I don't disagree with most of what he said, including Bitcoin's usefulness right now (not to be confused with the usefulness of all cryptocurrencies), but I think calling it an outright ponzi scheme is not that clear.
So he says that Bitcoin has seen no increase in usage. But that's not true, or at least it wasn't true for many years. But I think if someone was to quantify how many companies use Bitcoin as payment, for instance, we'd see a net gain for 2017 compared to 2016, which means that statement would then be false.
Now if he'd be saying that the increase in recent value doesn't correlate with the increase in usage, that's quite different. At the same time, it's not out of the ordinary for Bitcoin, because Bitcoin, and other cryptocurrencies, too, see "spikes" in valuation whenever there's a trend of positive and major news about it - news that has little to do with the price of Bitcoin.
The main problem is that after that initial spike the mainstream media starts covering it, and then all the people who hear then about it, only hear about the price increase. I would say that at that point it becomes sort of a ponzi scheme, but only temporarily.
But even in this case, would you say it's so much different than the mainstream media covering how "Tesla reached $400 per Share" or "Apple reached $1 trillion valuation", and other examples like that? When people would read those sorts of stories, most would also think "Oh, look at that company grow, I guess it's time for me to buy some shares there, too!". And then the price increases further, but the rise is not as pronounced as for cryptocurrencies. But fundamentally I don't see too much of a difference.
Why the mainstream and tech media doesn't cover the rest of the "fundamental" stories about cryptocurrencies beats me. For instance, there have been important news stories like big banks forming alliances to use cryptocurrencies in one way or another. But you only see those stories on crypto news sites. The tech media or MSM only seem interested in the price stories, at least for now. And I would say they are primarily responsible for the "ponzi" aspect of cryptocurrencies.
> I think calling it an outright ponzi scheme is not that clear.
It's a very fitting comparison.
Like all ponzi schemes, people are attracted to the bitcoin scheme due to the propaganda barrage on how it's a sure thing and guarantees profits to those who get on board right now. Like all ponzi schemes, the bitcoin scheme depends on the people already onboard attracting more members for them to keep pumping money to inflate its value. Pump-and-dump schemes share many strikibg similarities with ponzi schemes, thus the appropriate comparison of bitcoin with a ponzi scheme.
3 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 23.2 ms ] threadWhy Bitcoin is the largest Ponzi scheme in human history
http://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/why-bitcoin-is-the-la...
So he says that Bitcoin has seen no increase in usage. But that's not true, or at least it wasn't true for many years. But I think if someone was to quantify how many companies use Bitcoin as payment, for instance, we'd see a net gain for 2017 compared to 2016, which means that statement would then be false.
Now if he'd be saying that the increase in recent value doesn't correlate with the increase in usage, that's quite different. At the same time, it's not out of the ordinary for Bitcoin, because Bitcoin, and other cryptocurrencies, too, see "spikes" in valuation whenever there's a trend of positive and major news about it - news that has little to do with the price of Bitcoin.
The main problem is that after that initial spike the mainstream media starts covering it, and then all the people who hear then about it, only hear about the price increase. I would say that at that point it becomes sort of a ponzi scheme, but only temporarily.
But even in this case, would you say it's so much different than the mainstream media covering how "Tesla reached $400 per Share" or "Apple reached $1 trillion valuation", and other examples like that? When people would read those sorts of stories, most would also think "Oh, look at that company grow, I guess it's time for me to buy some shares there, too!". And then the price increases further, but the rise is not as pronounced as for cryptocurrencies. But fundamentally I don't see too much of a difference.
Why the mainstream and tech media doesn't cover the rest of the "fundamental" stories about cryptocurrencies beats me. For instance, there have been important news stories like big banks forming alliances to use cryptocurrencies in one way or another. But you only see those stories on crypto news sites. The tech media or MSM only seem interested in the price stories, at least for now. And I would say they are primarily responsible for the "ponzi" aspect of cryptocurrencies.
It's a very fitting comparison.
Like all ponzi schemes, people are attracted to the bitcoin scheme due to the propaganda barrage on how it's a sure thing and guarantees profits to those who get on board right now. Like all ponzi schemes, the bitcoin scheme depends on the people already onboard attracting more members for them to keep pumping money to inflate its value. Pump-and-dump schemes share many strikibg similarities with ponzi schemes, thus the appropriate comparison of bitcoin with a ponzi scheme.