imustbeevil

Like most financial schemes, it really has nothing to do with the crypto, other than that it would be illegal to operate platforms like this with real money, since we created regulations decades ago to protect people from this.

You're the one complaining about the last few months of increased negative articles. If you cannot see the connection between the frequency of negative articles and the price of Bitcoin, then I'm sorry but I don't know how to communicate in braille.

When the price goes up, people are happy and write happy articles. When the price goes down, people are sad and write sad articles. How that actually happens is that, the people writing the happy and sad articles are different groups of people who each wait for the price to do what they need it to justify their position.

The price is down, so it justifies negative positions. When the price is up in ~3 years, there will be more people writing happy articles. When that happens I won't think they've all been paid to (even though it is obviously more likely that the group selling something has financial interest in promoting it).

Some people slack off at work. Some people slack off more at work if they're at home. If your management team isn't exclusively sourced through nepotism, they should be competent enough to track output and know who needs to be in the office or not. Sending everyone back to the office is admitting that the managers/executives are so hopelessly incompetent at knowing which of their employees actually does the work, that the only way they can get anything done is to hide the unproductive people in teams with the productive people.

The point of the original comment was that they were happy not to invest. You disagreed. I attempted to explain how someone could be happy despite forgoing short term returns; mainly that the process by which you make those short term returns will produce long term losses.

Yours might be. Happiness in general is about your personal narrative of reality. I'm happier than you are to have not invested in Bitcoin 10 years ago, because I thought it was a bad idea then. I'm not unhappy at the fake money I didn't gain, because I have more exciting fantasies than that. Being unhappy that you didn't win a coin flip sounds like a pretty unfortunate way to structure the narrative of your life.

> It's the opposite. It was bad fortune, as if he had been (according to him) more ignorant he may have invested in bitcoin (even if it was a bad decision), and he would have made a lot of money with such investment.

Or they might have invested in any of the periods where it went down, or in any of the exchanges or coins that collapsed, or gotten too much money too early in their life to develop the skills necessary to make it last. The problem with romanticizing some alternative past is that it's literally just fiction.

Investments are made against Expected Value. The goal is to have enough money to always be making more. Over a long time horizon, you need the probability of gain to be greater than the probability of loss, otherwise in an infinite game you will always run to 0. Engaging in gambling, as defined by Expected Value being less than Principle, is not a possible action for a rational actor interested in keeping their money forever.

You're looking at Bitcoin today like the game is over, like you bought 10 years ago and sell at $20K. What is your selling thesis? What made you buy 10 years ago that allows you to sell today? Or is it more likely that you'd keep holding? What are the probabilities of gain or loss over the next 10 years? 20? All investors see is a financial instrument with no backing, facilitating services we already have, at higher cost than existing solutions.

That's exactly the point. Most investors are happy to not have gambled on cryptocurrency over the last 10 years. That's why their money is in USD and not Casino Chips. You're only looking at the outcome. You don't control the outcome. What you control is your methodology for your deployment of capital.

If you regret not investing in Bitcoin because you've established some new thesis, then now is the time to employ that thesis. But if you regret not gambling because someone else hit 00 and got 35 to 1, that's not investing.

Yes, you could have bought Amazon stock in 2001. But if you're trying to judge rational investment strategy, 3 years of most people losing money sounds like a pretty significant figure.

For reference, the S&P (boring market index) 3 year return is +50%.

https://www.statmuse.com/money/ask/what%27s+the+median+price...

https://ycharts.com/indicators/sp_500_3_year_return

In the context of "using leverage to provide better than expected returns in a Bull market", someone can buy TQQQ, securitize/create derivative (this is exclusively what crypto does) that returns 1.5 times the NASDAQ, sell you that derivative, and if the NASDAQ goes up 5% (TQQQ 15%) you get 7.5% and they get 7.5% (and your money).

If it goes down, you lose everything and they keep the money you gave them.

Of course, that sounds stupid as hell and you'd certainly hope that someone thought of something better, but this is exactly what happened with Terra/LUNA, except with more financial engineering to obfuscate the "if it goes down 25% we're fucked".

No one is saying "no one is slacking at home". Individuals who don't slack at home are saying "I don't slack at home, and I don't want to be weird tangent punished for your other incompetent employees. If they aren't doing their jobs fire them, I'm not going back, and I'm worth more to your company than you are to me."

Or, just to be devils advocate, maybe people just want better regulation and not authoritarianism or totalitarianism.

Even if someone is so stupid that they design a Stablecoin backed by leverage that fails if the market goes down 20%, that is malice by negligence, because that stupid person should know that they do not have the capabilities to produce what they are promoting to people. If they are doing harm to society they must be stopped; motive is really not important.

In Poker, especially in tournaments but over time in cash games as well, there will necessarily be more losers than winners. That's a fine outcome for a competitive environment, and a terrible outcome for an economic one. And because placement is based on willingness to play at certain stakes instead of skill rating, the entire system is designed to mismatch the skill of the participants over the long term.

Betting on probabilities is an entertaining way to adjust levels of confidence to reality. I just don't really like the idea of promoting gambling to children.

If Poker was a good competitive game, there would be an ELO system and people would play because they care about their skill ranking more than they care about gambling. There's a reason you aren't required to wager real money for every League of Legends or Valorant match you play.

Poker is an economic scheme where the House and the Sharks work together to lure people with real jobs into unfair competition / gambling with bad odds.

Are you aware of the search feature? Or are you wondering why people aren't talking about something tangential in this thread specifically?

People talk about YC companies all the time. There is no weighting, no one flagging posts about YC companies. Most people here aren't part of YC, we have no reason to give them any more leeway than anyone else. The main reason no one in a random cryptocurrency thread is talking about one random cryptocurrency company is because that company is not a significant part of the industry, and no one except the people getting Goxxed even know it exists.

Anywhere that it is legal, it is significantly easier than dealing with any blockchain. What you've stumbled upon is the reality that the only feature cryptocurrencies provide is opaque law enforcement, and that feature has a timer. Why would it be any easier for a blockchain to be licensed in multiple jurisdictions? The only difference is that the blockchains are almost definitely not licensed. I'm not sure what the statute of limitations is, but I feel like a blockchain holding accounts of illegal gambling is a pretty weird thing to want to create immutable records of, unless you're the FBI.

Most people on your team aren't listening to every conversation everyone else ever has. You should be documenting all meaningful communication for your project, regardless of remote availability.

It's the opposite. No real game developer would ever make assets tied to NFTs that have already been sold because they can't make any profit from that. The only thing the NFT provides is transferability, which most game developers also wouldn't want to support. The company makes more money if all consumers have to buy the same items separately. They build in scarcity by removing transferability.

Some companies might use NFTs to sell things no one would buy otherwise (like Disney selling pictures of R2D2), but that's pretty much the only use case for them.

> Those in the lowest fifth in terms of socioeconomic status (SES) had the “highest rate of lottery gambling (61%) and the highest mean level of days gambled in the past year (26.1 days).

The wealthy people are the ones selling the lottery tickets (/crypto).

https://journalistsresource.org/economics/research-review-lo...