@Porwest
more from that month
When the dot com era was afoot, top money people and super rich were saying, "This is not real. You can't have value if you don't produce something." All the dot commers laughed and said, "You are wrong." The top money people and super rich turned out to be right. Now with crypto the top money people and super rich are saying, "Crypto is not real. You can't have value if you don't produce anything." Since nothing that has ever produced nothing has never succeeded in producing wealth, I tend to think the same will hold true of crypto. This is either a bear market or a realization.
13 comments
They're not aware how crypto works maybe, we have different ways to earn and gain. If they don't believe in cryptos, let them be
There is only one proven way to make money in this world. Crypto, to my mind, doesn't change that. Just my two cents. I think crypto will burn more people than it helps.
90% of shitcoins and their projects will probably die and that's actually good. Then this decree won't be said upon entire crypto
I agree 100%. You cannot have any sort of viability when you have tens of thousands of coins and tokens all trying to do the same thing and fight for space. If nothing else, all it does it make the whole thing seem even less real.
many people still dont believe in crypto for now.
That would be most people, according to the numbers. Crypto is really a two-legged table just holding on thankful for no breeze momentarily to blow it over. lol
Good parallell, wrong outcome. The internet produces value. Its a communication platform with limitless possibilities. Crypto produces value. Its a financial platform with limitless possibilities. Both of them give people tools and freedom, how is that "no value"?
You entirely missed my point, unfortunately. We are talking about two very different things here.
Oh.. really? Sorry then. Do you care to tell me your point then?
My point is that during the dot com era, many people thought there was a new way to do things. A new "definition" of business and a new way to handle "start ups." Business after business after business were all launched with no products, no services, no buildings to operate from—and yet they were able to IPO and raise billions and billions of dollars. The idea was so lucrative, in fact, that employees went to work for these companies without a care in the world for wages. "Just pay me in stocks," they agreed. Employee after employee got richer and richer and there was a point when all of these people were convinced this was the future. This was the new way. They thought they had found the answers their parents and grandfathers had been seeking for decades before them. Many people warned them. "You can't have these kinds of valuations without anything to back them up." But of course they thought the proof was in their paper accounts worth millions and millions of dollars. According to the numbers they were getting very, very rich despite everything that pointed to what was obvious to most other people that "this can't be real." And all you had to do was pick a name, add a dot com to it, make a little website and boom, someone would come along and want to invest. At some point, of course, it all collapsed, and it collapsed because it was not the future. Because the way to start businesses and make money had not changed. Because the reality had not changed. The businesses mostly all went under aside from a small few, and it wound up being that most of the people who got rich during the dot com era went broke—in the end a lot of people who worked for shares of stock wound up ultimately having donated their time because they walked away from it all right back to zero. The only companies from the dot com era that survived were ones that produced something. Companies like Yahoo, Amazon, Google, Facebook and others. Crypto seems to desire to do similar things, granted in different ways. It seeks to change the way money is made, the way it is dealt with, the way it is disseminated, the way it is viewed and so on and so forth. In the same way that the dot coms were largely 'non producers' with market caps in the billions of dollars, many cryptos are non producers with valuations in the billions and trillions. With absolutely nothing backing them up. There is a difference between cryptos and the dot coms of course in that the dot coms were essentially businesses while the cryptos are currencies. But the underlying principles of how value is derived remains the same. Even if you take the dollar, it is not entirely without something to back up its value. GDP is a strong measure of its worth, for example. Crypto cannot say the same thing. I am not saying crypto is dead necessarily. Only time will tell. But what I AM saying is that we should be careful to think that suddenly we may have found a new way when for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years the old way has still largely proven itself to be THE way. Everyone is always interested in finding a way to 'buck the system,' and it has never succeeded in the past, what makes us think it can now? Beyond that, we are talking about a technology, right? That's what crypto essentially is. A technology. It's been around for a little over 12 years and has not evolved much at all since its inception. That also makes it one of the slowest advancing technologies ever in history. I simply think that people should proceed with great care and caution if they want to play the crypto game while it is here—and should also be prepared to lose their entire investment if it collapses. The fear is that a lot of people are pouring their entire life savings into this and some are dropping all other traditional means of investing and are losing valuable time in the process. If the rug gets pulled on this thing, a lot of people are going to be in a really bad situation.
Thank you for elaborating! So basically what you are talking about is technological darwinism. Very new technologies tend to attract enthusiasts first, and just a few percent of them has anything to provide. The rest just rides the waves and initially they seem profitable. But just like with the internet, when the emotions fade away only the fundamentally good projects survive. And yes there are lots of scams around. Look around the present internet, let alone the 90s. Blockchain is just the shiny new platform for those scams because the majority does not yet understand. At the end of the day wild emotions will fade away, knowledge will spread better and things will normalize as it did with the internet. Huge potential and stable projects with good support. Blockchain is here to stay.
I hope you are right. I do not see the same things you do. Unfortunately. I see blockchain as driven by a lot of hope, wishful thinking, hyperbole...but not much investment principle. And so I wish it the best.
Lol, well a lot has been said about crypto, and so on so forth.