So why not just buy the shares? The only possible reason to sell them is to allow yourself to print shares you don’t own and scam people.
Microsoft loses because all of that investment activity does nothing to help their valuation, but the middlemen in the crypto market take their share on each transaction.
This is just a different kind of middlemen with different trade-offs.
IE, if you buy and sell stocks on ETrade, most of the time the ownership with the dow doesn't change, instead the ownership within ETrade's database changes.
Because it safeguards against fraud and tax evasion.
> Paying 2-5$ fees on trades seem backwards this day and age.
Many brokerages don’t charge for buying or selling stock. They make their money elsewhere, likely with contracts on calls/puts. But to your point, having to pay a variable rate fee for moving my Ethereum from one wallet I own to another wallet I own also seems silly. I’m certain though that in both cases the charges cover the maintenance costs to keep the platform going. Everything comes at a cost.
The real-time trading independent of brokerages, the free information flow of trading volume/direction etc. all benefits and a true, real free market. Right now we have mountain of unneeded intermediaries, that sit and cash in on the data and access.
But complexities of any new system aside, what is an example of a cashing in of an unneeded example in terms of an activity?
Examples for cashing in: payment for order flow (was recently banned in the EU). They litterally sold their trading data of retail clients for money.
Not sure how you think brokers make money, but they get kickbacks from market makers and fund providers, or simply higher spreads. No one works for free.
Payment for order: what data was sold (or do you mean the orders as data)?
You mean broker as in a pure broker, not broker-dealer?
What about policing algorithms, for example? Who'd do that and how?
Who provides liquidity? Just natural supply and demand?
Sorry, I thought you just had some idea about basic financial services.
There's a lot of technical and other issues with blockchains, but framed as "a single shared database that allows stored procedures and shared data types, with no central owner" I'd hope devs here could see something interesting to mess about with there. If it wasn't for the fact that "a currency" is absurdly easy to make and then there was a lot of quick money to be made or lost, I think it'd be liked more as an odd shared network.
If nothing else, there's some interesting programming challenges involved given the compute limits.
I say that so definitive because there is no reason at all to do this other than avoiding the existing banking system.
For the issuer, same playbook on how stables issuers print money - you get cash that you can put into treasuries to earn “free” yield on. Works as long as rates aren’t zero.