On June 07 2022 08:38 Sermokala wrote: Fractional shares are a scam that the offered promises the government it won't enact. Don't do that.
Can you expand on this? I haven't heard that before.
In almost all cases control over when to sell or hold onto the stock stays with the service that is offering you to "buy a fraction of the stock". They are under no obligation to own enough shares to cover the total number of shares that they have "sold" after combining all those fractions.
What you are being sold is much closer to a gambling position on the value of a stock. A position a company can very easily simply wait to exercise when it benifits them the most.
Say the price of a stock tanks. That company can sell the stock instantly because it uses a computer. You however are not and to tell them to "sell your share" doesn't work because a. You don't own enough of a share to sell a whole share b. You will wait long after the instant sale of their robot allowing for the company to make money on the difference between the price they sold at and the price you are requesting to sell at and c. You have no ownership of the stock nor any real control over the share.
Let's just say there are many more ways they can screw you over and the only way for you to prove it would require an investigation by a government agency that has neither the resources to help you nor the interest in helping someone that isn't rich enough to buy the shares themselves and to not need a fractional share company. It's a scam from the ground up that manages to make enough money to keep itself going as far as anyone knows.
Any chance you can provide a source for this? I've never heard of such a thing and I've been in discussions with top financial professionals for a couple years now. Would be great to have a credible source to start a discussion on this with, if one exists.
A source for what? The contract for a fractional ownership scheme? The basic concept that robot traders exist or that you don't control the share if you don't own any real part of the share? The sec not having the funding or interest in crimes that face regular people?
You can't just ask for a source like that's an argument.
I was being genuine. No part of my message indicated an intent to argue. I'm always looking to learn more and am open to other ideas, however, having a source would be necessary if I were to bring this to the attention of licensed financial professionals and ask for their perspective.
On June 07 2022 08:38 Sermokala wrote: Fractional shares are a scam that the offered promises the government it won't enact. Don't do that.
Can you expand on this? I haven't heard that before.
In almost all cases control over when to sell or hold onto the stock stays with the service that is offering you to "buy a fraction of the stock". They are under no obligation to own enough shares to cover the total number of shares that they have "sold" after combining all those fractions.
What you are being sold is much closer to a gambling position on the value of a stock. A position a company can very easily simply wait to exercise when it benifits them the most.
Say the price of a stock tanks. That company can sell the stock instantly because it uses a computer. You however are not and to tell them to "sell your share" doesn't work because a. You don't own enough of a share to sell a whole share b. You will wait long after the instant sale of their robot allowing for the company to make money on the difference between the price they sold at and the price you are requesting to sell at and c. You have no ownership of the stock nor any real control over the share.
Let's just say there are many more ways they can screw you over and the only way for you to prove it would require an investigation by a government agency that has neither the resources to help you nor the interest in helping someone that isn't rich enough to buy the shares themselves and to not need a fractional share company. It's a scam from the ground up that manages to make enough money to keep itself going as far as anyone knows.
Any chance you can provide a source for this? I've never heard of such a thing and I've been in discussions with top financial professionals for a couple years now. Would be great to have a credible source to start a discussion on this with, if one exists.
A source for what? The contract for a fractional ownership scheme? The basic concept that robot traders exist or that you don't control the share if you don't own any real part of the share? The sec not having the funding or interest in crimes that face regular people?
You can't just ask for a source like that's an argument.
Fractional instruments have been around forever and aren’t a scam. Blackrock have a shitload of Microsoft shares. If you buy some through their portal they’ll buy a few more and note that some of the ones they own are on behalf of you in their internal ledger. Why would it make a difference if the number was an integer.
I'm not talking about the investment banks that are holding your cash and you are directing them to purchase shares on your behalf. I'm talking about the business's themselves that are focused primarily on getting people to buy fractions of shares because they can't afford to buy a whole share. Even if the case you present if you want to sell your stock of Microsoft stock through BlackRock BlackRock can just give you your money back or allow you to move that into another stock. Their business model is based on capturing the value they provide by eliminating the costs of a regular joe buying stocks on their own and getting some of that back.
On June 07 2022 08:38 Sermokala wrote: Fractional shares are a scam that the offered promises the government it won't enact. Don't do that.
Can you expand on this? I haven't heard that before.
In almost all cases control over when to sell or hold onto the stock stays with the service that is offering you to "buy a fraction of the stock". They are under no obligation to own enough shares to cover the total number of shares that they have "sold" after combining all those fractions.
What you are being sold is much closer to a gambling position on the value of a stock. A position a company can very easily simply wait to exercise when it benifits them the most.
Say the price of a stock tanks. That company can sell the stock instantly because it uses a computer. You however are not and to tell them to "sell your share" doesn't work because a. You don't own enough of a share to sell a whole share b. You will wait long after the instant sale of their robot allowing for the company to make money on the difference between the price they sold at and the price you are requesting to sell at and c. You have no ownership of the stock nor any real control over the share.
Let's just say there are many more ways they can screw you over and the only way for you to prove it would require an investigation by a government agency that has neither the resources to help you nor the interest in helping someone that isn't rich enough to buy the shares themselves and to not need a fractional share company. It's a scam from the ground up that manages to make enough money to keep itself going as far as anyone knows.
Any chance you can provide a source for this? I've never heard of such a thing and I've been in discussions with top financial professionals for a couple years now. Would be great to have a credible source to start a discussion on this with, if one exists.
A source for what? The contract for a fractional ownership scheme? The basic concept that robot traders exist or that you don't control the share if you don't own any real part of the share? The sec not having the funding or interest in crimes that face regular people?
You can't just ask for a source like that's an argument.
I was being genuine. No part of my message indicated an intent to argue. I'm always looking to learn more and am open to other ideas, however, having a source would be necessary if I were to bring this to the attention of licensed financial professionals and ask for their perspective.
Again a source for what? What part are you looking for a source on?
Coinbase Global Inc. announced Tuesday it will lay off 18% of its workforce in another sign of a worsening crypto downturn that’s shaved off hundreds of millions of the total cryptocurrency market value.
The U.S.’s biggest crypto exchange is following in the footsteps of other cryptocurrency-related businesses that have recently cut staff, including rival exchange Gemini Trust Co. and lender BlockFi Inc., both of which cited the arrival of a crypto winter -- a prolonged downturn -- as the reason for the layoffs.
Coinbase had hired aggressively in recent years, with its workforce ballooning by about 1,200 employees this year. The company plans to lay off roughly that amount, ending the current quarter with about 5,000 employees. Until recently, the company didn’t acknowledge the arrival of a crypto winter, even though its shares have been dropping since it went public more than a year ago. They are down nearly 80% year to date, according to Bloomberg data.
Laid off employees will receive a minimum of 3.5 months of severance, plus two weeks for every year of employment.
The cryptocurrency downturn began soon after Bitcoin hit its all-time-high in November. Earlier this year, the collapse of the TerraUSD stablecoin and related Luna token erased billions of market gains. In the past week, coin prices plunged after crypto lender Celsius Network froze withdrawals amidst what many suspect was a bank-run-like event.
So we're basically in the starting stages of a recession, no? meanwhile the ECB had to have an emergency meeting:
The European Central Bank announced Wednesday that it plans to create a new tool to tackle the risk of euro zone fragmentation, in a move designed to assuage fears of a fresh debt crisis.
The decision comes after the central bank surprised market participants with an emergency meeting to address higher borrowing costs for many European governments.
The fed did raise rates marginally to combat inflation. I dont think this will stop inflation for several reasons.
-the current inflation is not monetary inflation (at least that is my take on it) -consumer spending is barely effected by interest rates. People are already paying 10% interest on many consumer credit loans for example credit cards. They are not beeing detered by higher rates. The only purchase where rates are a consideration is the purchase of a home. -If inflation is 10% and rates are 5% then its still worth it to take a loan and buy something now over safing up and buy the item in 1 year. Though in reality most consumers dont even make calculations like this when it comes to purchases. They are not the rational calculating actor that many economic theorys asume them to be. -we also see inflation in goods for which consumers do not tend to take a loan. People dont usually take a loan to pay their energy bills or buy their grocerys. This demand wont be effected by interest rates at all not even the slightest. -Raising interest rates can even increase the amount of money in circulation,as long as the fed keeps funding the US government. More interest is beeing paid,more money has to be lend/created.
The alternative would be austerity. This would stop inflation but lead to a recession.
The economic problems are fundamental and most likely long lasting. The impact of the pandemic on the workforce. People beeing sick more often. China maintaining its covid policy and in general an ever declining potential for world economic growth due to demographic factors. On top of this there are temporary elements which will most likely resolve sooner or later like the conflict in Ukraine. Though the real impact of those is rather minor when compared to the impact of the more fundamental problems.
The only thing that would durable solve inflation i think is a zero or very low growth strategy. Comparable to Japan in the 90,s of the previous century. That is where the economy is at right now more or less. But this is unacceptable. There has to be nominal growth and with little opportunity for real growth the growth will come from inflation.
I dont think we are at the end of worldwide growth yet btw,there is still a lot of potential in developping nations. The real end of growth (where growth will depend completely on technological developments) will be somewhere near the end of this century i would guess. But the virtually unlimited potential for economic growth that has been there since the start of industrial evolution is gone.
Inflation itself will eventually lower purchase power enough to stop inflation. Everything has to be rebalanced. And once there the question is how to proceed.
LONDON (AP) — The Bank of England raised interest rates by a quarter-percentage point Thursday, shrugging off pressure for a bolder move to combat price increases that have pushed inflation to a 40-year high.
The bank’s monetary policy committee voted 6-3 to boost its key rate to 1.25%, with the dissenters supporting a larger half-point increase. The U.S. Federal Reserve acted more aggressively on Wednesday, raising its benchmark rate by three-quarters of a percentage point to a range of 1.5% to 1.75%.
The United Kingdom’s central bank said its decision was based on an effort to contain inflation without choking off economic growth, which was just starting to recover from the coronavirus pandemic when food and energy prices began to rise worldwide. But the bank indicated it was ready to act more decisively if inflation becomes more deeply embedded in the economy.
“The scale, pace and timing of any further increases in bank rate will reflect the committee’s assessment of the economic outlook and inflationary pressures,” the bank said. “The committee will be particularly alert to indications of more persistent inflationary pressures, and will if necessary act forcefully in response.”
The decision came as the bank said it expects inflation to peak at more than 11% in October, a full percentage point higher than its previous forecast. The consumer price index rose by 9% in April, the highest since 1982 and more than four times the bank’s 2% target.
On June 16 2022 19:54 pmh wrote: The only thing that would durable solve inflation i think is a zero or very low growth strategy.
So, what exactly should the government do? How exactly do they control the growth?
Also, I can tell you by the end of the year the interest rate will be at level of at least 3.5% and inflation will be past the peak with signs of slowing down. Wonder what will be your explanations for the lower inflation then?
On June 16 2022 19:54 pmh wrote: The only thing that would durable solve inflation i think is a zero or very low growth strategy.
So, what exactly should the government do? How exactly do they control the growth?
Also, I can tell you by the end of the year the interest rate will be at level of at least 3.5% and inflation will be past the peak with signs of slowing down. Wonder what will be your explanations for the lower inflation then?
Not print trillions of dollars while the supply chain gets wrecked.
On June 16 2022 19:54 pmh wrote: The fed did raise rates marginally to combat inflation. I dont think this will stop inflation for several reasons.
-the current inflation is not monetary inflation (at least that is my take on it) -consumer spending is barely effected by interest rates. People are already paying 10% interest on many consumer credit loans for example credit cards. They are not beeing detered by higher rates. The only purchase where rates are a consideration is the purchase of a home. -If inflation is 10% and rates are 5% then its still worth it to take a loan and buy something now over safing up and buy the item in 1 year. Though in reality most consumers dont even make calculations like this when it comes to purchases. They are not the rational calculating actor that many economic theorys asume them to be. -we also see inflation in goods for which consumers do not tend to take a loan. People dont usually take a loan to pay their energy bills or buy their grocerys. This demand wont be effected by interest rates at all not even the slightest. -Raising interest rates can even increase the amount of money in circulation,as long as the fed keeps funding the US government. More interest is beeing paid,more money has to be lend/created.
The alternative would be austerity. This would stop inflation but lead to a recession.
The economic problems are fundamental and most likely long lasting. The impact of the pandemic on the workforce. People beeing sick more often. China maintaining its covid policy and in general an ever declining potential for world economic growth due to demographic factors. On top of this there are temporary elements which will most likely resolve sooner or later like the conflict in Ukraine. Though the real impact of those is rather minor when compared to the impact of the more fundamental problems.
The only thing that would durable solve inflation i think is a zero or very low growth strategy. Comparable to Japan in the 90,s of the previous century. That is where the economy is at right now more or less. But this is unacceptable. There has to be nominal growth and with little opportunity for real growth the growth will come from inflation.
I dont think we are at the end of worldwide growth yet btw,there is still a lot of potential in developping nations. The real end of growth (where growth will depend completely on technological developments) will be somewhere near the end of this century i would guess. But the virtually unlimited potential for economic growth that has been there since the start of industrial evolution is gone.
Inflation itself will eventually lower purchase power enough to stop inflation. Everything has to be rebalanced. And once there the question is how to proceed.
Your understanding on how interest rates impact demand and inflation are off. Firstly an increase in rates increases lending costs and the costs of capital. This reduces investments from businesses and consumption from consumers. If we take housing and mortgages as an example a higher rate leads to higher mortgage payments and directly decreases demand for other goods. In addition it reduces demand for houses and new investment into housing. Secondly higher interest rates reduce demand because it increases the incentive to save instead of consume. This is why it's irrelevant whether consumers buy goods directly with credit or not. And lastly higher rates decrease inflation because a higher rate reduces lending by private actors which decreases the growth in money supply.
Your point with high rates causing inflation only makes sense if the government would pay the higher rates with debt and the fed buys this debt by creating reserves (QE) but this isn't what's happening. Central banks are stopping their QE programmes. At least the buying assets with new reserves part. Money supply growth would also have to be higher than the contraction of money supply by decreased lending of the private sector.
On June 16 2022 19:54 pmh wrote: The fed did raise rates marginally to combat inflation. I dont think this will stop inflation for several reasons.
-the current inflation is not monetary inflation (at least that is my take on it) -consumer spending is barely effected by interest rates. People are already paying 10% interest on many consumer credit loans for example credit cards. They are not beeing detered by higher rates. The only purchase where rates are a consideration is the purchase of a home. -If inflation is 10% and rates are 5% then its still worth it to take a loan and buy something now over safing up and buy the item in 1 year. Though in reality most consumers dont even make calculations like this when it comes to purchases. They are not the rational calculating actor that many economic theorys asume them to be. -we also see inflation in goods for which consumers do not tend to take a loan. People dont usually take a loan to pay their energy bills or buy their grocerys. This demand wont be effected by interest rates at all not even the slightest. -Raising interest rates can even increase the amount of money in circulation,as long as the fed keeps funding the US government. More interest is beeing paid,more money has to be lend/created.
The alternative would be austerity. This would stop inflation but lead to a recession.
The economic problems are fundamental and most likely long lasting. The impact of the pandemic on the workforce. People beeing sick more often. China maintaining its covid policy and in general an ever declining potential for world economic growth due to demographic factors. On top of this there are temporary elements which will most likely resolve sooner or later like the conflict in Ukraine. Though the real impact of those is rather minor when compared to the impact of the more fundamental problems.
The only thing that would durable solve inflation i think is a zero or very low growth strategy. Comparable to Japan in the 90,s of the previous century. That is where the economy is at right now more or less. But this is unacceptable. There has to be nominal growth and with little opportunity for real growth the growth will come from inflation.
I dont think we are at the end of worldwide growth yet btw,there is still a lot of potential in developping nations. The real end of growth (where growth will depend completely on technological developments) will be somewhere near the end of this century i would guess. But the virtually unlimited potential for economic growth that has been there since the start of industrial evolution is gone.
Inflation itself will eventually lower purchase power enough to stop inflation. Everything has to be rebalanced. And once there the question is how to proceed.
Your understanding on how interest rates impact demand and inflation are off. Firstly an increase in rates increases lending costs and the costs of capital. This reduces investments from businesses and consumption from consumers. If we take housing and mortgages as an example a higher rate leads to higher mortgage payments and directly decreases demand for other goods. In addition it reduces demand for houses and new investment into housing. Secondly higher interest rates reduce demand because it increases the incentive to save instead of consume. This is why it's irrelevant whether consumers buy goods directly with credit or not. And lastly higher rates decrease inflation because a higher rate reduces lending by private actors which decreases the growth in money supply.
Your point with high rates causing inflation only makes sense if the government would pay the higher rates with debt and the fed buys this debt by creating reserves (QE) but this isn't what's happening. Central banks are stopping their QE programmes. At least the buying assets with new reserves part. Money supply growth would also have to be higher than the contraction of money supply by decreased lending of the private sector.
With this i do not agree. Classic economic theory says that inflation will lower if rates go higher (i also did learn this from the books) but in reality this rarely happens on the contrary. It works in a vacuum to some extend but in reality it does not have that much effect. Look for example at the charts which plot interest rates and inflation. There is a strong correlation between the two. Another example is south american nations,some of them had high rates and high inflation for a rather long time in the past. The high rates didnt stop inflation itself. (argentina,brazil in the past).
Higher rates lower investments,though if inflation is very high then more investments are profitable which compensates this to some extend. Lower investments reduce future production,which would be bad for future inflation. I also fail to see how higher rates would lower consumer spending and this is my main argument. Together with my argument that this is not monetary inflation and thus less effected by higher rates. It could be if higher rates lead to a recession and more unemployment,leading to lower demand but thats not really what you want to achieve. Consumers dont look at rates when buying grocerys or even luxery items with credit card debt. They are already willing to pay 10%+ on many loans. Making that 12% wont change anything. And as in my post above:as long as inflation is higher then the rates it will still be atractive to buy now over buying later.
But we can agree to have a different opinion on this. I dont want to go into this all to deep because that would take a very long post and it is also slightly of topic (though i think still apropiate for this thread at times).
And as a response to the other post. I do think inflation will come down eventually and it could be we are past the peak by the end of this year. Inflation itself lowers purchase power (as long as it is not fully compensated by higher wages) so eventually things will find a new balance. As long as other factors are not unfavorable.
If they want the rates to have an effect then the rates should be higher then the inflation. As long as they are lower then the inflation it is still "profitable" to take out loans to invest and consume. This is an over simplification but this is what it more or less comes down to imo. I am not against the rate hike and i do think it is a neccesary measure. I just think this rate hike or even 3.5% wont have all that much effect when inflation is aproaching 10%. I would not want to suggest a 10% rate either as that would be rather bad for the economy. Its just an overall difficult situation,where we are dealing with cost inflation somewhat similar to the 70,s and early 80,s. (high rates and high inflation where persistant during that time in western countries). Its more or less waiting it out till things have rebalanced. In the very long run we should still be heading towards a low inflation scenario similar to the past 1-2 decades.
I had a bunch of long positions from the beginning of the year thinking that the pandemic recovery would go way further than it actually did and I'm pretty sure I've lost $20,000 in the past month alone. Feels fucking bad
On June 16 2022 19:54 pmh wrote: The fed did raise rates marginally to combat inflation. I dont think this will stop inflation for several reasons.
-the current inflation is not monetary inflation (at least that is my take on it) -consumer spending is barely effected by interest rates. People are already paying 10% interest on many consumer credit loans for example credit cards. They are not beeing detered by higher rates. The only purchase where rates are a consideration is the purchase of a home. -If inflation is 10% and rates are 5% then its still worth it to take a loan and buy something now over safing up and buy the item in 1 year. Though in reality most consumers dont even make calculations like this when it comes to purchases. They are not the rational calculating actor that many economic theorys asume them to be. -we also see inflation in goods for which consumers do not tend to take a loan. People dont usually take a loan to pay their energy bills or buy their grocerys. This demand wont be effected by interest rates at all not even the slightest. -Raising interest rates can even increase the amount of money in circulation,as long as the fed keeps funding the US government. More interest is beeing paid,more money has to be lend/created.
The alternative would be austerity. This would stop inflation but lead to a recession.
The economic problems are fundamental and most likely long lasting. The impact of the pandemic on the workforce. People beeing sick more often. China maintaining its covid policy and in general an ever declining potential for world economic growth due to demographic factors. On top of this there are temporary elements which will most likely resolve sooner or later like the conflict in Ukraine. Though the real impact of those is rather minor when compared to the impact of the more fundamental problems.
The only thing that would durable solve inflation i think is a zero or very low growth strategy. Comparable to Japan in the 90,s of the previous century. That is where the economy is at right now more or less. But this is unacceptable. There has to be nominal growth and with little opportunity for real growth the growth will come from inflation.
I dont think we are at the end of worldwide growth yet btw,there is still a lot of potential in developping nations. The real end of growth (where growth will depend completely on technological developments) will be somewhere near the end of this century i would guess. But the virtually unlimited potential for economic growth that has been there since the start of industrial evolution is gone.
Inflation itself will eventually lower purchase power enough to stop inflation. Everything has to be rebalanced. And once there the question is how to proceed.
Your understanding on how interest rates impact demand and inflation are off. Firstly an increase in rates increases lending costs and the costs of capital. This reduces investments from businesses and consumption from consumers. If we take housing and mortgages as an example a higher rate leads to higher mortgage payments and directly decreases demand for other goods. In addition it reduces demand for houses and new investment into housing. Secondly higher interest rates reduce demand because it increases the incentive to save instead of consume. This is why it's irrelevant whether consumers buy goods directly with credit or not. And lastly higher rates decrease inflation because a higher rate reduces lending by private actors which decreases the growth in money supply.
Your point with high rates causing inflation only makes sense if the government would pay the higher rates with debt and the fed buys this debt by creating reserves (QE) but this isn't what's happening. Central banks are stopping their QE programmes. At least the buying assets with new reserves part. Money supply growth would also have to be higher than the contraction of money supply by decreased lending of the private sector.
With this i do not agree. Classic economic theory says that inflation will lower if rates go higher (i also did learn this from the books) but in reality this rarely happens on the contrary. It works in a vacuum to some extend but in reality it does not have that much effect. Look for example at the charts which plot interest rates and inflation. There is a strong correlation between the two. Another example is south american nations,some of them had high rates and high inflation for a rather long time in the past. The high rates didnt stop inflation itself. (argentina,brazil in the past).
Higher rates lower investments,though if inflation is very high then more investments are profitable which compensates this to some extend. Lower investments reduce future production,which would be bad for future inflation. I also fail to see how higher rates would lower consumer spending and this is my main argument. Together with my argument that this is not monetary inflation and thus less effected by higher rates. It could be if higher rates lead to a recession and more unemployment,leading to lower demand but thats not really what you want to achieve. Consumers dont look at rates when buying grocerys or even luxery items with credit card debt. They are already willing to pay 10%+ on many loans. Making that 12% wont change anything. And as in my post above:as long as inflation is higher then the rates it will still be atractive to buy now over buying later.
But we can agree to have a different opinion on this. I dont want to go into this all to deep because that would take a very long post and it is also slightly of topic (though i think still apropiate for this thread at times).
And as a response to the other post. I do think inflation will come down eventually and it could be we are past the peak by the end of this year. Inflation itself lowers purchase power (as long as it is not fully compensated by higher wages) so eventually things will find a new balance. As long as other factors are not unfavorable.
If they want the rates to have an effect then the rates should be higher then the inflation. As long as they are lower then the inflation it is still "profitable" to take out loans to invest and consume. This is an over simplification but this is what it more or less comes down to imo. I am not against the rate hike and i do think it is a neccesary measure. I just think this rate hike or even 3.5% wont have all that much effect when inflation is aproaching 10%. I would not want to suggest a 10% rate either as that would be rather bad for the economy. Its just an overall difficult situation,where we are dealing with cost inflation somewhat similar to the 70,s and early 80,s. (high rates and high inflation where persistant during that time in western countries). Its more or less waiting it out till things have rebalanced. In the very long run we should still be heading towards a low inflation scenario similar to the past 1-2 decades.
Alright if you don't want to go deep into it that's fine. The literature on interest rates and their effect on inflation is quite extensive and I can share it if you (or anyone else) are interested. The correlation between interest rates & inflation and the struggle of Latin American countries to reduce inflation has to do with the neutral rate of interest (which is determined by structural factors and not the CB) and inflation expectations respectively.
On June 17 2022 13:35 plasmidghost wrote: I had a bunch of long positions from the beginning of the year thinking that the pandemic recovery would go way further than it actually did and I'm pretty sure I've lost $20,000 in the past month alone. Feels fucking bad
Yes, it doesn't feel very good but if you're in it for the long term it doesn't matter too much. I'm down about the same since the start of the year but I don't worry since I don't plan to cash out for a few decades at least.
Am I allowed to talk crypto here? I know there's a Bitcoin discussion thread but it is pretty much dead from what I can gather. Will remove if not.
Every day that passes, I see the alarm sirens getting rightfully louder for crypto. Look at this shit, USDCoin in the last five days created a billion dollars' worth of stablecoin and no one knows if there was an actual one billion US dollars put into it because the ledger is closed. Fucking wild
Good thread on how once BTC drops below 20k, a lot of people are going to lose everything
I mean yeah you can talk about it here if you want. You should be ready for people to call it a scam and that its a perfect example of why we have governmental backing to "fiat" currency.
the institutions built for crypto are collapsing and there is nothing to bail them out because there is nothing behind all of them. We're past the point of no return for ecosystem collapse and in the middle of the hyperinflation portion of currencies.
The beams are rotting and the response is to keep painting the walls.
Tether was audited by Baker Tilly who are reasonably sure that the underlying assets securing the peg exist. The threat is more likely to come from the regulatory environment, similar to how Russia is defaulting despite having the money and wish to make bond payments.
Rational Reminder Podcast is starting the first serious venture to try and focus on understanding it from every perspective, and using key experts in various aspects of the technology that can help provide less positively-biased views on the technology. Something missing in most crypto education.
EPT![[image loading]](https://www.atlantafed.org/-/media/images/cqer/research/gdpnow/gdpnow-forecast-evolution.gif?h=496&w=650&la=en)
