't.)
Apparently, the average investor's position for BTC in Coinbase is around 21k, per some Mizuho survey: https://www.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/survey-show.... So, many folks are underwater on their so-called 'investment'.
Average is generally a poor way of approximating monetary distributions. If 6 people buy in at 15k and 1 person buys in at 60k they average to 21.5k.
That said, clearly a lot of people are underwater.
That said, clearly a lot of people are underwater.
It was the only data point I could find, but fair point. I amended my comment for pedantic's sake :)
One bitcoin could be worth $20 or $200 000 in one year.
Which is just one of the reasons why it's a bad store of value or medium of exchange.
Which is just one of the reasons why it's a bad store of value or medium of exchange.
To be fair, that property made it great for people selling get-rich-quick scams and the people falling for them. A few people did get rich, pay no attention to the vast majority who lost money.
> So there are still huge paper losses, but I doubt that many bought in at just 20+k.
I mean, ~everyone who believed the crypto ads that the article is about did, for a start.
I would assume it's far from done unravelling yet, though. Another dubious crypto HYIP seems to go under every few days at the moment.
I mean, ~everyone who believed the crypto ads that the article is about did, for a start.
I would assume it's far from done unravelling yet, though. Another dubious crypto HYIP seems to go under every few days at the moment.
That's good then. Good to not be causing a housing crunch.
If you do not recognise that there is value in decentralised, self-sovereign, permissionless, censorship resistant, anonymous, Internet native money then you are retarded.
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. You can't do that on HN, regardless of how wrong others are or you feel they are.
Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
OMG nothing of value was lost. Now I can even invite my crypto nephew to Thanksgiving this year.
But the guy who wrote the article is sure ad spend on crypto is coming back.
Maybe not. Most of crypto works like a Ponzi scheme. Gains to early investors come from later investors. Eventually, you run out of suckers. We're there.
Last 24 hours:
- Someone pulled another $160 million out of USDT. Look at their market cap graph for the last 3 months. Every few days, somebody pulls out another $100 million+ amount. Pretty soon you're talking about real money.[1]
- Vauld went bust.[2]
- The Celsius collapse is affecting Aave and MakerDAO.[3]
All those "staking" schemes are based entirely on a "line goes up" assumption. All they are doing is feeding funds into some speculation.
[1] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/tether/
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31974146
[3] https://cointelegraph.com/news/maker-cuts-off-aave-s-dai-sup...
Maybe not. Most of crypto works like a Ponzi scheme. Gains to early investors come from later investors. Eventually, you run out of suckers. We're there.
Last 24 hours:
- Someone pulled another $160 million out of USDT. Look at their market cap graph for the last 3 months. Every few days, somebody pulls out another $100 million+ amount. Pretty soon you're talking about real money.[1]
- Vauld went bust.[2]
- The Celsius collapse is affecting Aave and MakerDAO.[3]
All those "staking" schemes are based entirely on a "line goes up" assumption. All they are doing is feeding funds into some speculation.
[1] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/tether/
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31974146
[3] https://cointelegraph.com/news/maker-cuts-off-aave-s-dai-sup...
Watching the USDT market cap is like watching a bomb counting down but now knowing where "0" is.
I wonder what the remaining USDT holders are waiting for? Is it just the market isn't liquid enough to pull out more than $100M/day?
Tether is not regulated or licensed by any body AFAIK so they aren’t required to process payment requests with any sort or timeliness. lul
Same with the unlicensed and unregulated exchanges that they do business with. You want out? Take a number and get in line.
Same with the unlicensed and unregulated exchanges that they do business with. You want out? Take a number and get in line.
So basically tether is just hoping by dragging their feet that btc will recover in price and their embezzlement won’t be exposed?
If I had a large amount of USDT I would get out right now and wait for things to settle down. There’s no upside, it’s all downside right now.
If I had a large amount of USDT I would get out right now and wait for things to settle down. There’s no upside, it’s all downside right now.
I think people overuse the phrase "Ponzi scheme". You could argue that most stocks are Ponzi schemes. I haven't seen a damn dime from some companies.
Long story there. It's an artifact of bankruptcy and tax law.
A company exists to pay dividends, and its value is the present value of all future dividends. That's the classic view, and it was the normal pattern for companies until the 1970s or so.
Two things changed. One, bankruptcy became less painful. "Secured creditors" became a more general concept. This meant that banks and bondholders moved up in priority, at the expense of unpaid vendors, customers with deposits, and others who never wanted to lend money in the first place. This paved the way for Michael Milken and the junk bond industry.
Second, interest and principal payments on debt are not taxed, while dividends are. This makes debt more attractive than equity as a means of obtaining capital. A high-interest loan with the strong possibility of bankruptcy is effectively an equity investment but is taxed as a debt.
This combination has warped capital markets out of shape. It's why there's "private equity", which is essentially a leveraged buyout. It's what powered the financialization of everything.
A company exists to pay dividends, and its value is the present value of all future dividends. That's the classic view, and it was the normal pattern for companies until the 1970s or so.
Two things changed. One, bankruptcy became less painful. "Secured creditors" became a more general concept. This meant that banks and bondholders moved up in priority, at the expense of unpaid vendors, customers with deposits, and others who never wanted to lend money in the first place. This paved the way for Michael Milken and the junk bond industry.
Second, interest and principal payments on debt are not taxed, while dividends are. This makes debt more attractive than equity as a means of obtaining capital. A high-interest loan with the strong possibility of bankruptcy is effectively an equity investment but is taxed as a debt.
This combination has warped capital markets out of shape. It's why there's "private equity", which is essentially a leveraged buyout. It's what powered the financialization of everything.
All things being equal, a company that doesn't pay a dividend, made $10B last year and $11B this year is worth more than it was a year ago because it could pay a dividend, or it could sell, or it could liquidate. There are ways to get money, even if the shares have no buyers.
Or another way, if AAPL went to $0 and I bought up all the shares, it still prints money, and I could tell the board I want a dividend. It has some amount of intrinsic value in extreme situations. If I own all of some cryptocurrency (and maybe I do!), there's no way to extract value without finding a sucker to sell to.
Or another way, if AAPL went to $0 and I bought up all the shares, it still prints money, and I could tell the board I want a dividend. It has some amount of intrinsic value in extreme situations. If I own all of some cryptocurrency (and maybe I do!), there's no way to extract value without finding a sucker to sell to.
A friendly reminder that crypto is negative-sum. If everyone who has taken money out returns it to everyone who has put money in, then there's a net loss.
Why? Because money was taken out to pay the electric companies for mining, to the tune of 10-20Bn so far.
Has that money generated real returns anywhere? Nope. Nothing was manufactured, created, or improved.
The sum is negative. All past and present holders of crypto, on net, are down 20bn -- and havent yet realised it.
Why? Because money was taken out to pay the electric companies for mining, to the tune of 10-20Bn so far.
Has that money generated real returns anywhere? Nope. Nothing was manufactured, created, or improved.
The sum is negative. All past and present holders of crypto, on net, are down 20bn -- and havent yet realised it.
I think there is some net utility cryptocurrency provides as a means of payment, but the cryptocurrency "community" has largely veered away from that narrative since bitcoin and others have butted heads with their transaction volume issues.
What is Ethereum, chopped liver?
Those that disagreed with the small block Bitcoin plutocrats moved to other projects, mainly Ethereum.
Those that disagreed with the small block Bitcoin plutocrats moved to other projects, mainly Ethereum.
If I buy Monero using dollars and use the Monero to transact anonymously, what have I lost without realizing it?
What did you buy with that Monero?
Sure, if you can exchange coins for goods consistently, then the value of that basket of goods is the value of the coin.
ie., take a BTC and go to every store, across the economy, and exchange it for goods. Do that until you've spent all the BTC. Divide by the number of BTC, and that's a reasonable estimate of the value.
However, since you can't do that... and, indeed, doing anything even remotely similar would immedaitely crash the price... there's no basis on which to value crypto. There doesnt seem any rational basis on which anyone would trade 1 BTC (etc.) for anything.
The only reason BTC has a nominal price is that it can't actually be consistenly exchanged, by holders, for goods; and holders are strongly discouraged from doing so by its deflationary design.
Were such opporunities actually presented, tomorrow 1BTC would buy a car, next week a vodka, the week after a pack of gum
Sure, if you can exchange coins for goods consistently, then the value of that basket of goods is the value of the coin.
ie., take a BTC and go to every store, across the economy, and exchange it for goods. Do that until you've spent all the BTC. Divide by the number of BTC, and that's a reasonable estimate of the value.
However, since you can't do that... and, indeed, doing anything even remotely similar would immedaitely crash the price... there's no basis on which to value crypto. There doesnt seem any rational basis on which anyone would trade 1 BTC (etc.) for anything.
The only reason BTC has a nominal price is that it can't actually be consistenly exchanged, by holders, for goods; and holders are strongly discouraged from doing so by its deflationary design.
Were such opporunities actually presented, tomorrow 1BTC would buy a car, next week a vodka, the week after a pack of gum
I don't think it's a fair comparison. monero (and almost every other modern cryptocurrency) has reasonable fees due to its dynamic blocksize.
Additionally, the tokenomics of monero are somewhat inflationary as of last month, they've activated a constant block reward.
The development of BTC as a payment system are very complicated. There was a long period from 2017 where you've had two competing mechanisms for low-fee payments: BCH (Bitcoin Cash, fork to increase blocksize), and BTC-LN (Bitcoin Lightning network, gossip network of multisig accounts). This really fragmented the userbase and slowed down BTC's adoption as a payment system.
I'm not saying comparisons to BTC are meaningless, I'm just saying that BTC is a bad example of a "typical cryptocurrency".
Additionally, the tokenomics of monero are somewhat inflationary as of last month, they've activated a constant block reward.
The development of BTC as a payment system are very complicated. There was a long period from 2017 where you've had two competing mechanisms for low-fee payments: BCH (Bitcoin Cash, fork to increase blocksize), and BTC-LN (Bitcoin Lightning network, gossip network of multisig accounts). This really fragmented the userbase and slowed down BTC's adoption as a payment system.
I'm not saying comparisons to BTC are meaningless, I'm just saying that BTC is a bad example of a "typical cryptocurrency".
As much as I like XMR, you have to admit that you are still paying the (albeit very competitive and CPU-based) miners for verifying your transaction, in both the transaction fee and inflation due to tail emission.
Not to mention all the wasted efforts from all laborers and services employed by all of the companies chasing unproductive financial returns in this space.
Security has a price. As a side, the alt-coins that are purely proof of stake use little energy vs Bitcoin.
>from $3 trillion to roughly $900 billion, and analysts predict the meltdown will continue.
It's even worse than that. The $900 billion is about 20% stable coins.
It's even worse than that. The $900 billion is about 20% stable coins.
Of which one stablecoin that everybody knows is very unreliable is still alive and well. That's very likely to collapse too soon imo.
Rumors are swirling about USDC via Silvergate bank as well, which would be tragic and take down DAI too
The way DAI has been explained to me, this is not likely to happen unless USDC transactions are frozen entirely. Otherwise there's just going to be a flood of USDC collateral liquidations from DAI.
Yes that’s true, DAI should be able to handle mass liquidations very well. MIM has, and is similar technology
If USDC exchange rate fell due to crisis of confidence, liquidations will occur fine.
If USDC exchange rate fell due to crisis of confidence, liquidations will occur fine.
Patiently waiting for the Superbowl Ad where a monkey rides a horse through a wasteland of abandoned company offices with "-inance" and "crypto-" names. (https://youtu.be/ONZFkqzuMjI)
Will the meme economy destabilise the economy? Millions speculating on all types of shares and exotic investments.
As discussed in another post, news move faster than ever. Would not you like to be the next early investor in a successful trend. You don't need to care of "the thing" has value or not, you just need to sell the hot potato before it burns you.
One possible learning use the cryptocurrencies were a bad investment and a cost to the planet. Another one is that unregulated markets are good for early investors. Don't let stop you that probably when you hear about it it's already too late.
I do not know if the "real economy" will be same to handle this big bags of money that go as fast as they came. (Ads, GPUs, energy, ...)
As discussed in another post, news move faster than ever. Would not you like to be the next early investor in a successful trend. You don't need to care of "the thing" has value or not, you just need to sell the hot potato before it burns you.
One possible learning use the cryptocurrencies were a bad investment and a cost to the planet. Another one is that unregulated markets are good for early investors. Don't let stop you that probably when you hear about it it's already too late.
I do not know if the "real economy" will be same to handle this big bags of money that go as fast as they came. (Ads, GPUs, energy, ...)
My sincere hope is that this signals the death of crypto in popular culture. I'm sure it'll always have a niche but up until now and for the foreseeable future there aren't any actual useful mass use cases for crypto.
The drop in crypto ad spend is an interesting (and meaningful) indicator of market sentiment. I'm thinking we won't be seeing 2023 Superbowl crypto.com ads. I could be wrong.
There's what? 20,000 coins? Most of them will die in the short term if they haven't already.
So I don't know if Bitcoin will continue crashing or stabilize. No one does. If they did they'd make a ton of money. In the very least I'd bet the bear market will continue for awhile but at some point Bitcoin or some successor will roar back to life.
The drop in crypto ad spend is an interesting (and meaningful) indicator of market sentiment. I'm thinking we won't be seeing 2023 Superbowl crypto.com ads. I could be wrong.
There's what? 20,000 coins? Most of them will die in the short term if they haven't already.
So I don't know if Bitcoin will continue crashing or stabilize. No one does. If they did they'd make a ton of money. In the very least I'd bet the bear market will continue for awhile but at some point Bitcoin or some successor will roar back to life.
If anything, the crypto craziness ensured that most governments create some secure non-discriminating money transfer system. I just hope more people getting scammed isn't necessary for those systems to get integrated internationally.
>“Crypto advertisers were quick to reign in ad spending...
I've been seeing this misspelling a lot lately. It's "rein in," as in causing a horse to slow down by pulling back on the reins.
I've been seeing this misspelling a lot lately. It's "rein in," as in causing a horse to slow down by pulling back on the reins.
When I first saw things like “crypto.com” on a big football team’s jersey, a stadium name
or in F1, I knew it was only a matter of time until it all came crashing down.
I can’t believe I’m longing back to the days when it was gambling and petroligarchs instead.
I can’t believe I’m longing back to the days when it was gambling and petroligarchs instead.
Reminds me of a classic story about uber-banker JP Morgan getting stock questions from his shoe-shine boy, and so deciding to sell all stock sensing a crash was coming.
His reasoning was that if even the shoe-shine boy was buying stock, the market was saturated and had no-where to go but down.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/5273325-j-p-morgan-tells-th...
His reasoning was that if even the shoe-shine boy was buying stock, the market was saturated and had no-where to go but down.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/5273325-j-p-morgan-tells-th...
Curious how long the crypto.com arena will stay with that name, one year into the naming rights lease…
The arenas were smart and got their money up front, in dollars. If crypto.com goes under the naming rights becomes collateral and can be auctioned off. And it’s in LA no shortage of buyers willing to take over that name.
Usually it sticks until someone pays to rename it.
WaMu Theater in Seattle is still called that even though WaMu went under during the financial crisis. (Though now it stands for Washington Music.)
WaMu Theater in Seattle is still called that even though WaMu went under during the financial crisis. (Though now it stands for Washington Music.)
Terra/Luna made a 40 million dollar deal (cash up front) for 5 years of advertising with the Washington Nationals this February. The Nationals played 23 home games before they imploded.
[deleted]
I'm confused. What were the non-cryptocurrency "crypto" "companies" advertising anyway? This hardly applies to actual cryptocurrency which has never needed or had a use for advertising. No one advertises for the dollar or euro for obvious reasons. It seems to only apply to the finance-origin scams that rebranded themselves with the word "crypto" as camouflage for scamming the ignorant. And since the fiat valuation of actual cryptocurrencies is driven by the ignorant the relative value went down there too. But the fundementals, the operation of say, bitcoin, hasn't been effected at all. This is all off-chain BS.
The article is quite repetitive so I may have missed it, but does it explain the impact on advertising as a whole? Advertising for crypto surely has taken a hit, but has this "created an advertising vacuum" or removed a very small percentage over overall ad spend, in a category that many publishers didn't want to touch anyways?
> Don’t expect to see many crypto ads for a minute
"I haven't seen him for a minute"
"I haven't been home for a minute"
If you're wondering like me why everyone started saying "for a minute" and where it came from, I recently watched The Wire and that's the earliest use I know about.
When I was growing up in America, people said they "had to stand in line" but now they say "had to stand on line"
I believe "stand on" instead of "stand in" comes from Britain
"I haven't seen him for a minute"
"I haven't been home for a minute"
If you're wondering like me why everyone started saying "for a minute" and where it came from, I recently watched The Wire and that's the earliest use I know about.
When I was growing up in America, people said they "had to stand in line" but now they say "had to stand on line"
I believe "stand on" instead of "stand in" comes from Britain
> When I was growing up in America, people said they "had to stand in line" but now they say "had to stand on line"
Is this a generational/regional thing? I'm an East Coast millennial and I never hear people say "stand on line."
The "in a minute" example I believe comes from AAVE, if it was present in The Wire it was probably common in the Baltimore lexicon long before that show hit HBO.
Is this a generational/regional thing? I'm an East Coast millennial and I never hear people say "stand on line."
The "in a minute" example I believe comes from AAVE, if it was present in The Wire it was probably common in the Baltimore lexicon long before that show hit HBO.
From Juba to Jive[0]: "In a minute (1980s-1990s) in the future, perhaps a month from the time said, but not immediately. (Southern city use)"
[0] - Juba to Jive edited by Clarence Major
[0] - Juba to Jive edited by Clarence Major
Fascinating. My white bread daughter who lives in the Sierra Nevada mountains used the term the other day with me on the phone so I know it's arrived
https://www.amazon.com/Juba-Jive-Dictionary-African-American...
https://www.amazon.com/Juba-Jive-Dictionary-African-American...
For those wondering like me, AAVE is "African American Vernacular Language"
This is a case where I wish the person that downvoted me would leave a comment. What did I do wrong?
The E in AAVE is English not Language.
In Britain we 'queue', or 'join a queue'. So wherever 'stand on line' started, it wasn't us!
“on” is a new yorker thing. Did you move to the northeast?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/is-it-on-line-...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/is-it-on-line-...
No, I've lived in California my whole life. I figured "on" came from the East, but I've only heard it British shows. I've also picked up a term I really like from the Brits (I think it's them): "get things sorted", "get it sorted"
perhaps some of ours came west :)
We don't have as many East Coasters as Los Angeles, but yes that's true.
Bitcoin has been dropping about 10k per month the last few months. The next big 10k drop should come around the middle of July, and in August I predict the price will be in the low thousands.
I'm also bearish on crypto, but by that logic it will be at -10k three months from now.
That's when I plan to buy as much as possible.
Given the infrastructural overhead is not reusable as a bank or even a mint would be, this seems possible. "Deal with disposing of my mining rig and you can have whatever's left in the account."
That would be an amazing price entry!
right now the decline still seems to be at a constant rate
Yes, but extrapolating current behavior to the future is risky, especially when just extended a bit further the result is obviously ridiculous-- like a large negative price.
Yea but not a constant percentage. A 50% in a month drop is much different than 10% drop of a much higher prices asset.
Anyway i would bet 2 bitcoin that it will not be down another ten thousand in a month. However im not aware of any escrow that would hold btc for one party and usd for the other as im sure you don’t want to bet in btc if you think that asset is dropping. Not without using some derivatives on eth that I don’t trust anyway.
Anyway i would bet 2 bitcoin that it will not be down another ten thousand in a month. However im not aware of any escrow that would hold btc for one party and usd for the other as im sure you don’t want to bet in btc if you think that asset is dropping. Not without using some derivatives on eth that I don’t trust anyway.
You can do this with a smart contract if you're willing to be exposed to wbtc and a stablecoin of your choice.
I wouldn't take the other side of this bet though, I'm long-term bearish BTC, but I don't think it will drop below $10,000 this month
I wouldn't take the other side of this bet though, I'm long-term bearish BTC, but I don't think it will drop below $10,000 this month
It’s actually dropping by an increasing percentage each time. There is a clear path for Bitcoin being worth pennies.
Sigmoids look pretty linear at some points, right?
At 5,000 you are back to fanboy 2018 holdings who won't sell.. this group is much bigger now
The hedge funds and large funds listed have retreated. This category will go lower but jump in when the bottom hits.
We could drop another 10,000 but I doubt it unless there a whale who stop believing and are part of selling off?
The hedge funds and large funds listed have retreated. This category will go lower but jump in when the bottom hits.
We could drop another 10,000 but I doubt it unless there a whale who stop believing and are part of selling off?
> At 5,000 you are back to fanboy 2018 holdings who won't sell.. this group is much bigger now
Aren't there more bitcoins in circulation now than in 2018? I know it's not a ton more, but if BTC drops to the same market cap as in 2018, the price of each coin will actually be less than $5000.
Aren't there more bitcoins in circulation now than in 2018? I know it's not a ton more, but if BTC drops to the same market cap as in 2018, the price of each coin will actually be less than $5000.
We’re learning how much leverage went into puffing up the crypto bubble. Bond yields go up, loans get called, crypto fire sale. The Fed meets last week July, if they telegraph another monster hike (looks likely, but they might lose their nerve) it’s gonna another crypto bloodbath.
I mean crypto is just the most risky asset. You are seeing this in everything just look at tech stocks. But everyone on here wants to act like crypto is some malicious actor for whatever reason instead of realizing it just has much smaller volume.
It's not merely smaller volume: it's got no fundamentals whatsoever. It is the purest incarnation of "the value is what people will pay for it."
Own stocks? If the company tanks, they still have assets to liquidate.
Own foreign currencies? People still have to pay their taxes in those, so there's always some market for them.
Own Bitcoin? Once people stop believing it'll go to the moon, there's no reason to own it for 99.9% of people (and the reasons the remaining 0.1% want it are antithetical to a functioning and economically healthy society).
Own stocks? If the company tanks, they still have assets to liquidate.
Own foreign currencies? People still have to pay their taxes in those, so there's always some market for them.
Own Bitcoin? Once people stop believing it'll go to the moon, there's no reason to own it for 99.9% of people (and the reasons the remaining 0.1% want it are antithetical to a functioning and economically healthy society).
Wanting to sidestep banks when doing business is antithetical to a functioning and economically healthy society?
Fourteen years ago a good deal of those banks crashed the world economy but are still around because governments decided that their immense loses had to be socialized using taxpayer money. Not my definition of economical healthy.
Before the advent of altcoins and before the fees skyrocketed people were using BTC to pay for stuff. A network that can facilitate this has value. What that value is is a matter of debate, just like it's debatable whether Tesla should be worth ten times as much as Volkswagen.
Any crypto that survives in the long term and will facilitate near-instant global payments at minuscule costs without middlemen will have enough value for a lot of people to want to have it.
Fourteen years ago a good deal of those banks crashed the world economy but are still around because governments decided that their immense loses had to be socialized using taxpayer money. Not my definition of economical healthy.
Before the advent of altcoins and before the fees skyrocketed people were using BTC to pay for stuff. A network that can facilitate this has value. What that value is is a matter of debate, just like it's debatable whether Tesla should be worth ten times as much as Volkswagen.
Any crypto that survives in the long term and will facilitate near-instant global payments at minuscule costs without middlemen will have enough value for a lot of people to want to have it.
When some of the systems that keep our society functioning smoothly are becoming damaged or corrupted, the correct response is not to throw the whole thing out and say "we're the tech world, we're really smart; we can just create our own systems that don't have to interact with governments in any way, and do it better than they did! (Plus, since we're the ones on the ground floor/running the show, we can make a boatload of money for ourselves!)"
Because the result of that is entirely predictable, and has, in fact, been playing out over the last few years, with the crypto world, as many people have described, "learning 200 years' worth of lessons in how economies and finance really work compressed into a decade."
No; the right answer is to take up our collective responsibility and work together to fix those systems so they serve everyone again (or possibly for the first time; YMMV), rather than replacing one elite with another.
Because the result of that is entirely predictable, and has, in fact, been playing out over the last few years, with the crypto world, as many people have described, "learning 200 years' worth of lessons in how economies and finance really work compressed into a decade."
No; the right answer is to take up our collective responsibility and work together to fix those systems so they serve everyone again (or possibly for the first time; YMMV), rather than replacing one elite with another.
many of the same people who railed against crypto (eg buffet) also railed against high PE stocks with no profitability in sight.
What another monster hike? Fed did only tiny 0.75 percent point increase in interest rate to 1.5%-1.75%. Inflation is 8.6%. Right interest rate hike would be 7 percent point.
In my mind anything more than 5 bucks is a lot for a currency you cannot buy anything with.
Crypto in theory shouldn't require any advertising.
Could this be the link that ties the shitcoins to the main economy? Advertising? That would be very ironic, given that a lot of tech today is based on ads. It is especially ironic that it appears that FB and GOOG (and so many other free apps) may have been quietly propped up by crypto money.
The % of all ads devoted to crypto surely must be a trivial %
Alexa, search for how to buy a really tiny violin with cryptocurrency.
I mean, good.
In Dublin, for a few weeks, seemingly half the buses had ads for something called Floki Coin, which was, and I can't believe I'm typing this, named after Elon Musk's dog. Everyone, _everyone_, who saw those ads and bought in would have lost money. Lost everything, if they'd stayed in.
(Ultimately, a complaint against the ads was upheld, but by then it was far too late: https://www.businesspost.ie/news/asai-upholds-complaints-aga...)
The world would be a better place with no cryptocurrency ads.
In Dublin, for a few weeks, seemingly half the buses had ads for something called Floki Coin, which was, and I can't believe I'm typing this, named after Elon Musk's dog. Everyone, _everyone_, who saw those ads and bought in would have lost money. Lost everything, if they'd stayed in.
(Ultimately, a complaint against the ads was upheld, but by then it was far too late: https://www.businesspost.ie/news/asai-upholds-complaints-aga...)
The world would be a better place with no cryptocurrency ads.
† "Crypto" as in "cryptocurrency" and not "cryptography".
(Some of us have more interest in one than the other.)
(Some of us have more interest in one than the other.)
There's something interesting about to happen. On July 6th, Otherside, the Bored Ape Yacht Club's metaverse, will have a load test. Everybody who bought NFTs for land in their metaverse gets to try to log in. The whole system is supposed to go live in mid-July.
Yuga Labs outsourced their metaverse to Animoca Brands and Improbable. Improbable has been working on scaling technology for very large multiplayer games for years. There have been working games (Worlds Adrift, Scavengers) using their technology. It does seem to work, although game devs say it's a pain to use.
But it's very expensive to run, because it requires a lot of servers and large amounts of communication between them to coordinate a big world with tens of thousands of players in one space. Originally it had to be run on Google's "cloud", and the game operator paid for every event that went to the servers. Three indy free to play games, and one rather nice-looking world (Nostos) from China, went live, got users, and went broke. Lesson: free to play not compatible with the server cost of this approach.
Otherside/BAYC is all people with lots of spending money. They all paid at least US$3000 to get in. Some paid much more. None of that "inclusive" stuff. So they've paid for the operating cost.
It's extroverted people; BAYC runs raves for them. It's people into FOMO. That's a very attractive customer pool to advertisers.
Yuga Labs outsourced their metaverse to Animoca Brands and Improbable. Improbable has been working on scaling technology for very large multiplayer games for years. There have been working games (Worlds Adrift, Scavengers) using their technology. It does seem to work, although game devs say it's a pain to use.
But it's very expensive to run, because it requires a lot of servers and large amounts of communication between them to coordinate a big world with tens of thousands of players in one space. Originally it had to be run on Google's "cloud", and the game operator paid for every event that went to the servers. Three indy free to play games, and one rather nice-looking world (Nostos) from China, went live, got users, and went broke. Lesson: free to play not compatible with the server cost of this approach.
Otherside/BAYC is all people with lots of spending money. They all paid at least US$3000 to get in. Some paid much more. None of that "inclusive" stuff. So they've paid for the operating cost.
It's extroverted people; BAYC runs raves for them. It's people into FOMO. That's a very attractive customer pool to advertisers.
Seriously, during other crashes, I remember thinking of the real negative externalities that happened during the crash, e.g. many economists have drawn lines to the current housing supply crunch due to underinvestment after the Great Recession.
I don't feel any of that now. I primarily feel that a bunch of grifter scams are finally getting washed away, and then what you're left with are products that are searching for use cases where they aren't worse in every way than currently available products.