Absolutely - there are no bailouts in crypto.To add to what tecate wrote, there's another important point to note. No one will be diluting my bitcoin holding, or taking any of it to cover any losses related to Celsius. The issue is between Celsius and their customers.
In calling this a couple of years in advance of it happening, Long claimed that all it would serve to do is reinforce and strengthen Bitcoin. Many Celsius 'investors' are more likely to be pursuing casino coins than fully appreciating what Bitcoin brings to the table.But historically such events as Celsius have tended to matter little in the long run for bitcoin.
The macro picture is wild. It would have been far easier to work out how Bitcoin plays out with the last 10 years macro. What we have in front of us right now makes the whole thing impossible to figure out (and Bitcoin is the least of it). Anyone interested in that would also be interested in Drukenmiller's interview that I linked to in the previous post.Off topic for this thread, but to me the far more interesting conversation to be had is about the macro picture - rising rates during a time of record government debt. June US inflation coming in at a new high of 8.6% despite the rate hike already, and people leaving stocks and bitcoin for a dollar that's losing that much to inflation. How long will people be happy to sit out in dollars? are we facing stagflation? will the government pressure the Fed to ease off as election time approaches?
It's as plain as day that her comments were in the specific context of the circulatory supply of bitcoin - and how Bitcoin's monetary policy in that respect is coded in to the digital currency.
Well yes, this is why it's interesting.So now the cult is blaming bitcoin's woes on the macro situation. I thought bitcoin was meant to save us from Armageddon; this should be its day in the sun.
Here's how I think about it. For the simplest case if supply of bitcoin is increasing at 1.8% and to exclude other factors we assume 0 net change in bitcoin adoption, and a dollar inflation rate of 0, then bitcoin should lose value against the dollar at 1.8%.Holding bitcoin as an "asset" expected to lose value at 1.8% p.a
No because the variable in the equation that led to this was that the net change in adoption was massive, increasing by orders of magnitude in a decade.So does bitcoin turn Milton on his head? 300% increase in supply since 2020 but a zillion% deflation.
@tecate Van Ecke is defining "inflation" of bitcoin as the change in its supply. He's entitled to define inflation any way he wants but the common definition is the one Brendan has linked to - the change (specifically the fall) in the purchasing power of a currency.
Indeed she did Brendan - and as per the Duke, that's perfectly fine.I just looked at what she said in the video. And you may have heard something else. But she used the word "inflation" to mean the increase in the supply of Bitcoin.
Friedman and Long are on precisely the same page. And its with a nod to Friedman that she tried to link and reference the 1.77% inflation in the circulatory supply of Bitcoin to the monetary phenomenon that Friedman is talking about relative to the US dollar. But how can she do that? With Bitcoin we know precisely what the circulatory supply is. With the US dollar (or euro, etc), we have NO EARTHLY IDEA - from one second to the next. We have to wait for the high priests to hold their FOMC meetings and declare if they're turning on or turning off the tap. That's what she was referencing and those were her intentions. You know this well - and it's bad bloody-mindedness that you've raised this and taken the thread completely off topic.Milton Friedman once said that "inflation is always and everywhere a function of the supply of a currency". Meaning that increased supply fuels inflation
Bitcoin is not and never was a currency qua medium of exchange as was intended by its creator. It is and always was a speculative bauble.
See above Brendan. And as regards the 'critical evaluation' charge, that's a riot. You have not been a neutral in these discussions since the outset. You have repeatedly refused to acknowledge that there is a non-negligible prospect that Bitcoin continues to develop. You can believe that Bitcoin can ultimately fail and that its failure is the most likely outcome. However, to not acknowledge that outside possibility when it has been developing at pace in the five years you've been pushing back against it - demonstrates a complete lack of critical evaluation, terminating in a zero credibility conclusion.I am worried for you. If you can't see that, it suggests that you are not critically evaluating comments on BTC due to your blind allegiance. That can only spell trouble.
She got it wrong. You should admit that and evaluate whether the rest of what she says is credible.
Well yeah, that's an explanation. Is that what Caitlin meant? Does anybody hold bitcoin with its massive volatility on that calculus? The vast majority are holding bitcoin as a speculation for untold riches not a boring 1.8% inflation versus fiat's targeted 2% inflation.Here's how I think about it. For the simplest case if supply of bitcoin is increasing at 1.8% and to exclude other factors we assume 0 net change in bitcoin adoption, and a dollar inflation rate of 0, then bitcoin should lose value against the dollar at 1.8%.
If we change one parameter in that scenario, for example say the dollar is losing value at 8%, then bitcoin should increase 6.2% against the dollar.
Adoption? What exactly is that? Bitcoin soared to 70k last year; was adoption a factor? Is adoption in reverse responsible for current woes? Adoption as a medium of exchange has been negligible. So I presume you mean adoption as a speculative bauble. Milton was not referring to speculative baubles, he was referring to currencies as mediums of exchange.No because the variable in the equation that led to this was that the net change in adoption was massive, increasing by orders of magnitude in a decade.
Celsius Mission Statement said:"Those other guys are driven by profits, margins, bonuses, and their own bottom line. And while all of these things are perfectly reasonable motivating factors to achieve success in business, we at Celsius are driven by a deeper, broader mission in which success is measured by our external impact rather than our internal bottom line."
These guys issued their own coins and cashed in $1.6 billion as part of their mission. I mean who could begrudge folk with such noble aspirations a little bit of the evil mammon for themselves.Celsius Mission Statement said:"An economy where financial freedom doesn't come with a price tag. Where the interests of the people are put first. Where ethical behaviour is the baseline, and where everyone – and we mean everyone – has the opportunity to succeed financially. With a little bit of humanity and honesty, and the power of a digital currency that's as strong as it is accessible, we're ushering in the new economy today."
Celsius posits itself as a “network” or “lender”, but in reality its market operations closely resemble that of a high-leverage hedge fund. User deposits are actively managed and deployed across DeFi lending platforms for its products to reach double-digit yields.
These DeFi lending markets enable liquidity providers to attain leverage by maintaining a Loan-To-Value (LTV) ratio called the collateralization ratio in DeFi lingo. When prices collapse and the market value of the collateral flirts with that ratio, lenders must provide more liquidity or the loan might be liquidated and leverage unwound.
I think the schadenfreude might be clouding your judgement there a tad, Duke.Boss this doesn't quite explain what "these guys" do but it does show that they are well intentioned good guys. And to be fair if their endeavours speed up the demise of crypto they will have done the human race a favour and achieved their deeper, broader mission.
This is more heart warming inspirational stuff:
Keep the faithI think the schadenfreude might be clouding your judgement there a tad, Duke.
Over the longer stretch, all this will do is make the likes of Bitcoin stronger.
Faith has nothing to do with it, Duke. We've seen this movie before. Misallocated capital gets rekt. Bad projects vapourise, Good projects tighten their belts, refocus and build out the tech.Keep the faith
“Readings from tecate” said:As [undefined] puts it, the hive mind “is irredeemably social, unabashedly of many minds,” but it “decides as a whole when to swarm and where to move. A hive possesses an intelligence that none of its parts does….”. The internet and the WWW have laid the infrastructure for the possibility of inscribing “human and artificial minds into one planetary soul” where “distributed, headless, emergent wholeness becomes the social ideal” [undefined]. The hive can collectively hold onto a memory longer than any individual node.
Hive Intelligence. Sure.Now that’s a poke in the eye to doubters like me.
I wouldn't be inclined to classify you as a 'doubter' Duke, given the absolute condescension on display here in early 2018 from you and others. The objective of the paper isn't to deal with someone's 'doubt' about Bitcoin generally (and it certainly can't deal with your condescension). It does investigate a line of thought surrounding Bitcoin's resilience though.Now that’s a poke in the eye to doubters like me.
And yet Bitcoin has had shocks and adaptive cycles that have dealt with those shocks - only making it more robust all the while. You dismiss hive intelligence yet you're participating in it right now. Anything web2-related implicates hive intelligence. Web3 takes it a step further.Hive Intelligence. Sure.
Or as Terry Pratchett would have put it:
The IQ of a mob is the IQ of its most stupid member divided by the number of mobsters
As regards the 'anguish', there's no anguish here. I'm on record as stating price would retrace the best part of a year ago already.@tecate's latest reading (#35) provides lots of pretentious and makey-up words (netnographic e.g.) to soothe the "faithful" (their term) in their hour of anguish (yep, good old schadenfreude).
The message that is drawn from the study of bees is that the bitcoin "brand" is resilient. A somewhat less ambitious objective than that of Satoshi.
I surely will concede that one, without having to bother about how bees socialise with each other. The bitcoin "brand" is here to stay, when kopykats like Ethereum and Ripple have long been forgotten. Bitcoin will head the pantheon of monuments to man's capacity to be seduced by cults and the desire to make fortunes; right up there with those other brands - the South Sea Bubble and Tulipmania.a
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?