I don't know anyone who thinks crypto is "controlled by the government." The crypto market (i.e. all the cryptocurrencies) is controlled by the PTB (AKA the cabal). They can destroy the crypto market on a whim, because they literally own all the money in the world and because the crypto market is based on faith, and they also own all the faith in the world. They currently use the crypto market as a pump and dump for their stock market shenanigans. The entire crypto market is their plaything. This whole pretend "government control" thing is nothing but controlled opposition.
That doesn't mean crypto is useless, it means crypto as a currencythat has no asset backing it is worthless. Crypto has a lot of important uses and I think it will be the technology that creates our future economy. But it's role won't be as a stand alone currency. It will help create a non-fucked up marketplace of real assets.
Youre somewhat misunderstanding that crypto "has nothing backing it." What backs it is an encryption model that is exponentially complicated.
I suggest it is not me that is misunderstanding it. What value does that "exponentially complicated encryption model" have? Is the work you can do with it equal to its rarity on a supply/demand curve?
For example, if you can spilt a crypto basically infinitely and use an infinitesimal piece of one to say, send an encrypted message, is that work that you can do with it worth the value of an entire one since you can use any size piece of it you want for that purpose?
Blockchain is fundamentally a networking protocol the misconception that it needs real assets to provide value is based on an incomplete perspective of it.
I never said anything about blockchain not having value. I am talking about its value being directly related to its productive capacity AND rarity. This is how value is assigned to all assets, and how it has been assigned since time began. It's the only piece of a normal economics degree that's worth a damn; the supply/demand curve sets the value. Currently cryptocurrencies have productive capacity but its not valued based on its productive capacity. It's valued based on its rarity and faith.
Obviously, this is almost unquantifiable
I agree, just as the value of a cryptocurreny is unquantifiable, which is why it has no value (or at least not enough to be worth a currency). A "piece of the internet" is worthless, even though the internet can be used to do work, because it is infinitely splittable to do that work.
It is the technological engine for an entire epoch of industrial and socio-economic revolution.
I agree with this completely.
Currency is only one use-case for the network.
It can't be used as a currency for the reasons I have stated. Its value is not tied to its productive capacity. It only has to exist to be used. The quantity is irrelevant.
But from a purely economic side of it, the inherent value of the coin is it represent computational access on the network
If there are cryptos for which this is true, then that suggests their value would not vary at all unless the demand for their productive value went up. In such a case then such a crypto could be used as a currency. But that still has some intrinsic problems.
One such problem is that if you use it as a currency then it becomes more scarce, which increases its value, and it can't be used to do work when its being used as a currency (same with any asset like this really, even silver). So it would need to be plentiful enough that its use as a currency doesn't substantially interfere with its use in production, both in the present and in the future.
This particular problem is not unique to such a crypto, that is inherent with any real asset. That is why I stated that any system that is not designed for true barter, with many mediums of exchange as I have suggested above, is ultimately doomed to fail (or cause a free market economy to no longer be free).
Currency is a medium of exchange used to conduct commerce.
Currency is most commonly issued by government or some trusted non-government source. Currency could actually be a commodity that is so commonly known and valued that it is accepted as the medium for commerce.
Governments generally declare a monopoly on the issuing of currency in their borders. This is reasonable. In a day of using physical gold, silver, whatever ... a risk was run of someone making coins that were not the purity/% content and the issuer of such devalued coin would be giving themselves purchasing value they did not have by defrauding others. This would frequently result in harsh consequences up to the death penalty.
When a government devalues its own currency, or people have no confidence in the long term viability of the government, they will find something else to use as currency. Governments try to stop this, usually for tax purposes.
The fact that government issued currencies (and the governments issuing them) are viewed as not reliable and not stable does not make crypto reliable and stable. It just means that people are looking for something that might be stable. Growth in crypto is not a function of crypto being reliable, it is the fact that the government has become so unreliable that people would think that crypto would be a viable option. Tired of living with the abuser, the spouse hopes to find better luck with the con who up to this point has not provided evidence they are lying.
Most of the planet has as much reason to trust the issuers of crypto-currency as they do to trust the federal reserve. I have as much means of redress of grievances from being ripped off by the fed as I would from being ripped off by a crypto-currency issuer/originator. The drive is a loss of confidence in government.
The cyrpto-currency issuer:
1. can increase the amount of currency any time they want. You can't stop that and neither can I.
2. can lie about the total amount of currency in existence any time they want. You can't know the truth, you are putting implicit confidence in them.
3. backs the currency with nothing. The fact that the US government issues fiat currency does not make crypto valuable, it just means that it is a digital fiat with no government backing it.
4. can get their crypto-currency labelled a commodity or security by a government and treated as such. There is nothing the crypto-currency issuer or you can do about that but get taxed.
Many people who were 'early' adopters of crypto are quick to promote it because from there standpoint it is a potential measure of wealth that has increased for them (in potential terms) since they put government currency into the crypto.
The potential is only made into reality when the crypto is converted into tangible goods and property.
I know people who talk about how much their crypto has increased in value for them (in potential terms). Good for them. Its like someone telling me that they bought Apple at $10 a share. I have no incentive to get involved because I don't have any reasonable basis for making money there if I were entering now. The argument that 'crypto will just go higher so you should get in now' has echoes of ponzi schemes and multi-level marketing.
I accept crypto-currency is intended by some to be a good faith solution to lack of confidence in governments. However, where you find an honest inventor with a good idea, you quickly find a bunch of hucksters who see a way to take real wealth from others. For them, crypto is a way to take something of worth (real world government accepted currency units, securities, physical possessions) from suckers in exchange for the promise of crypto-currencies future.
Government issued currency backed by tangible resources (gold, silver, whatever) which the currency can actually be exchanged for is a winner.
Crypto based upon the above government issued currency is a winner.
Physical currency of commonly accepted value, though not issued by a government is a winner.
Crypto based upon someone's supposedly secure blockchain technology alone, with nothing to back it, and not yet exposed to a future generation of technologies ability to compromise existing security systems is a fantasy island of value. Crypto issued by some party that can devalue that currency any time without any means of redress by those who 'own' the currency is a scam.
Crypto issued by a party that goes out of existence is a scam.
a risk was run of someone making coins that were not the purity/% content and the issuer of such devalued coin would be giving themselves purchasing value they did not have by defrauding others.
There is another risk that is even worse, at least historically. That is the hording of currency. Anyone can come in, and with enough resources horde a currency and destroy a nation. This was (at least according to history) the reason for the fall of (western) Rome.
There are many other examples of extreme fuckery in this vein as well though, including the impetus for the Coin act of 1873 which took silver off the dollar, and the hording of gold that led to the Great Depression (really it was the transferring of gold to Europe, but its the same effect). That led eventually to the EO that confiscated all the Gold in America under the tyranny of Eminent Domain (to our sovereign overlords), which final act of hording led to where we are today.
Governments generally declare a monopoly on the issuing of currency in their borders. This is reasonable.
Because of the above risk of hording, I suggest this is terrible, and will always lead to failure because of that intrinsic flaw. I suggest the only viable path to maintain a free market is one that has a market for, and encourages barter, with many possible exchange mediums, not set in value, but all as valuable as they naturally are.
I mean, you could set one as the standard (like silver), but it's only a placeholder number. As long as the act of setting a baseline doesn't give that medium any extra value itself just because it is set as a baseline, then hording becomes impossible (or at least highly improbable).
That is why I have suggested, and keep suggesting that the best path forward is one where all assets that can be reasonably put on blockchain, be put on blockchain (all stocks for instance. All PMs, etc.). This way the market is always open and free.
I can tell you right now, those fuckers don't own all the money in the world. I gotta couple silver bars behind me that they don't have. Also for the concept of money to work, people worldwide have to accept the medium in trade. Trading is a two-way street and the cabal isn't everyone. If the other side doesn't accept the cabal's idea of money and has a doable way to trade amongst themselves through another medium, then the cabal has no money anymore.
What I like about cryptocurrency is that there are literally thousands of coins and if for example Bitcoin was owned by the whole Cabal or Bitcoin somehow got hacked, another cryptocurrency could and would easily be made with improvements and the masses would buy into that pretty fast. Cryptocurrency becomes a cat-and-mouse game the Cabal can't control. Even if they outlaw it, if people trade amongst themselves without any central authority, there's nothing the elites and cabal can do about it. There are even cryptocurrencies like Cardano that are working on making transactions without the use of the internet. All you'd have to do is generate electricity.
I can tell you right now, those fuckers don't own all the money in the world.
As far as the world sees money, they quite literally own it all. My upcoming report will show that statement is made without error. It is all theirs.
Cryptocurrency becomes a cat-and-mouse game the Cabal can't control.
You just don't seem to get the scope of things.
They could quite literally buy up the entire crypto market on a whim. It doesn't matter how much it costs. As long as you can exchange Federal Reserve Notes (or Euro's, or any bank note) for crypto, they can completely destroy the market.
And that doesn't even address the real problem with cryptocurrencies as they are currently conceived. We have been led to believe that a faith backed asset has value; that it can work as a medium of exchange for barter. For over a century we have been led to believe it. But it doesn't, and it can't; not for long.
No market can stand on a faith backed asset. It is absolutely doomed to fail. It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but it will fail, and it won't take long. As soon as people see and really understand what has happened with our economy (my upcoming report will make it perfectly clear), no one will ever want to touch a faith backed asset again.
They could quite literally buy up the entire crypto market on a whim. It doesn't matter how much it costs. As long as you can exchange Federal Reserve Notes (or Euro's, or any bank note) for crypto, they can completely destroy the market.
They can only buy what is being sold on the market (they can't buy crypto in peoples wallet or crypto just sitting on an exchange not on a market) and the price exponentially increases as the supply dries up. Yes, they can print US dollars from nothing to buy up more crypto but because of the nature of crypto, pretty soon have astronomical costs for buying a few crypto. Let's say they do this with Bitcoin. As they buy more Bitcoin and Bitcoins price rises the Millions of Dollars, the dollar starts to drop in value due to the inflation of printing up all the new dollars. So now people are selling their Bitcoin for $US and realizing their dollar doesn't have as much buying power.
Let's say the elites/cabal/government own a majority of Bitcoin now (and even have a majority of the computing hash power). Regular people know that Bitcoin is controlled by the elites and don't want to invest in it. Someone comes around and makes a copy of Bitcoin or a better improved version (there are literally thousands of cryptos that are copies or improvements of Bitcoin right now). This new crypto starts to gain notoriety, regular people hear by word of mouth and invest heavily into this new crypto, this new crypto becomes a great way to exchange goods. A free market now forms because the elite don't control this new cryptocurrency and regular people can create fortunes of wealth using this new cryptocurrency. The elite learn about this new crypto and realize they are being drained so they buying up a ton of this crypto.... and the cycle continues as a cat and mouse game.
The cabal must react with a single plan of owning the majority while regular people can come up with any ideas and angles to get a jump on the cabal. Eventually the cabal loses control of the majority and when they do, they won't get it back as regular people become more and more knowledgeable over time.
They can only buy what is being sold on the market
They don't need to buy it all to destroy faith. They could probably destroy faith with 10% of it, which they almost certainly already own. (its probably closer to half).
pretty soon have astronomical costs for buying a few crypto
I shouldn't have said they could buy it "all" because you are focused on that word. That is irrelevant. They don't need to buy it all to destroy faith. They only need to destroy faith. You are thinking ideally I am talking about what actually happens. They have spent thousands of years mastering manipulation of faith. They can destroy faith in crypto, which has no intrinsic value in a heartbeat.
All of your arguments, while sound within the scope you intend them, are missing the bigger picture. These things you are trading are not assets. They are worthless as a currency. Imagine having the choice between a faith backed crypto, and a silver backed crypto. Which one would you choose to own? You might gamble on owning some faith backed crypto, hoping the exchange rate changes when faith is on an upswing, but for real ownership, you'll choose the one that has real value. So will everyone else. Given the option between the two, everyone will choose the one that has the real value. The faith backed one will fail, because who wants it? Its junk. It has no value.
I don't know anyone who thinks crypto is "controlled by the government." The crypto market (i.e. all the cryptocurrencies) is controlled by the PTB (AKA the cabal). They can destroy the crypto market on a whim, because they literally own all the money in the world and because the crypto market is based on faith, and they also own all the faith in the world. They currently use the crypto market as a pump and dump for their stock market shenanigans. The entire crypto market is their plaything. This whole pretend "government control" thing is nothing but controlled opposition.
That doesn't mean crypto is useless, it means crypto as a currency that has no asset backing it is worthless. Crypto has a lot of important uses and I think it will be the technology that creates our future economy. But it's role won't be as a stand alone currency. It will help create a non-fucked up marketplace of real assets.
I suggest it is not me that is misunderstanding it. What value does that "exponentially complicated encryption model" have? Is the work you can do with it equal to its rarity on a supply/demand curve?
For example, if you can spilt a crypto basically infinitely and use an infinitesimal piece of one to say, send an encrypted message, is that work that you can do with it worth the value of an entire one since you can use any size piece of it you want for that purpose?
I never said anything about blockchain not having value. I am talking about its value being directly related to its productive capacity AND rarity. This is how value is assigned to all assets, and how it has been assigned since time began. It's the only piece of a normal economics degree that's worth a damn; the supply/demand curve sets the value. Currently cryptocurrencies have productive capacity but its not valued based on its productive capacity. It's valued based on its rarity and faith.
I agree, just as the value of a cryptocurreny is unquantifiable, which is why it has no value (or at least not enough to be worth a currency). A "piece of the internet" is worthless, even though the internet can be used to do work, because it is infinitely splittable to do that work.
I agree with this completely.
It can't be used as a currency for the reasons I have stated. Its value is not tied to its productive capacity. It only has to exist to be used. The quantity is irrelevant.
If there are cryptos for which this is true, then that suggests their value would not vary at all unless the demand for their productive value went up. In such a case then such a crypto could be used as a currency. But that still has some intrinsic problems.
One such problem is that if you use it as a currency then it becomes more scarce, which increases its value, and it can't be used to do work when its being used as a currency (same with any asset like this really, even silver). So it would need to be plentiful enough that its use as a currency doesn't substantially interfere with its use in production, both in the present and in the future.
This particular problem is not unique to such a crypto, that is inherent with any real asset. That is why I stated that any system that is not designed for true barter, with many mediums of exchange as I have suggested above, is ultimately doomed to fail (or cause a free market economy to no longer be free).
Currency is a medium of exchange used to conduct commerce.
Currency is most commonly issued by government or some trusted non-government source. Currency could actually be a commodity that is so commonly known and valued that it is accepted as the medium for commerce.
Governments generally declare a monopoly on the issuing of currency in their borders. This is reasonable. In a day of using physical gold, silver, whatever ... a risk was run of someone making coins that were not the purity/% content and the issuer of such devalued coin would be giving themselves purchasing value they did not have by defrauding others. This would frequently result in harsh consequences up to the death penalty.
When a government devalues its own currency, or people have no confidence in the long term viability of the government, they will find something else to use as currency. Governments try to stop this, usually for tax purposes.
The fact that government issued currencies (and the governments issuing them) are viewed as not reliable and not stable does not make crypto reliable and stable. It just means that people are looking for something that might be stable. Growth in crypto is not a function of crypto being reliable, it is the fact that the government has become so unreliable that people would think that crypto would be a viable option. Tired of living with the abuser, the spouse hopes to find better luck with the con who up to this point has not provided evidence they are lying.
Most of the planet has as much reason to trust the issuers of crypto-currency as they do to trust the federal reserve. I have as much means of redress of grievances from being ripped off by the fed as I would from being ripped off by a crypto-currency issuer/originator. The drive is a loss of confidence in government.
The cyrpto-currency issuer: 1. can increase the amount of currency any time they want. You can't stop that and neither can I. 2. can lie about the total amount of currency in existence any time they want. You can't know the truth, you are putting implicit confidence in them. 3. backs the currency with nothing. The fact that the US government issues fiat currency does not make crypto valuable, it just means that it is a digital fiat with no government backing it. 4. can get their crypto-currency labelled a commodity or security by a government and treated as such. There is nothing the crypto-currency issuer or you can do about that but get taxed.
Many people who were 'early' adopters of crypto are quick to promote it because from there standpoint it is a potential measure of wealth that has increased for them (in potential terms) since they put government currency into the crypto.
The potential is only made into reality when the crypto is converted into tangible goods and property.
I know people who talk about how much their crypto has increased in value for them (in potential terms). Good for them. Its like someone telling me that they bought Apple at $10 a share. I have no incentive to get involved because I don't have any reasonable basis for making money there if I were entering now. The argument that 'crypto will just go higher so you should get in now' has echoes of ponzi schemes and multi-level marketing.
I accept crypto-currency is intended by some to be a good faith solution to lack of confidence in governments. However, where you find an honest inventor with a good idea, you quickly find a bunch of hucksters who see a way to take real wealth from others. For them, crypto is a way to take something of worth (real world government accepted currency units, securities, physical possessions) from suckers in exchange for the promise of crypto-currencies future.
Government issued currency backed by tangible resources (gold, silver, whatever) which the currency can actually be exchanged for is a winner. Crypto based upon the above government issued currency is a winner. Physical currency of commonly accepted value, though not issued by a government is a winner.
Crypto based upon someone's supposedly secure blockchain technology alone, with nothing to back it, and not yet exposed to a future generation of technologies ability to compromise existing security systems is a fantasy island of value. Crypto issued by some party that can devalue that currency any time without any means of redress by those who 'own' the currency is a scam. Crypto issued by a party that goes out of existence is a scam.
There is another risk that is even worse, at least historically. That is the hording of currency. Anyone can come in, and with enough resources horde a currency and destroy a nation. This was (at least according to history) the reason for the fall of (western) Rome.
There are many other examples of extreme fuckery in this vein as well though, including the impetus for the Coin act of 1873 which took silver off the dollar, and the hording of gold that led to the Great Depression (really it was the transferring of gold to Europe, but its the same effect). That led eventually to the EO that confiscated all the Gold in America under the tyranny of Eminent Domain (to our sovereign overlords), which final act of hording led to where we are today.
Because of the above risk of hording, I suggest this is terrible, and will always lead to failure because of that intrinsic flaw. I suggest the only viable path to maintain a free market is one that has a market for, and encourages barter, with many possible exchange mediums, not set in value, but all as valuable as they naturally are.
I mean, you could set one as the standard (like silver), but it's only a placeholder number. As long as the act of setting a baseline doesn't give that medium any extra value itself just because it is set as a baseline, then hording becomes impossible (or at least highly improbable).
That is why I have suggested, and keep suggesting that the best path forward is one where all assets that can be reasonably put on blockchain, be put on blockchain (all stocks for instance. All PMs, etc.). This way the market is always open and free.
I can tell you right now, those fuckers don't own all the money in the world. I gotta couple silver bars behind me that they don't have. Also for the concept of money to work, people worldwide have to accept the medium in trade. Trading is a two-way street and the cabal isn't everyone. If the other side doesn't accept the cabal's idea of money and has a doable way to trade amongst themselves through another medium, then the cabal has no money anymore.
What I like about cryptocurrency is that there are literally thousands of coins and if for example Bitcoin was owned by the whole Cabal or Bitcoin somehow got hacked, another cryptocurrency could and would easily be made with improvements and the masses would buy into that pretty fast. Cryptocurrency becomes a cat-and-mouse game the Cabal can't control. Even if they outlaw it, if people trade amongst themselves without any central authority, there's nothing the elites and cabal can do about it. There are even cryptocurrencies like Cardano that are working on making transactions without the use of the internet. All you'd have to do is generate electricity.
As far as the world sees money, they quite literally own it all. My upcoming report will show that statement is made without error. It is all theirs.
You just don't seem to get the scope of things.
They could quite literally buy up the entire crypto market on a whim. It doesn't matter how much it costs. As long as you can exchange Federal Reserve Notes (or Euro's, or any bank note) for crypto, they can completely destroy the market.
And that doesn't even address the real problem with cryptocurrencies as they are currently conceived. We have been led to believe that a faith backed asset has value; that it can work as a medium of exchange for barter. For over a century we have been led to believe it. But it doesn't, and it can't; not for long.
No market can stand on a faith backed asset. It is absolutely doomed to fail. It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but it will fail, and it won't take long. As soon as people see and really understand what has happened with our economy (my upcoming report will make it perfectly clear), no one will ever want to touch a faith backed asset again.
They can only buy what is being sold on the market (they can't buy crypto in peoples wallet or crypto just sitting on an exchange not on a market) and the price exponentially increases as the supply dries up. Yes, they can print US dollars from nothing to buy up more crypto but because of the nature of crypto, pretty soon have astronomical costs for buying a few crypto. Let's say they do this with Bitcoin. As they buy more Bitcoin and Bitcoins price rises the Millions of Dollars, the dollar starts to drop in value due to the inflation of printing up all the new dollars. So now people are selling their Bitcoin for $US and realizing their dollar doesn't have as much buying power.
Let's say the elites/cabal/government own a majority of Bitcoin now (and even have a majority of the computing hash power). Regular people know that Bitcoin is controlled by the elites and don't want to invest in it. Someone comes around and makes a copy of Bitcoin or a better improved version (there are literally thousands of cryptos that are copies or improvements of Bitcoin right now). This new crypto starts to gain notoriety, regular people hear by word of mouth and invest heavily into this new crypto, this new crypto becomes a great way to exchange goods. A free market now forms because the elite don't control this new cryptocurrency and regular people can create fortunes of wealth using this new cryptocurrency. The elite learn about this new crypto and realize they are being drained so they buying up a ton of this crypto.... and the cycle continues as a cat and mouse game.
The cabal must react with a single plan of owning the majority while regular people can come up with any ideas and angles to get a jump on the cabal. Eventually the cabal loses control of the majority and when they do, they won't get it back as regular people become more and more knowledgeable over time.
They don't need to buy it all to destroy faith. They could probably destroy faith with 10% of it, which they almost certainly already own. (its probably closer to half).
I shouldn't have said they could buy it "all" because you are focused on that word. That is irrelevant. They don't need to buy it all to destroy faith. They only need to destroy faith. You are thinking ideally I am talking about what actually happens. They have spent thousands of years mastering manipulation of faith. They can destroy faith in crypto, which has no intrinsic value in a heartbeat.
All of your arguments, while sound within the scope you intend them, are missing the bigger picture. These things you are trading are not assets. They are worthless as a currency. Imagine having the choice between a faith backed crypto, and a silver backed crypto. Which one would you choose to own? You might gamble on owning some faith backed crypto, hoping the exchange rate changes when faith is on an upswing, but for real ownership, you'll choose the one that has real value. So will everyone else. Given the option between the two, everyone will choose the one that has the real value. The faith backed one will fail, because who wants it? Its junk. It has no value.
Be sure to link the paper you're working on, ill be waiting
Based on what? How do you know it is run by the cabal?