I doubt it. Chinese system only works when they are playing catch up. There is no incentive for being a pioneer in a culture where IP is not protected. The system doesn't work when they need to push above everyone else.
It may be a big revenue business but margins are extremely thin. That's one of the reasons why there hasn't been much innovation. Amazon could be a different story, but the virtue of brokering a standard product is same as retailing a barcoded product. It's the same marketplace story. If Amazon is interested, it's not for the money but for an opportunity to own an important platform in the logistics industry.
Uber can't make money from taxi service. It's trying to mimic Amazon model where profit comes from subsidiary service. Uber is yet to find such thing. Without valid profit source I don't understand how SEC approves an IPO for a license to suck away average joe investment. Uber is walking a very thin line between being a hoax and a business.
Paying is the easiest way to acquire a user. If you can't retain, that's a product problem. There is no need to rule out paying to acquire a user. What author probably meant is that you don't spend on marketing unless ROI is proven. That's a whole lot different than saying "don't pay to acquire first users."
Given $8bn valuation, I think Qualtrics is spending heavily on marketing which keeps their net profit low. I think their operating margin is near 50% (being a software company it is possible), which means about $200mm in operating income. If their growth rate is expected to remain at the same level (40%) for the next two years, $8bn valuation can be justified. It's hard to know whether this is the case, but seems likely.
Similar case in the rates world is LIBOR fixing. It's an outdated scheme that managed to escape regulatory attention for a very long time. By design there is a trust issue yet so much of the global financial system depended upon it. I have left finance years ago, but there was a movement to move away from LIBOR as funding index. I'm not sure if that ever happened.
central bank scheme is not perfect. however central bank has proven to be very effective at providing stability to currency. bitcoin's scheme is vastly inferior. protection from hyperinflation is not a great benefit compared to unstable currency value bitcoin is designed to suffer. also hyperinflation doesn't occur unless the government is essentially defunct. I'm sure people would just switch to some other reputable currency before it happens.
everyone gets taxed in the scheme, even the board of governors at the fed, so whats your point? who benefits? government tax income increases? so what? does fed get a pay raise everytime they do this? you are really over your head.
i am saying that when bitcoin value takes a hit by some global event, and people panic to sell, there is nothing that will stop the value from gyrating to zero. what are you talking about? what does charging interest or reserve have anything to do with this? you make no sense.
you are confusing between investment and speculation. buying amazon stock with an outlook for income potential is an investment. buying something that has no way of recouping investment other than capital appreciation is speculation. even if amazon pay zero dividend now, you own something that has potential to pay back to you. bitcoin has no income potential whatsoever.
i take back what i said. i apologize. i read it not as a general statement but as a defense on bitcoin. taking risk on something that does not have any income potential and passing it off to late joiners is very essence of ponzi scheme.
the guy I was replying to was saying a ponzi scheme is how markets work, which is definitely not true.
a) this is valid point, but bitcoin is failing currency. if there was a central authority then its value would have been stabilized. never gonna happen with bitcoin.
b) expected income. for bitcoin, it's nil for ever. don't confuse investment with speculation.
bitcoin is just extortion on craze of the crowd. if no income is been generated by it, then its value is arbitrary. an investment asset needs a cash flow to repay investment and then some. bitcoin has none. i admit bitcoin is not the only asset that has this characteristic.
yes, bitcoin is single linked list that's not even sharded. design is very flawed. can't believe these bitcoin followers think it's holy grail of technology. bitcoin can't even handle the current volume well. it requires massive computing power, bandwith, storage at every node.
i'm not sure what you mean by euro crisis but if you are asking why euro failed, it shows exactly why bitcoin will not work. euro is an attempt to use single currency for different economies. euro failed because it ignores simple fact that different economies need different currency value to stabilize their economy. reason why portugal ireland greece spain are suffering worse than it should be is because those countries lost their power to control currency to european bank.
I don't know a book to recommend. basic scheme is explained in any money & banking textbook. if you know what a bank run is, why it occurs and how it is being prevented then you will see why bitcoin's decentralization makes no sense. only part that is probably not on textbook is this blind faith that volume guarantees stability. it does not.
it's already posing a significant threat in smaller economies like South Korea. a lot of people (even here on hacker news) don't seem to understand the consequences of bitcoin & cryptocurrency. i am very concerned.
a lot of bitcoin followers seem to think that decentralization saves us from arbitrary value adjustments. decentralization completely exposes currency to volatility and does not self-stabilize nicely regardless how many people use it, because supply is broken. this false idea that decentralization is good for currency shows lack of understanding in how currency works. a central authority is required to protect the value of currency. that is why central bank prints money and does QE. it is not a conspiracy to enrich some cronies. without central authority, it cannot function as currency.
you're thinking leverage is only way to pose a system risk to economy. it is not. leverage amplifies the risk, but just because there is no leverage that does not mean risk is not exposed to the system. when consumption goes down, business gets affected.
venezuela shows exactly why bitcoin cannot be used as currency. venezuela currency lost its value because the trust in central authority has evaporated, meaning it is now decentralized. look at it - venezuela currency value graph looks like bitcoin value graph upside down. people are quoting different value. some local areas are creating their own currency (just like bitcoin forks!). it is totally out of control. nobody can use it as currency.
us economy is big so bitcoin feels like a noise right now. in other countries, it is a real threat. it's going to take some years until us feels the heat, but by then it will be too late.
bitcoin's price increase creates inflation because it makes holders wealthy. inflation is not a bad thing when driven by fundamental growth (value creation). bitcoin is not creating value.
1 - money printing is not crony capitalism like what bitcoin creators tout them to be. it is a method of stabilizing value. when used wrong it can destroy economy (venezuela, zimbabwe), but that is a question of politics (voting wrong people). bitcoin or crypto's decentralization is NOT a solution to this problem. also bitcoin is particularly problematic because it gained traction. value is simply sum of people's belief. when other coins gather enough followers then it will similarly be a problem, but not at the moment.
2 - this is false. if you know how currencies work you will know that this whole "decentralization" makes no sense. central authority is required for a currency because price needs to be stabilized. unlike what some people believe, bitcoin will not "self-stabilize" because currency stabilization has nothing to do with how many people use it. currency stabilization works by an authority dictating how much it should worth and manipulating market towards it. this is not some conspiracy, it is a protection provided for all currency users. not only bitcoin offer zero protection (completely exposed to vol risk), but also it is not really decentralized as 40% of entire bitcoin owned is owned by 1000 people only.
3 - yes, this is a good property. so there should be a state sponsored coin.