It really has a bad reputation in the general population because many of them are intransparent and full of scammers trying to make a quick buck.
I have no illusion that central banks operate independent of government, that thought seems ridiculous. Nobody is allowed to say it though, as there is nobody allowed to say that many countries are basically broke.
I still think that some currencies will establish themselves, but the gold rush seems to have damaged the reputation of most currencies.
What's crumbling (and this wasn't hard to predict half a decade ago) is the silly idea that cryptos are a financial asset which could replace fiat currencies.
But the promise of their use for permissionless transactions is still there. Perhaps you won't buy 1 BTC for $33K and sit on it until it hits $100K and McAffee is no longer with us to eat his dick on TV, but you'll still want to buy some crypto and use it for permissionless apps.
Not sure why this article is being upvoted. It contains nothing of value. There is no cogent argument, nor any novelty.
Turn back now and save yourself the time.
As an aside, it would be nice for HN to have a domain filtering feature. I've noticed more and more junk articles being upvoted for their title with no attention paid to their content. Perhaps the most filtered domains could also be (optionally) down weighted
Stablecoins / Central Bank Digital Currencies are equivalent to AOL vs the Internet.
Why would I hold stablecoins that are getting devalued at a MINUMUM of 2% per year over Bitcoin that has gone up in value on average at over 200% a year for the last 10 years. Not to mention other cryptos.
By the same logic, why would you (or anyone else) ever spend your Bitcoin if it is increasing in value so quickly?
There's a reason that central banks target low inflation rates (meaning, single-digit devaluation rates)—because people over-hesitate to spend their money if it is experiencing deflation. Why would they spend their money, if waiting a month to make a purchase means that the same amount of money can buy 10% more of the thing they are buying?
Sure, it makes sense that you won't want to keep most of your savings in cash. But that doesn't mean that stablecoins are the equivalent of AOL.
If we want blockchains to act as viable payment media suitable for day-to-day use, people need to be willing to spend their blockchain assets. Precisely because of inflation/devaluation, stablecoins are assets that people are willing to spend.
>By the same logic, why would you (or anyone else) ever spend your Bitcoin if it is increasing in value so quickly?
That's exactly why I spend little as possible on things other than BTC. As a rough estimate, if I buy a good for $PRICE today I'm likely forfeiting around $PRICE*10 in 5-10 years which I would have if I bought BTC instead. Really highlights the opportunity cost of buying goods instead of investing.
8 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 32.6 ms ] threadI have no illusion that central banks operate independent of government, that thought seems ridiculous. Nobody is allowed to say it though, as there is nobody allowed to say that many countries are basically broke.
I still think that some currencies will establish themselves, but the gold rush seems to have damaged the reputation of most currencies.
But the promise of their use for permissionless transactions is still there. Perhaps you won't buy 1 BTC for $33K and sit on it until it hits $100K and McAffee is no longer with us to eat his dick on TV, but you'll still want to buy some crypto and use it for permissionless apps.
Turn back now and save yourself the time.
As an aside, it would be nice for HN to have a domain filtering feature. I've noticed more and more junk articles being upvoted for their title with no attention paid to their content. Perhaps the most filtered domains could also be (optionally) down weighted
Why would I hold stablecoins that are getting devalued at a MINUMUM of 2% per year over Bitcoin that has gone up in value on average at over 200% a year for the last 10 years. Not to mention other cryptos.
There's a reason that central banks target low inflation rates (meaning, single-digit devaluation rates)—because people over-hesitate to spend their money if it is experiencing deflation. Why would they spend their money, if waiting a month to make a purchase means that the same amount of money can buy 10% more of the thing they are buying?
Sure, it makes sense that you won't want to keep most of your savings in cash. But that doesn't mean that stablecoins are the equivalent of AOL.
If we want blockchains to act as viable payment media suitable for day-to-day use, people need to be willing to spend their blockchain assets. Precisely because of inflation/devaluation, stablecoins are assets that people are willing to spend.
That's exactly why I spend little as possible on things other than BTC. As a rough estimate, if I buy a good for $PRICE today I'm likely forfeiting around $PRICE*10 in 5-10 years which I would have if I bought BTC instead. Really highlights the opportunity cost of buying goods instead of investing.