The Grand Debate

Posted In: CryptoCurrencies
    • amarynth on: June 10, 2019 at 2:43 pm #2503

      Polish the swords and bring on the words (Let’s stay frosty and friendly)

    • amarynth on: June 11, 2019 at 1:44 pm #2518

      Bro, just a meta comment on this debate … something clarified for me overnight. (Well, I hope it clarified).

      Its to do with an approach .. somehow it seems as if you want to stay ‘married’ to one crypto, with a belief that that is the only one into the future. I’m not sure, but it seems as if you think that the one purchase must be the only purchase and now you must hodl.

      So, here is where I think differently. I think we have the option to trade in and out, as some will grow, and some will fail. So, I think a better perspective in today’s market is to accept that you may have to do some trading. I’m not a trader but I’ve traded some where I felt it prudent to move out of something or in to something. That is where we should open our minds … we have choices. If we are on our toes, we will know when to trade in or out.

      A very good trader once gave me this advice .. OK, spend an amount of money on an asset that you think will grow. As soon as possible take out what you’ve spent … So, if you spend 5 bucks, and assets grows to 10, then take out your 5. This simple method has worked for me, as I did not want to learn technical trading. If you want to leave your 5, then you have to cost average.

      Makes sense?

    • amarynth on: June 12, 2019 at 10:56 am #2521

      Posted for Bro93

      I have to “log in” there to reply and I don’t have time…right now…. to learn yet another log in.

      Yes, I know, “hoops are necessary”

      Feel free to transfer anything i post right here…over there…for now…til I have the time to learn the hoops. On that crypto-debate string………even stupid, wrong things I have said!

      I said some wrong things in past months on the subject and I realize that…and that’s how these things go the furthest and the fastest toward anything worth getting to. Some trial and error, and not an excess of caution…bogging things down to a crawl.

      Meanwhile aren’t we are really talking apples and oranges about the “one and the many” diversification debate?

      There can be a “best technology”…and it can still lose to something inferior. I fully realize that.

      However, I think that what most people are concerned with is what on earth good or bad role this subject of debate might play in the bigger picture of sovereign money and economic development vs The Empire System…as that is more important to serious people…than “getting ahead”….in a petty personal sense.

      Yet,everyone needs to “keep the lights on”, stay solvent and pay a little attention to taking care of themselves.

      But the bigger picture is what I try to start from, and where The Internet of Money fits in (good OR bad!!) is what , could never be known or discovered by a method so childish as Dennis’ pouting….wild, unhinged to reality mind associations.

      Before we leave Toronto ….let’s review this brief aspect focusing on the Internet part of the Internet of Money from the point of view of the content creators (iaon, Dimitar, Terenam 13, Kent, etc) here and everywhere:

      Ryan X. Charles on DRM with BSV

      DRM= Digital Rights Movement …

      …and realize, like it or not.. we are on the internet…..so.forget ANY money for a few seconds but rather focus on your rights (versus say, Mark Zuckerberg’s rights to your very soul…lol) and the rights of others …..and digest that 13 minute clip on the vision of the “new” internet ….and whether you might want it ..or want to stop it.

      Especially “content creators”…writers….poets (ioan, Dimitar and others), graphic artists (Kent)….musicians (Internal Exile) might just consider what Mr Charles is saying could be here…pretty SOON!

      Meanwhile, back to the money, but in a strategic context, not a narrowly personal one:

      “Russian President Vladimir Putin’s sober comments to the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum were important: The brief global growth (through several serious crises) after the end of the Cold War ended decisively with the “global crisis of 2008-09”, and since then supposed “GDP growth” has decoupled from growth in physical goods trade, which has hardly grown. “The policy of quantitative easing … did not solve the problems, but only pushed them into the future.” By turning back to that policy now, the central banks are confirming that Putin is right.”

      earlier text from the same overview of the situation:

      “The big central banks continue to beat their way back to the quantitative easing schemes they all used to drag the London and Wall Street banks through the last crash — signalling the approach of another. The Federal Reserve, which after 10 years finally raised its discount rates in 2018, has resumed lowering them; its chair, Jerome Powell, said, don’t regard the bailout measures used in the last crash as “unconventional” — they’re going to be used again. After the European Central Bank supposedly left its discount rate unchanged for a year on June 6, its head, Mario Draghi, spent the days since putting out rumors and leaks that, in reality, its board was discussing interest rate cuts and increased buying up of corporate and sovereign bonds from private banks. The Canadian Central Bank “reluctantly” returned to cutting rates. And so on for the rest.

      Are we to believe the central banks, that they are just “supporting continuation of the expansion”? Stagnant and low-wage as that “expansion” has been since the crash of 2007-08, it has ended in Europe and is slowing in the United States. The central bankers know, and admit, that trillions in the debt of over-indebted corporations and super-indebted “zombie companies” will now default in these conditions, triggering a crash starting in some section of the financial markets — “the usual carnage,” as Bank of America head Brian Moynihan dryly put it in a warning to the Economic Club of New York June 5. He should know: BoA is the biggest leveraged lender since the crash of all the megabanks, and has been selling off its “junk debt” to non-banks like private equity and hedge funds, which now “worry” Moynihan.

      Another financial crash will take down real economies in Europe and the United States which have not really recovered yet, leaving them completely devastated……”

      from: https://larouchepac.com/20190611/it-will-take-new-credit-and-money-system

      Challenging times for small fish to survive, in those troubled waters………..

      Where does or could the Internet of Value fit in to the Bigger Challenge ………of entire nations??

      I think the answer is worth considering. That’s all.

    • amarynth on: June 12, 2019 at 10:57 am #2522

    • amarynth on: June 13, 2019 at 4:55 pm #2584

      Grrrr …

      So in Russia the possibility of a stablecoin, crypto backed by gold, is being discussed.

      https://www.rt.com/business/461752-russia-gold-dollar-cryptocurrencies/

      “[The CBR], in principle, are opposed to cryptocurrencies being launched into our monetary system. We do not see the possibility that cryptocurrencies, in fact, fulfill the function of monetary surrogates,” Nabiullina said. She noted, however, that the regulator could study the possibility of creating stablecoins while there is a real asset behind their provision.

      Nabiullina said last month that Russia’s gold and foreign exchange reserves will soon top $500 billion. Such a volume of gold bullion and foreign currency holdings is enough to tackle crisis-like episodes, she explained.”

      This is what Western trained economists (Nabiullina in this case) do not get about cryptos. I don’t like this kind of ‘stablecoin’ because again it becomes a paper trade, where the stablecoin stands in for the real value as an erstwhile token – its same old paper trade, just tokenized. Nabiullina does not get it. But, great to hear about the gold reserves.

      If a cryptocurrency is not an asset in its own right, it is not a cryptocurrency. A cryptocurrency is not an ‘old type of money’ but it is a ‘new type of money’ and is not a ‘surrogate’. It is a new depiction of energy as well as data. (I want Nabiullina’s email address dammit! – Perhaps I can get Vitalik Buterin to sweep up their cobwebs – Putin loved his discussion with Vitalik).

      To understand all this, we need to go back to Andreas Antonopoulos, speaking to the Canadian Senate:

      • This reply was modified 6 months ago by amarynth.
Viewing 4 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.