Who is into Crypto ?

bamber said:
So what exactly is this money "invested" in its market cap? Do you mean the money investors spent to buy bitcoin? If so, then that money is gone, because it has all been converted to bitcoin, so cannot provide any backing.
Bitcoin's value is illusory, based entirely on trust and confidence. If that collapses, Bitcoin will be worthless, as no-one will want to buy it or accept it in payment.

I don't think that anyone would suggest that a British government would behave as recklessly as Germany's Weimar government or Zimbabwe's Mugabe government, which is what it would take for the value of sterling to collapse. Barring that, the IMF/World Bank would not allow a major world currency to collapse and would step in to support it, inevitably with the requirement for austerity measures until the currency stabilised.

When the pound was the dominant world currency (over 100 years ago) we were on the gold standard, so it wasn't a fiat currency.
Click to expand...
Any currency is based entirely on trust and confidence. The paper money we use today is worthless. It's an IOU, always has been, the notes even say "I promise to pay the bearer...." This has been how financial systems have always worked, traders put some intrinsic value on something, then that becomes currency or similar. We used to use the barter system, but then it changed to precious metals, or silks, or spices, or rocks, before eventually becoming coins, and then paper money (I know the majority of currencies are not longer made from paper).

Im not sure you understand what market cap is, or at least not in the sense of crypto. Market cap is the value of the total amount of currency available. People hold the coin, which takes down supply, this in turn drives up demand which will allow the price of said coin to increase. If the supply goes up and demand goes down, then the price will decrease.

Because this virutal currency is now being used for more normal things, than just buying drugs off the DW, then it has even more intrinsic value than previously. Let's all be honest here, without the darkweb, it's unlikely that bitcoin would be as big as it is today. Not the technology, I mean the actual coin.

Actually the British government have done exactly what you've described. Gordon Brown sold off all the UKs gold reserves at a fraction of their value to ensure that the british economy stayed stable. However the value of gold sky rocketed, and he was made to look very naive. Im not so sure about the IMF stepping in. Look at what happened to Greece, the IMF offered help for massive reductions in their spending and other policies, and the people revolted and the IMF had to relinquish their hold over Greece. Im not even sure that this has ever been resolved.

Currency manipulation is common place, bankers do it purposefully to ensure certain things are met, China is a master manipulator of the currency markets, but so are the US/UK/Japan etc.

Im not really sure of what you're saying in the last point. I've had a read, and i'd say you're a little off the mark with what you've said;

Code: 
You don't have permission to view the code content. Log in or register now.
 
Before World War 1, gold coins were in circulation in the UK. Bank notes were also in circulation for convenience, but they were real promissory notes at that time, as they could be exchanged for gold coins. Those coins could be melted down into ingots and would still have had value, as gold has always been desirable and in demand. That value may fluctuate, but would never be zero. The money therefore had an intrinsic value, in the underlying value of the metal it was made from, which a purely digital currency can never have. It was not, therefore, a fiat currency.

I do know what market capitalisation is in the normal sense. For a company on the stock exchange, it is the share price multiplied by the number of shares in issue, and it reflects an opinion of the value of the underlying assets owned by that company and its ability to make profits and pay dividends. Bitcoin, on the other hand, has no underlying assets or income-earning potential to support its market capitalisation; it is based purely on speculation.

The dotcom bubble of 20 years ago should be a warning. Companies with digital business ideas were floated on the stock exchange and investors enthusiastically subscribed to their shares on a wave of optimism. Demand was higher than supply and the share value rose well above the issue price. After a while, the companies had frittered away all of the money they had raised without establishing much of a business. Investors then realised that the companies had little in the way of assets or earning potential to support their market capitalisation, so the share price collapsed. That shows how market capitalisation is not, in itself, an indicator of any real, underlying value.

Unlike a trading company, there has never been a "Bitcoin plc" taking investors' money and using it to make more money. All purchases of Bitcoin are from previous investors or miners.

I said that the IMF would step in because they have done it before, in the 1970s, when they granted a loan to get the Labour government out of a financial crisis.
 
bamber said:
Not quite true. Although there is no gold or other assets to back fiat, there is the guarantee of the government which issued it, who can step in to support the currency in a crisis.
Click to expand...
Support the currency with what?
 
avid said:
I will add that the Dollar is the most widely used fiat currencies and before that it was the Pound. I think in the future it will be a crypto currency and it will have other crypto currency competitors.
Click to expand...

See post #50. :rolleyes:
 
calisto said:
Support the currency with what?
Click to expand...
Falling confidence in a currency will usually be the result of poor economic performance and/or bad management of public finances, so the government can do various things to reverse that trend, including the following:

1. Raising interest rates to make investing in the currency more attractive.
2. Introducing exchange controls to prevent money being transferred abroad.
3. Imposing import tariffs to protect domestic industries and reduce imports and the trade deficit.
4. Raising taxes and/or reducing public spending to cut the budget deficit, particularly if that had been financed by printing money (so-called quantitative easing).
 
A 51% attack of the Bitcoin blockchain with physical hashrate would cost 5.5 billion dollars for the equipment and you would need 4.4 gigawatt of electricity to power all the hardware. Getting hold of over 1.36 million ASIC’s machines needed would be a feat in itself, but not impossible.
 
Anyone who has money invested in crypto or the stock markets this is worth a watch.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
bamber said:
Falling confidence in a currency will usually be the result of poor economic performance and/or bad management of public finances, so the government can do various things to reverse that trend, including the following:

1. Raising interest rates to make investing in the currency more attractive.
2. Introducing exchange controls to prevent money being transferred abroad.
3. Imposing import tariffs to protect domestic industries and reduce imports and the trade deficit.
4. Raising taxes and/or reducing public spending to cut the budget deficit, particularly if that had been financed by printing money (so-called quantitative easing).
Click to expand...
So manipulation of the markets you mean... This is exactly why we need decentralised finance.
 
janobi said:
So manipulation of the markets you mean... This is exactly why we need decentralised finance.
Click to expand...
You just have to ask someone that runs a business that trades in Continental Europe how difficult it is using the current Financial system. 🙄
 
janobi said:
So manipulation of the markets you mean... This is exactly why we need decentralised finance.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's a very good argument to replace government "manipulation" with no control at all, leaving currency markets vulnerable to speculators able to exploit any weaknesses.
 
avid said:
You just have to ask someone that runs a business that trades in Continental Europe how difficult it is using the current Financial system. 🙄
Click to expand...
I do speak to businesses who trade with Europe and all they ever complain about is the amount of paperwork post-Brexit, not the financial side of importing/exporting, which is easier than it's ever been with electronic banking.
 
bamber said:
Before World War 1, gold coins were in circulation in the UK. Bank notes were also in circulation for convenience, but they were real promissory notes at that time, as they could be exchanged for gold coins. Those coins could be melted down into ingots and would still have had value, as gold has always been desirable and in demand. That value may fluctuate, but would never be zero. The money therefore had an intrinsic value, in the underlying value of the metal it was made from, which a purely digital currency can never have. It was not, therefore, a fiat currency.

I do know what market capitalisation is in the normal sense. For a company on the stock exchange, it is the share price multiplied by the number of shares in issue, and it reflects an opinion of the value of the underlying assets owned by that company and its ability to make profits and pay dividends. Bitcoin, on the other hand, has no underlying assets or income-earning potential to support its market capitalisation; it is based purely on speculation.

The dotcom bubble of 20 years ago should be a warning. Companies with digital business ideas were floated on the stock exchange and investors enthusiastically subscribed to their shares on a wave of optimism. Demand was higher than supply and the share value rose well above the issue price. After a while, the companies had frittered away all of the money they had raised without establishing much of a business. Investors then realised that the companies had little in the way of assets or earning potential to support their market capitalisation, so the share price collapsed. That shows how market capitalisation is not, in itself, an indicator of any real, underlying value.

Unlike a trading company, there has never been a "Bitcoin plc" taking investors' money and using it to make more money. All purchases of Bitcoin are from previous investors or miners. Of course now it works much better thanks to VPN services, I have read more about them here and I advise you.

I said that the IMF would step in because they have done it before, in the 1970s, when they granted a loan to get the Labour government out of a financial crisis.
Click to expand...
A very interesting excursion into history, thank you. I didn't think it was such a deep process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
Crypto firm Terraform Labs files for bankruptcy in US
Replies
1
Views
308
nara
nara
S
    • Like
    • Wow
    • Haha
Slightly over sized packaging?
Replies
9
Views
463
IANB
IANB
alimac
    • Like
After Helix Hosting, PrimeStreams IPTV Suffers Hack, $70K Extortion Attempt
Replies
0
Views
453
alimac
alimac
silverdale
Pension advise and Serps
2
Replies
21
Views
715
steviweavi
S
fus10n
Other Here’s The Conspiracy Tearing Bitcoin Crypto Communities Apart
Replies
2
Views
569
sneaker
sneaker
Back
Top