How do you see Luna's market value from $10 billion to 0 within 3 days?

[Assimilator]

The issue I have with it is that the system is entirely dependent on computers(we're almost there now), which in itself is vulnerable to threats from abroad, so if the one and only form of making financial transactions is somehow crippled, we're screwed.

This is the funniest shit I've read all day... the global financial system has been entirely dependent on computers for decades, people working in said system are very aware of vulnerabilities, and very active in making sure they don't cause problems.

 

[Yraggul666]

Enjoying every squirm, even contemplating opening a whiskey bottle to celebrate but i'm kind of busy tomorrow....

 

[Dr. Dro]

None the less I think your wrong mostly because you are racist against crypto, they're all the same right.

That's... a surprisingly heavy term, but actually, it is quite contrary.

I used to be an avid crypto supporter, then my little dream got shattered by crypto farms with over 500,000 GPUs installed and another God knows how many dozens of thousands spare and ready to delve into the mines, with dedicated power plants burning whatever fuel they could to sustain the operation... It was human greed that killed the dream and shattered my gaming hobby and made life impossibly difficult for artists I value far more than money. In fact, the whole ordeal shook me out of my rebel, don't step on snek phase. You'd find a great analogy in the Lord of the Rings. Bitcoin was never meant to be worth $50,000, and none of this was ever meant to be a heavily regulated hedge or a prospect for speculation, it was literally a rebellion against taxes and centralized banking that has taken an insane proportion, much like the mines of Moria. They dug too deep... and it was the end.

Edit: changed wording a bit as to not take it to the political side

 

[dragontamer5788]

No as many as you think, there are quite a few sure, but it also depends on which exchange. Some exchanges are 'luckier' than others ( of companies that do offer dividends). When it comes to distributing profits, there are a few companies that offer profit sharing, in lieu of dividends.

If a company isn't making profits, its on the path to bankruptcy and dies out in some order.

If a company is making profits, those profits are going to one of two places:

1. Dividends (see my earlier post).

2. Capital Expenditures (see my earlier post, and the section of my post you cut out).

Capital Expenditures, or CapEx for short, is basically "Buying a new factory". Most people prefer companies to buy new factories rather than actually redistributing the profits. After all, if some company is profitable with 10-factories, they'll be 10% more profitable if they upgrade to 11 factories. Then next year, they can buy a 12th or 13th factory, etc. etc. and keep growing. Over the years, the larger-and-larger company is obviously worth more money (if they were worth 100-million with 10-factories, they rightfully would be worth 110-million with 11-factories, or 130-million with 13-factories).

------

The stock-market is actually pretty decent at tracking a company's value (aka: the Market Cap) based off of the amount of capital expenditures that a company reinvests into itself. There's nothing "wrong" or illegitimate about this. Its the natural state of affairs. A company that owns 11-factories is simply worth 10% more than the (otherwise same) company that only had 10 factories.

Now the "factory" is different for different companies. Netflix's CapEx is building new content and expanding its portfolio of shows. Amazon is buying servers and increasing the number of warehouses. Apple is... actually literally building factories. Microsoft is writing new software. AMD is designing a newer and better chip. But all in all, these capital-expenditures are aimed at making those companies more-and-more profitable.

------

One thing that tracks: if a company is worth $100-million bucks, and then spends $10-million in CapEx, it is now a $110 million company assuming basic competence upon their management. If they're an excellent company with good business strategy, a $10-million investment very well could be a +20million or +30-million value. ("Synergy", as managers like to call it). There's plenty of examples of this. A single programmer in Netflix could rewrite software that handles content at a cost of $400,000 (wages over a year + benefits). But that program they wrote will save $5-million in energy bills because it made 10,000-servers work 20% more efficiently. Modern business is about finding these opportunities and spending money (ex: $400,000 in programmer wages) to save more money ($5 million+ energy bill savings, and other such synergies)

 

[MentalAcetylide]

This is the funniest shit I've read all day... the global financial system has been entirely dependent on computers for decades, people working in said system are very aware of vulnerabilities, and very active in making sure they don't cause problems.

Did you not read? Hence the reason I said "we're almost there now". Sure we are heavily dependent on computers in the financial market, but its not all integrated globally into a single centralized system where everyone is using the same currency. There's nothing preventing you from pulling physical cash out of your wallet and buying something. A bank's system might crash or be unavailable, but it won't keep you from being able to make a purchase. Only those relying on credit/debit cards won't be able to buy anything due to the bank's system being unavailable.

Being aware of vulnerabilities does not equate to being aware of all vulnerabilities, therefore the potential of this critical infrastructure being successfully attacked or sabotaged is still there.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

That's... a surprisingly heavy term, but actually, it is quite contrary.

I used to be an avid crypto supporter, then my little dream got shattered by crypto farms with over 500,000 GPUs installed and another God knows how many dozens of thousands spare and ready to delve into the mines, with dedicated power plants burning whatever fuel they could to sustain the operation... It was human greed that killed the dream and shattered my gaming hobby and made life impossibly difficult for artists I value far more than money. In fact, the whole ordeal shook me out of my rebel, don't step on snek phase. You'd find a great analogy in the Lord of the Rings. Bitcoin was never meant to be worth $50,000, and none of this was ever meant to be a heavily regulated hedge or a prospect for speculation, it was literally a rebellion against taxes and centralized banking that has taken an insane proportion, much like the mines of Moria. They dug too deep... and it was the end.

Edit: changed wording a bit as to not take it to the political side

I'll leave this thread to you Doom slayer's, until bitcoin regains it's losses then I might bring it back out to laugh back, at a group of naysayers that haven't the slightest clue how much resources and energy are used by FIAT banking.

A method of paying for crack and crimes that's as untraceable today as the day it was printed.

 

[Vayra86]

Good read on the subject by a computer scientist from a local university:

Bitcoin is a Ponzi

ic.unicamp.br

Seems concise and covers up every aspect as to why it is a ponzi, there's also Antsstyle's excellent article which covers every aspect of why cryptocurrencies aren't what their creators claim they are:

Why NFTs are bad: the long version

This is the in-depth follow up to this brief article:

antsstyle.medium.com

These two articles cover my stance on crypto and all related "technologies" in far more detail than I ever could spare the time for.

To respond to that article - because I've seriously looked at crypto as both investment/good money source and as an ideal of progress - I think what disguises the Ponzi part of Bitcoin is that there was, well, probably even is, a collective idea that crypto would create a new power plane over governments and controlled banking. Power to the people, sort of, and the core of that idea is that the collective, the community, cashes out and pays for transactions to be made. In other words, you're paying a bit of tax to use a new system of moving money around, which could upset the power balance the world over, and possibly even in a good way.

To give that more credence, look at how Russia got locked out of Swift lately. A Bitcoin transaction that would be 'as trusted' as a transaction over Swift would have given a totally different outlook over the current war in Ukraine. That sort of power. Not the best example of how it would create a positive outcome, but an example nonetheless... The fact is, the Dollar is still the world's coin and the US exercises immense power through it, and can even hold onto it for possibly longer than it should be given credit for. This idea does enter the minds of quite a few people the last ten-twenty years, and somewhat fewer people before that.

So, there was, - is - a defense against the argument of saying 'this is a Ponzi scheme'. And crypto still rides on that defense; stablecoins are an example of belief in that defense. And I think a very large number of people have dug in on that defense and aren't leaving the trench, because they might get rich. Others dive into new trenches every day and slowly bleed money with frequent trades, chasing their imaginative gold mine. Still others, and I believe a number on TPU are there plus I know a couple IRL, jumped in very early and see that their dollar has turned into a hundred of them, so they'll stay too to see a thousand.

It really depends on your perspective how much of a ponzi scheme this really is. For those stepping in now, it most certainly is one. For those who figured things out before mainstream did, they're riding the wave so why would they care. And yet others who just mine in some profitable way, are generating money for an initial investment. But if people still believe in the ideal of what it should be or become, well... yeah, you haven't paid attention. The game is already more rigged than fiat

As to your second post about your own experience... yeah. This is the way the world turns, we have collected a rich history of examples by now and crypto is yet another. There is reason our current financial 'fiat' systems are as complex as they are. The world is f'ing complex and humans are assholes that always think about themselves before others. Or at least, those humans exist, and because some of those exist, everyone is bound by strict rules. What we have today in the real world, really is the best implementation of safe financial trades. Can it be improved, iterated upon? I'm certain. But these 'great resets' are nonsensical and basically the mind of a child at work - no life experience involved. The only thing that's standing is the core tech, the blockchain, and it ironically isn't at its best in large volume transactions, but rather at tracking transactions, and facilitating trustworthy data.

Did you not read? Hence the reason I said "we're almost there now". Sure we are heavily dependent on computers in the financial market, but its not all integrated globally into a single centralized system where everyone is using the same currency. There's nothing preventing you from pulling physical cash out of your wallet and buying something. A bank's system might crash or be unavailable, but it won't keep you from being able to make a purchase. Only those relying on credit/debit cards won't be able to buy anything due to the bank's system being unavailable.

Being aware of vulnerabilities does not equate to being aware of all vulnerabilities, therefore the potential of this critical infrastructure being successfully attacked or sabotaged is still there.

Oh yes... I dread the day paper money is truly considered 'no longer needed'. I hope I'm dead by then, because the cyberpunk dystopia has then truly taken root and won't ever go away.
Paper money is essential to our autonomy. The irony of those 'freedom fighters' pushing crypto couldn't be greater.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

If a company isn't making profits, its on the path to bankruptcy and dies out in some order.

If a company is making profits, those profits are going to one of two places:

1. Dividends (see my earlier post).

2. Capital Expenditures (see my earlier post, and the section of my post you cut out).

Capital Expenditures, or CapEx for short, is basically "Buying a new factory". Most people prefer companies to buy new factories rather than actually redistributing the profits. After all, if some company is profitable with 10-factories, they'll be 10% more profitable if they upgrade to 11 factories. Then next year, they can buy a 12th or 13th factory, etc. etc. and keep growing. Over the years, the larger-and-larger company is obviously worth more money (if they were worth 100-million with 10-factories, they rightfully would be worth 110-million with 11-factories, or 130-million with 13-factories).

------

The stock-market is actually pretty decent at tracking a company's value (aka: the Market Cap) based off of the amount of capital expenditures that a company reinvests into itself. There's nothing "wrong" or illegitimate about this. Its the natural state of affairs. A company that owns 11-factories is simply worth 10% more than the (otherwise same) company that only had 10 factories.

Now the "factory" is different for different companies. Netflix's CapEx is building new content and expanding its portfolio of shows. Amazon is buying servers and increasing the number of warehouses. Apple is... actually literally building factories. Microsoft is writing new software. AMD is designing a newer and better chip. But all in all, these capital-expenditures are aimed at making those companies more-and-more profitable.

------

One thing that tracks: if a company is worth $100-million bucks, and then spends $10-million in CapEx, it is now a $110 million company assuming basic competence upon their management. If they're an excellent company with good business strategy, a $10-million investment very well could be a +20million or +30-million value. ("Synergy", as managers like to call it). There's plenty of examples of this. A single programmer in Netflix could rewrite software that handles content at a cost of $400,000 (wages over a year + benefits). But that program they wrote will save $5-million in energy bills because it made 10,000-servers work 20% more efficiently. Modern business is about finding these opportunities and spending money (ex: $400,000 in programmer wages) to save more money ($5 million+ energy bill savings, and other such synergies)

I'm not disagreeing with you, just your reference, "most companies offer dividends".

So let see if I can fix my previous statement.

Not as many companies offer dividends as you implied by saying 'most companies', there are quite a few, sure. Some exchanges have more than others (companies that do offer dividends), i.e., NASDAQ might have 25% (of whats on it) that do, I have a hard time confirming the actual number. If 25% is synonymous with 'most', than OK, feel free to ignore what I'm saying. When it comes to distributing profits, there are a few companies that offer profit sharing, in lieu, which is not the same as paying dividends.

 

[ZenZimZaliben]

I see it as progress because LUNA and UST were complete shit coins and those types of crypto need to go away entirely. 20% return, from what? On nothing, so lets print more UST to offset. LUNA was paying out 8 Million a day in interest and UST had to increase by that amount to keep balance, eventually it had to crash. I am honestly surprised it didn't crash faster. People that bought into this did zero research or and had zero understanding of supply/demand. Honestly it's horrible for those people that believed in it, but they for sure learned a valuable lesson.

Limited supply coins are where it is at. If unlimited or arbitrarily limited then there is no value and stay the F away from those types of coins. Like SHIB, every time a coin is used 2 more are free'd up...basically. SO right now there are 550 Trillion coins in circulation, that coin is also a shit coin...because unlimited supply, means zero demand.

 

[R-T-B]

I've yet to read a cohesive explanation about what exactly made PayPal and/or traditional banking so problematic that an alternative, far less efficient monetary system was needed.

The arbitrary shutdown of accounts for any reason they felt like was the chief one I saw cited. Mastercards/VISA corps sometimes extralegal control over what one can/cannot buy is another major one.

Also yes, bank fees. That one is somewhat comical looking at crypto today though...

Be careful of conflating utopia with anarchy.

To be fair, anarchy is at its roots a utopian theory. A retarded one, like most extreme spectrum ones, but yeah. Sure. It is true that if everyone behaved and was neighborly we probably could do without any government. The reality is as we all know, a lot more dark than that.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

To be fair, anarchy is at its roots a utopian theory. A retarded one, like most extreme spectrum ones, but yeah. Sure. It is true that if everyone behaved and was neighborly we probably could do without any government. The reality is as we all know, a lot more dark than that.

S. G. Weinbaum (very underrated author) went over this in one of his earlier short stories. True Utopia is anarchy, but anarchy is almost never Utopia.

Edit: I had to look it up, and it is in "A Valley of Dreams (1934)" if anyone was interested in reading the whole dialogue.

 

[Dr. Dro]

I see it as progress because LUNA and UST were complete shit coins and those types of crypto need to go away entirely. 20% return, from what? On nothing, so lets print more UST to offset. LUNA was paying out 8 Million a day in interest and UST had to increase by that amount to keep balance, eventually it had to crash. I am honestly surprised it didn't crash faster. People that bought into this did zero research or and had zero understanding of supply/demand. Honestly it's horrible for those people that believed in it, but they for sure learned a valuable lesson.

Limited supply coins are where it is at. If unlimited or arbitrarily limited then there is no value and stay the F away from those types of coins. Like SHIB, every time a coin is used 2 more are free'd up...basically. SO right now there are 550 Trillion coins in circulation, that coin is also a shit coin...because unlimited supply, means zero demand.

The problem is, what limits supply of currency? Bitcoin and Ethereum are both arbitrarily limited supply "currency"; i.e. only a limited capacity of it can be generated and this is due to the program code and design. This can be changed by the currency's administrators at will, whether the payout will be one or a million coins on the next mined block, and if any amount of people feel like pay has gotten too low, they can do a hard fork. Therein lies one of my biggest issues with crypto, if any wants to win me over, they'll have to use the hashing power for something that has any meaning - and not just a proof of work.

 

[ZenZimZaliben]

The problem is, what limits supply of currency? Bitcoin and Ethereum are both arbitrarily limited supply "currency"; i.e. only a limited capacity of it can be generated and this is due to the program code and design. This can be changed by the currency's administrators at will, whether the payout will be one or a million coins on the next mined block, and if any amount of people feel like pay has gotten too low, they can do a hard fork. Therein lies one of my biggest issues with crypto, if any wants to win me over, they'll have to use the hashing power for something that has any meaning - and not just a proof of work.

Not what I meant. By arbitrarily I meant, there is no limit to supply, just how much is released into the wild...just like Diamonds. BTC has a finite supply there will only ever be 21,000,000 BTC. Only so many can be mined.

 

[Vya Domus]

How long the money last is ultimately dependent on trust, and trust is usually backed up by lots of resources.

This wasn't always the case, currencies used to be backed by real assets or the coins themselves were the assets, so it wasn't just trust.

Our current monetary policy is a mistake, having a currency with completely unconstrained supply and zero inherit value is a nightmare, ironically things like Luna can fail so spectacularly because they mimic traditional currencies too close. It's impossible to have long term trust in a currency that can be devalued in a blink of the eye because the entities in control can expand its supply at any moment.

Things like bitcoin have a chance to make currencies feel more "real" again because at the very least they are constrained by design, no one can annihilate its value by increasing the supply, its one less thing you have to worry about. That being said bitcoin will never become an actual currency for technical reasons but there is a kernel of usefulness in there.

What's certain is that we can't keep going on forever with fiat currencies, it's just not going to work, having a currency that drops like a stone year after year is too frustrating and unfair, the dollar is supposed to be the world reserve currency but it suffered 8% inflation this year alone, that's utter garbage, what's the point ? Even when the economy is doing well most currencies continue to lose their value, that's insane, something is clearly wrong.

 

[MentalAcetylide]

The arbitrary shutdown of accounts for any reason they felt like was the chief one I saw cited. Mastercards/VISA corps sometimes extralegal control over what one can/cannot buy is another major one.

Also yes, bank fees. That one is somewhat comical looking at crypto today though...


To be fair, anarchy is at its roots a utopian theory. A retarded one, like most extreme spectrum ones, but yeah. Sure. It is true that if everyone behaved and was neighborly we probably could do without any government. The reality is as we all know, a lot more dark than that.

Yeah, and most won't acknowledge it. We are the problem, not the type of government, money, etc., or any other "system". You can provide people with everything they need to survive and thrive, but human behavior will still continue to drive itself in a direction that leads to a point of no return where it will destroy itself. So the natural inclination would be to have everything under a single draconian system, which would still fail.

 

[dragontamer5788]

This wasn't always the case, currencies used to be backed by real assets or the coins themselves were the assets, so it wasn't just trust.

US Dollars being backed by gold caused the 1930s depression. Real assets don't really do anything for the economy. Management of money is more complicated than that.

Things like bitcoin have a chance to make currencies feel more "real" again because at the very least they are constrained by design, no one can annihilate its value by increasing the supply, its one less thing you have to worry about. That being said bitcoin will never become an actual currency for technical reasons but there is a kernel of usefulness in there.

And when you have a Great Depression event, and you're unable to change your monetary supply (ex: like 2008), your economy crashes. It turns out that printing money benefits the economy in some cases. Same with 2020 as the COVID lockdowns closed a bunch of shops and such, extra money in a lot of people's pockets helped keep the economy going, albeit at the cost of inflation.

But the risks of deflationary spirals are great in times of recession. To stop such spirals, you print money. Then, to stop the inflation when you go too far, you destroy money and suck it out of the economy (as is happening right now).

Luckily, BTC / ETH aren't set in stone. You can effectively print more-and-more crypto currencies by simply making new stablecoins and/or blockchains on the Ethereium smart contract system. As the economy shrinks and needs to destroy money, you'll see more and more coins like Luna vanish into thin air IMO.

 

[mb194dc]

This wasn't always the case, currencies used to be backed by real assets or the coins themselves were the assets, so it wasn't just trust.

Our current monetary policy is a mistake, having a currency with completely unconstrained supply and zero inherit value is a nightmare, ironically things like Luna can fail so spectacularly because they mimic traditional currencies too close. It's impossible to have long term trust in a currency that can be devalued in a blink of the eye because the entities in control can expand its supply at any moment.

Things like bitcoin have a chance to make currencies feel more "real" again because at the very least they are constrained by design, no one can annihilate its value by increasing the supply, its one less thing you have to worry about. That being said bitcoin will never become an actual currency for technical reasons but there is a kernel of usefulness in there.

What's certain is that we can't keep going on forever with fiat currencies, it's just not going to work, having a currency that drops like a stone year after year is too frustrating and unfair, the dollar is supposed to be the world reserve currency but it suffered 8% inflation this year alone, that's utter garbage, what's the point ? Even when the economy is doing well most currencies continue to lose their value, that's insane, something is clearly wrong.

Having a flexible money supply is a good thing. We tried currencies tied to gold, the gold standard and it was an economic disaster (see the great depression), that's why we don't anymore. Anyone can recreate a currency linked to gold now if they want to, just need to buy the bullion to back it. No need for cyrpto for that.

The issue with economies now, is the trade and government deficits run up. The way the world trade system is designed, $ swapped with China largely for their "slave" labour and huge imbalances building up on each side. There are some pretty big structural economic problems in the world in my view, cyrpto doesn't solve any of them as far as I can see.

Need to reduce the imbalances, which won't be easy, the West is hooked on cheap manufacturing in China.

 

[Aquinus]

Yeah, and most won't acknowledge it. We are the problem, not the type of government, money, etc., or any other "system". You can provide people with everything they need to survive and thrive, but human behavior will still continue to drive itself in a direction that leads to a point of no return where it will destroy itself. So the natural inclination would be to have everything under a single draconian system, which would still fail.

That's a really fancy way of saying that people are inherently greedy.

 

[ZenZimZaliben]

This wasn't always the case, currencies used to be backed by real assets or the coins themselves were the assets, so it wasn't just trust.

Our current monetary policy is a mistake, having a currency with completely unconstrained supply and zero inherit value is a nightmare, ironically things like Luna can fail so spectacularly because they mimic traditional currencies too close. It's impossible to have long term trust in a currency that can be devalued in a blink of the eye because the entities in control can expand its supply at any moment.

Things like bitcoin have a chance to make currencies feel more "real" again because at the very least they are constrained by design, no one can annihilate its value by increasing the supply, its one less thing you have to worry about. That being said bitcoin will never become an actual currency for technical reasons but there is a kernel of usefulness in there.

What's certain is that we can't keep going on forever with fiat currencies, it's just not going to work, having a currency that drops like a stone year after year is too frustrating and unfair, the dollar is supposed to be the world reserve currency but it suffered 8% inflation this year alone, that's utter garbage, what's the point ? Even when the economy is doing well most currencies continue to lose their value, that's insane, something is clearly wrong.

Either you are coming around on BTC or we finally agree on something. Wow!

Having a flexible money supply is a good thing. We tried currencies tied to gold, the gold standard and it was an economic disaster (see the great depression), that's why we don't anymore. Anyone can recreate a currency linked to gold now if they want to, just need to buy the bullion to back it. No need for cyrpto for that.

The issue with economies now, is the trade and government deficits run up. The way the world trade system is designed, $ swapped with China largely for their "slave" labour and huge imbalances building up on each side. There are some pretty big structural economic problems in the world in my view, cyrpto doesn't solve any of them as far as I can see.

Need to reduce the imbalances, which won't be easy, the West is hooked on cheap manufacturing in China.

That is A reason, but the not THE reason and actually it's pretty far down the list and may have not been an issue if it weren't for the other factors. https://www.history.com/news/great-depression-causes

Look at the Ruble, they have switched to a backed currency and it's the strongest it has been against the dollar in probably 50+ years.

 

[Vayra86]

This wasn't always the case, currencies used to be backed by real assets or the coins themselves were the assets, so it wasn't just trust.

Our current monetary policy is a mistake, having a currency with completely unconstrained supply and zero inherit value is a nightmare, ironically things like Luna can fail so spectacularly because they mimic traditional currencies too close. It's impossible to have long term trust in a currency that can be devalued in a blink of the eye because the entities in control can expand its supply at any moment.

Things like bitcoin have a chance to make currencies feel more "real" again because at the very least they are constrained by design, no one can annihilate its value by increasing the supply, its one less thing you have to worry about. That being said bitcoin will never become an actual currency for technical reasons but there is a kernel of usefulness in there.

What's certain is that we can't keep going on forever with fiat currencies, it's just not going to work, having a currency that drops like a stone year after year is too frustrating and unfair, the dollar is supposed to be the world reserve currency but it suffered 8% inflation this year alone, that's utter garbage, what's the point ? Even when the economy is doing well most currencies continue to lose their value, that's insane, something is clearly wrong.

You do realize that inflation is a result of how the economy works right? And of how printing money works.

What goes around, comes around basically. Economy and currency is based on trust. I think fiat is a perfectly fine system, it will somehow correct itself as it is too big to fail. Either that, or we start shooting - and the entangled state of the world economy is a direct influence on our likeliness to start shooting - there is an inherent, mutual interest to keep things at least 'somewhat' fair; this has been the whole idea with Europe's stance towards Russia for example - trade was supposed to be the gateway to security. Sure, its not perfect, sure, it puts pressure on people. So we need to correct those issues as best we can. But to think the system is somehow 'wrong' is IMHO being far too simple about the world's history of trade and commerce. It is what it is, because this is the consensus we landed on.

Look at the Ruble, they have switched to a backed currency and it's the strongest it has been against the dollar in probably 50+ years.

The Ruble is strong in isolation, what you see there is a fake number. Fact is, Russia values it highly because its all they've got left.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Not what I meant. By arbitrarily I meant, there is no limit to supply, just how much is released into the wild...just like Diamonds. BTC has a finite supply there will only ever be 21,000,000 BTC. Only so many can be mined.

That's exactly what I said, as well. Why is it that only 21M BTC can exist? Because that's what the programmer made it like. It's an arbitrary choice which is modifiable in any given hard fork. BTC also has the distinction that over 90% of its supply has already been mined, and that the exponential increases in mining difficulty have begun to outpace any reasonable profits for the foreseeable future.

The Ruble is strong in isolation, what you see there is a fake number. Fact is, Russia values it highly because its all they've got left.

The ruble is a good case study on how consensus is the primary drive behind a currency's worth, and how that's not something exclusive to crypto, if you consider it money, but a mechanic that affects even heavily regulated fiat. Europe and the United States may have sanctioned Russia, but therein lies the importance of alternate trade blocs like BRICS, which is set to accept Argentina in its medium amidst Washington's weakened diplomatic position in Latin America and Beijing's heavy investments in the region.

In the early days there was panic and disarray over the Russian economy's future due to Western boycotts, but as time went onwards, the ruble not only rebounded, but stabilized and even shows an upward trend, as the government lays out a recovery and replacement plan. This occurs because of the consensus between users and holders of the Ruble, as well as investors that stand to make money in regions where it circulates that there is a viable, if not profitable, economic plan going forward. Other than the direct economic damage, sanctions also seek to lower the average Russian's quality of life, as a way to destabilize the nation and cause its own people to turn against the government, which in turn also weakens the consensus that Russia's economic activity is viable going forward, further damaging the Ruble's performance. This is why many have begun to argue that sanctions have been too heavy and too hastily imposed, without giving much thought as to their actual efficacy in containing their... ahem, "glorious leader"'s rampage in Ukraine. Where that leads... well, it remains to be seen, and would delve into the forbidden topic of politics.

But, of course, this is my view

 

[ZenZimZaliben]

A Hard fork is not the original. Don't forget BTC can be broken down into Satoshi.

 

[Dr. Dro]

A Hard fork is not the original. Don't forget BTC can be broken down into Satoshi.

No, that's beside the point, a satoshi is merely a subunit. It's to bitcoin what a cent is to a dollar. 100M satoshis are equivalent to 1 BTC. They're one in the same.

This merely means the blockchain's capacity is 2.100.000.000.000.000 satoshis, which are equivalent to 21 million BTC.

A hard fork would allow the original cap of 21 million BTC to be lifted, as well as changing the amount of BTC paid for each block mined. This is an arbitrary capacity for the blockchain.

 

[ZenZimZaliben]

But it wouldn't be BTC anymore and wouldn't have backing of the market...so very different. Look at ETH and ETH classic. Or even BTC vs LTC. None of the forks come even close to the Original.

 

[dragontamer5788]

But it wouldn't be BTC anymore and wouldn't have backing of the market...so very different. Look at ETH and ETH classic. Or even BTC vs LTC. None of the forks come even close to the Original.

Except each time the coin forks, you effectively invent another million+ coins out of nothingness.

The number of cryptocoins continued to grow through last year and the year before. Now we're entering a "recession" of coins it seems, where cryptocoins start to collapse in value and consolidate.