This is a bit of a myth. For the last 20 years inflation has averaged between 5% and 10% for the large group of countries the World Bank defines as "low income".However, as Horatio pointed out, large swaythes of the planet don't have well functioning fiat currencies,
Freedom to transact internationally. I gave the example last week of an eCommerce professional working on a self employed basis here in Latin America. He told me he accepts crypto from customers all around the globe. It's workable. The current system is not. As regards currency risk, these guys are not bothered about the currency risk of bitcoin when they look at the p poor performance of their local currencies
Of course it is used by transnational criminals. Europol and Interpol highlight this.The illegal notion is not where this is at.
Most of these barriers are there to prevent money laundering, criminal activity, and tax evasion in the first place.The barriers that are put in place by the legacy system is what this is about.
Those fees are more like 1%. And for that Visa/Mastercard will provide terminals, ancillary services, etc.Imagine if you spend 100 euro with a merchant in Ireland, paying via visa/mastercard. Now imagine that he can pass on the 3-4% in fees if you opt for a direct crypto payment instead?
I'm old enough to have been paid weekly by cheque and would troop to the bank every week to lodge this piece of paper. I'd then have to check my balance in the ATM every day until the funds had cleared and I could withdraw the cash. It was an awful use of my time and effort!What is the alternative? Status quo in perpetuity?
In no way is this a 'myth'. You think it's a myth in Turkey, Lebanon or Argentina right now? In those three examples, 130 million people are affected and that's just the start of it. Other than that, in what world is 10% inflation something not to bat an eyelid at? (I guess 2022 has normalised it, right?).This is a bit of a myth. For the last 20 years inflation has averaged between 5% and 10% for the large group of countries the World Bank defines as "low income".
You're missing the point I made. Someone who has been exposed to hyperinflation isn't going to be as appalled by Bitcoin's volatility as you are. Also, in what you just stated, there's another issue. Bitcoin's volatility is not comparable with the hyper-inflation of the worst fiat currencies. In the case of the worst fiat currencies, that's not volatility - that's money go bye bye - permanently. Zoom out (rather than cherry pick timeframes working back from a hype cycle top) and look at the higher lows Bitcoin has put in year on year over 13 years. On that basis, no funds have been lost, quite the opposite.Volatility of Bitcoin vs US dollar or euro is comparable to the worst-managed currencies in the whole world. Saying there is less currency risk than the Venezuelan Bolivar is not saying much.
Any peer reviewed papers I've come across in the past few years have all indicated that crypto implicates less illicit use than fiat currency.Of course it is used by transnational criminals. Europol and Interpol highlight this.
And the world bank has come out and said long since that it does a p poor job in doing so. I disagree entirely with this nonsense. Check out Chris Giancarlo's thoughts on this (that I linked to in the post above) - and the approach that can be taken without causing all manner of friction.Most of these barriers are there to prevent money laundering, criminal activity, and tax evasion in the first place.
They range between 1-4% in the western world. In developing countries, I've typically been asked to cough up 5% additional if I'm paying via visa to cover these fees.Those fees are more like 1%. And for that Visa/Mastercard will provide terminals, ancillary services, etc.
If you think that CBDCs will make the likes of Bitcoin irrelevant, you've completely misunderstood what Bitcoin is. Quite the opposite - CBDCs will be the greatest advertisement ever for the likes of Bitcoin.Payments services in fiat currencies have improved remarkably for the better in the last two decades and I do not see any obvious use case for cryptocurrencies. Once central bank digital currencies are ubiquitous they will have even less potential use in payments.
This is a bit of a myth. For the last 20 years inflation has averaged between 5% and 10% for the large group of countries the World Bank defines as "low income".
Volatility of Bitcoin vs US dollar or euro is comparable to the worst-managed currencies in the whole world. Saying there is less currency risk than the Venezuelan Bolivar is not saying much.
Of course it is used by transnational criminals. Europol and Interpol highlight this.
Most of these barriers are there to prevent money laundering, criminal activity, and tax evasion in the first place.
Those fees are more like 1%. And for that Visa/Mastercard will provide terminals, ancillary services, etc.
I'm old enough to have been paid weekly by cheque and would troop to the bank every week to lodge this piece of paper. I'd then have to check my balance in the ATM every day until the funds had cleared and I could withdraw the cash. It was an awful use of my time and effort!
Payments services in fiat currencies have improved remarkably for the better in the last two decades and I do not see any obvious use case for cryptocurrencies. Once central bank digital currencies are ubiquitous they will have even less potential use in payments.
I provided a use case for an industry that turns over billions and by the way, how is it breaking any laws
Online gambling in America is illegal so people use crypto to gamble online
Well said comrade. It's that communist perspective that's been lacking the whole time.I think all this central bank riffing on about crypto even in critical vein just gives it credibility. Why don't they just follow the Chinese and call it what it is: utterly worthless.
Eh, I think you answered your own question there chief.
I dont think I did. Who said gambling with crypto was illegal
This wasn't razor sharp wit first time round. After the umpteenth repeat it occurs to me that you might actually be meaning something. As a high priest of the cult can you explain to me why communists would be particularly opposed to bitcoin?Well said comrade. It's that communist perspective that's been lacking the whole time.
I'll have to mope about and suffer the indignation of my wit not reaching comrade marmalade's standards - but I'll get over it. Do I need to explain to you how the authoritarian state/surveillance state/anything but freedom state Chinese communists would be particularly opposed to a decentralised currency that the people control rather than the regime controlling? So desperate is comrade marmalade in grasping at any old thing to support his world view.This wasn't razor sharp wit first time round. After the umpteenth repeat it occurs to me that you might actually be meaning something. As a high priest of the cult can you explain to me why communists would be particularly opposed to bitcoin?
"If one is against bitcoin" I'd imagine that it is possible to make your argument without relying upon a report produced by the Chinese that is the upshot of a policy decision taken by the CCP to try and suppress Bitcoin within the territory because it puts control in the hands of its users rather than that authoritarian, freedom suppressing, surveillance state.@tecate "my worldview"? Yes that is cult stuff - if one is against bitcoin it must be because one has a faulty worldview. For what it's worth I would not be in favour of communism.
And Roubini is the nutty professor and Krugman got it wrong on fax machines. Chinese are commies. Shoot the messenger"If one is against bitcoin" I'd imagine that it is possible to make your argument without relying upon a report produced by the Chinese that is the upshot of a policy decision taken by the CCP to try and suppress Bitcoin within the territory because it puts control in the hands of its users rather than that authoritative, freedom suppressing, surveillance state.
Your hero (Roubini) featured here in 2018 by way of a couple of youtube clips of him 'discussing' crypto - where he spoke and acted like a deranged lunatic. The story of Professor fax machine is relevant as it's a 'nobel' (and you tell us you will just trust unquestioningly whatever a 'nobel' spouts) - and in the case where he states that the internet will have no more impact than the fax machine, it's incredibly pertinent to the consideration of crypto. It demonstrates that he has no notion of technology. Bitcoin is a technology first - and financial innovation second.And Roubini is the nutty professor and Krugman got it wrong on fax machines. Chinese are commies. Shoot the messenger
Same with terrorism.Online gambling in America is illegal so people use crypto to gamble online
So what you're essentially saying is that the premise of the article is entirely wrong. A duplicate article could be written that 'flipping real estate is not the savior for anybody', 'trading stocks is not the savior for anybody'. It's wrong because it assumes that everyone is taking this approach and believing that to be the case. That's not the case.Crypto is not the savior for anybody, anywhere.
I'll direct you to the point I made above. I've never mentioned the word 'lambo' here relative to crypto - and having just ran a search, it seems nobody else has either. I'm on record as saying here on a number of occasions that crypto is anything but easy money. There are plenty of hard working people directly involved in the digital assets space who are of a similar mind..all these morons thinking their gonna get their lambos that way and their nonsense journey to financial independence via crypto......which when you dig into it boils down to them watching a number on a screen move around and trying to get others "into it" so their coin goes up......get rich quick doing nothing except hitting a few phone buttons is an attractive alternative reality, its a fantasy
for the crypto peeps in for the 'easy' money well over time they will get what they deserve and its not what they expect but they will truly deserve it.
Translation - fill your boots.Bitcoin chancer said:Conversely, bitcoin has only been this cheap relative to its long-term trend 2.5% of history…
Yes, if you think bitcoin will survive it's relatively cheap now. That's not to say it can't go lower, it's definitely moving with the macro landscape, and we've an interesting winter ahead in that regard.Put more simply the recent crash is amongst the worst (depends on time farmes of course).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?