Cryptocurrency

[JustAnotherTimeline]

Where are all the crypto use cases? | Evan Conrad

Excellent article!

Here is one of my favorites.

Why The Yuppie Elite Dismiss Bitcoin — Citadel21

A second characteristic of yuppies also helps ensure that this heuristic label is not easily revised: as smart people who are good at navigating the world, yuppies need to understand something in order to believe in it. That’s how they’ve done well in life so far, so that’s what they’re sticking to

www.citadel21.com

 

[agrabes]

Where are all the crypto use cases? | Evan Conrad

He does bring up a fair, if pedantic, point that these various Blockchain technologies do have use cases. He ignores the wider point that aside from cryptocurrency's value as a commodity, none of the use cases are seen as valuable to anyone other than the hard core crypto enthusiasts and there doesn't seem to be a path to wider acceptance. A banana has a use case as a paperweight, but most people aren't going to use it for that.

It's another article that preaches to the crypto-choir. If you buy in and believe that decentralization for its own sake is valuable, then it works. If not, it doesn't.

 

[BryceC]

Excellent article!

Here is one of my favorites.

Why The Yuppie Elite Dismiss Bitcoin — Citadel21

A second characteristic of yuppies also helps ensure that this heuristic label is not easily revised: as smart people who are good at navigating the world, yuppies need to understand something in order to believe in it. That’s how they’ve done well in life so far, so that’s what they’re sticking to

www.citadel21.com

I'm going to be honest this article is one of the reasons why I just groan when some of the crypto bros talk to me. The guy who wrote this is an unmitgated asshat who is projecting a lot of sentiment on people which he doesn't know is true.

For the record I think there are a lot of crypto use cases. I don't think a lot of people find them compelling.

 

[JustAnotherTimeline]

I'm going to be honest this article is one of the reasons why I just groan when some of the crypto bros talk to me. The guy who wrote this is an unmitgated asshat who is projecting a lot of sentiment on people which he doesn't know is true.

For the record I think there are a lot of crypto use cases. I don't think a lot of people find them compelling.

Ad homenim.

I would be interested in your opinions of the ideas expressed in the article. His supposed asshatness and sentiment projection doesn't seem relevant.

I figured this would ruffle some feathers, but I found the article pretty aligned with my personal experiences. The contents do not even attempt to shill bitcoin. Instead, it attempts to provides an explanation as to why there is such a chasm between bitcoin supporters and detractors.

Lyn Alden just tweeted the following yesterday:

"I have a diversified investment portfolio. Stocks, cash, bonds, gold, real estate, commodities, bitcoin. Bitcoin is the only one that I think could make a serious difference. Nobody else has a credible answer to the current global monetary problems. It's a Boolean outcome."

She seems to fall in the bucket of high IQ but does not trust the system (as indicated in the article). I don't know you, but for sake of discussion I will presume you have high IQ. But you have shown support for the status a quo; a general trust that our monetary system generally works. However, based on our discussions, it doesn't seem like you have put in the hours necessary as Alden and many others have suggested is necessary to completely understand bitcoin.

The person who educated me initially on bitcoin was a PhD in Nuclear Engineering who worked for NASA. I just found out randomly that my accountant was seriously researching bitcoin and bought some. Of course, there are also many smart people that do not see value bitcoin.

So, why such opposing conclusions from high IQ folks? I think the article makes some interesting points.

 

[Fitzy]

He does bring up a fair, if pedantic, point that these various Blockchain technologies do have use cases. He ignores the wider point that aside from cryptocurrency's value as a commodity, none of the use cases are seen as valuable to anyone other than the hard core crypto enthusiasts and there doesn't seem to be a path to wider acceptance. A banana has a use case as a paperweight, but most people aren't going to use it for that.

It's another article that preaches to the crypto-choir. If you buy in and believe that decentralization for its own sake is valuable, then it works. If not, it doesn't.

This is quite subjective.

 

[BryceC]

Ad homenim.

Literally that whole article is an ad hom.

 

[nocsious3]

Ad homenim.

I would be interested in your opinions of the ideas expressed in the article. His supposed asshatness and sentiment projection doesn't seem relevant.

I figured this would ruffle some feathers, but I found the article pretty aligned with my personal experiences. The contents do not even attempt to shill bitcoin. Instead, it attempts to provides an explanation as to why there is such a chasm between bitcoin supporters and detractors.

Lyn Alden just tweeted the following yesterday:

"I have a diversified investment portfolio. Stocks, cash, bonds, gold, real estate, commodities, bitcoin. Bitcoin is the only one that I think could make a serious difference. Nobody else has a credible answer to the current global monetary problems. It's a Boolean outcome."

She seems to fall in the bucket of high IQ but does not trust the system (as indicated in the article). I don't know you, but for sake of discussion I will presume you have high IQ. But you have shown support for the status a quo; a general trust that our monetary system generally works. However, based on our discussions, it doesn't seem like you have put in the hours necessary as Alden and many others have suggested is necessary to completely understand bitcoin.

The person who educated me initially on bitcoin was a PhD in Nuclear Engineering who worked for NASA. I just found out randomly that my accountant was seriously researching bitcoin and bought some. Of course, there are also many smart people that do not see value bitcoin.

So, why such opposing conclusions from high IQ folks? I think the article makes some interesting points.

I read Lyn Alden's work from time to time. There is no reason to think her statement that it must be a Boolean outcome is true. It just fancy talk. She has recently stated her largest single allocation in her investing portfolio is an outsized position in Bitcoin. She's talked about Bitcoin some, but she's getting real vocal now that she's probably down big.

 

[JustAnotherTimeline]

Literally that whole article is an ad hom.

You being dismissive doesn't count as an argument.

Since the article was long, I'll restate what I am interested in a response to.

I agree with the assertion in the article that people who do not support bitcoin do so primarily because of their view of the world, not on its merits or lack thereof. They believe the system generally works. Therefore, they make a cursory judgement of bitcoin and render it a scam or useless.

People that don't believe the system works AND are willing to put in the hours necessary to understand bitcoin tend to support bitcoin. This does not mean reading several articles. It means reading several books.

 

[JustAnotherTimeline]

I read Lyn Alden's work from time to time. There is no reason to think her statement that it must be a Boolean outcome is true. It just fancy talk. She has recently stated her largest single allocation in her investing portfolio is an outsized position in Bitcoin. She's talked about Bitcoin some, but she's getting real vocal now that she's probably down big.

1. I think boolean is the correct way of thinking of it. Either bitcoin continues along the tech S curve for adoption, or it doesn't.
2. Or, like Kevin O'Leary she has an oversized position because it outperformed all of her other assets. Maybe she bought bitcoin at 3k. If so, shes probably doing ok.
3. She is bearish on the worldwide macro financial picture. She sees bitcoin as a possible answer.

 

[agrabes]

This is quite subjective.

Is it? I admit, I haven't done research to be able to quote exact figures, but I would be hard pressed to believe that any of the technologies or services mentioned in the article other than Bitcoin and Ethereum (used as a commodity investment, not used as a smart contact) have a combined 5% market share in their respective areas of business relative to traditional methods. It seems pretty objective to say that all these services are far from mainstream. I also think it's fairly objective to say there's no clear path for any of these things to become mainstream. None of the articles in this thread have ever laid out a path. Doesn't mean it won't happen but there's no clear reason out there for why it should.

Betamax might have been technically superior to VHS but it never gained widespread adoption. So, sure, it had a use case. But that's not what people are talking about - they're also talking about whether it is better enough to be used instead of the alternative.

The subjective part on my end is that I don't think they will ever become mainstream. The subjective part for people like Mark Andreeson is that they believe it's so inevitable that they can't see the real situation and interpret everything as if it's more confirmation they're right even if it doesn't make sense.

 

[JustAnotherTimeline]

Is it? I admit, I haven't done research to be able to quote exact figures, but I would be hard pressed to believe that any of the technologies or services mentioned in the article other than Bitcoin and Ethereum (used as a commodity investment, not used as a smart contact) have a combined 5% market share in their respective areas of business relative to traditional methods. It seems pretty objective to say that all these services are far from mainstream. I also think it's fairly objective to say there's no clear path for any of these things to become mainstream. None of the articles in this thread have ever laid out a path. Doesn't mean it won't happen but there's no clear reason out there for why it should.

Betamax might have been technically superior to VHS but it never gained widespread adoption. So, sure, it had a use case. But that's not what people are talking about - they're also talking about whether it is better enough to be used instead of the alternative.

The subjective part on my end is that I don't think they will ever become mainstream. The subjective part for people like Mark Andreeson is that they believe it's so inevitable that they can't see the real situation and interpret everything as if it's more confirmation they're right even if it doesn't make sense.

The impressive bitcoin adoption curve is well documented. In order for you to be correct something will need to stifle adoption. I think your bearish case is more difficult to make with the data then the bullish case.

Crypto Winter Unlikely As ‘Astonishing’ User Growth Dwarfs Internet Adoption Rate: Macro Guru Raoul Pal - The Daily Hodl

Former Goldman Sachs executive Raoul Pal expects there to be billions of new cryptocurrency users by the end of the decade despite any jitters investors may currently feel about the markets.

dailyhodl.com

 

[nocsious3]

1. I think boolean is the correct way of thinking of it. Either bitcoin continues along the tech S curve for adoption, or it doesn't.
2. Or, like Kevin O'Leary she has an oversized position because it outperformed all of her other assets. Maybe she bought bitcoin at 3k. If so, shes probably doing ok.
3. She is bearish on the worldwide macro financial picture. She sees bitcoin as a possible answer.

1. It may be. I tend to think Bitcoin will be like EverQuest, with a few odd folks playing with it in their basement with a culture similar to Ham radio operators.

2. She didn't really get on the Bitcoin train in my recollection until like 2020. I think she publishers her public portfolio to subscribers. It's speculation on my part, but lots of folks are down. Most of my crypto I accumulated in '19 so I'm going ok.

3. That's obvious. Her macro evaluation is well documented and sourced. I tend to think she's got a lot of that figured out. Her Bitcoin analysis , in my opinion, doesn't properly evaluate the risks and tech and I don't think she has the expertise in this area as much of her Bitcoin analysis isn't really her own stuff.

 

[JustAnotherTimeline]

1. It may be. I tend to think Bitcoin will be like EverQuest, with a few odd folks playing with it in their basement with a culture similar to Ham radio operators.

2. She didn't really get on the Bitcoin train in my recollection until like 2020. I think she publishers her public portfolio to subscribers. It's speculation on my part, but lots of folks are down. Most of my crypto I accumulated in '19 so I'm going ok.

3. That's obvious. Her macro evaluation is well documented and sourced. I tend to think she's got a lot of that figured out. Her Bitcoin analysis , in my opinion, doesn't properly evaluate the risks and tech and I don't think she has the expertise in this area as much of her Bitcoin analysis isn't really her own stuff.

Literal LOL. I agree. There is definitely a world that your EverQuest analogy comes to fruition! Just hope it's not this one

 

[Sigmapolis]

Anybody in this thread still trying to defend crypto? Asking for a friend.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

Cryptobro thread gonna cryptobro.

 

[nocsious3]

Anybody in this thread still trying to defend crypto? Asking for a friend.

I think crypto will change the world and this year. I just think 99% of the crypto narrative is completely wrong and almost all of it effectively goes to zero. Most will get reckt. Probably me too.

 

[BryceC]

I would be interested in your opinions of the ideas expressed in the article.

I'll start with the TLDR version: The thinking in this piece is 100% binary.

1. He's making massive assumptions about why people are into Bitcoin based on his circle of friends, which if he were such an intellectual giant he would know is an extremely poor way to look at things on a global scale.

His friend Dan doesn't think Bitcoin will reach a million. That's the only information we have. We don't know if Dan thinks bitcoin at 20k is a good investment or not. We don't know if Dan got burned in on bitcoin in a prior dip and is now wary of it. In fact we don't know anything, which is why pieces like this on any topic are tripe.

2. The notion that bitcoin maximalists are actually just the smartest and most distrustful of the system people out there is completely unsupported by any evidence I see in that article other than a troll meme. Again, there are many reasons why people choose to invest in a lot of things. Truth is unless he wants to do the research we don't know the profile of bitcoin maximalists and he's making broad assumptions about people's psychology and behavior which is incredibly difficult to do for people with a lot of information and funding who do research in this area.

3. His notion that "Yuppies believe they are people in the know" is absolutely hilarious considering that he himself was talking about how he has an information asymmetry super smart Dan. If there is anything Bitcoin maximalists think, it's that they are possessing secret knowledge that gives them a leg up on the "yuppies". Actual quote from the article: The same is not true for my yuppie friends - they know it is unwise to invest money in something that they do not understand. At the same time, they lack the time, conviction, and persistence to replicate my years of research. The man has done his research people!

I could go on and on, but ultimately the article is majorly flawed and wouldn't be published in any self respecting journal. There is no data on the profile of bitcoin maximalists. There is no data on how bitcoin maximalists are allocating their finances. There is no data at all other than a gut feel based on his circle of friends.

For the record, I have two friends who are massively into crypto. I've talked about them multiple times in this thread. The system absolutely has worked for them. One is maybe the hardest working person I've ever met who has owned his own business for a long time and has certainly made a whole lot more money than I have in my life. The other is a guy with advanced degrees who was a college athlete. For lack of a better term these are financially successful cool people who have no reason to get into crypto other than they thought it was a good investment.

I mean this sincerely - this article reads like some incel article talking about Chads, except they are talking about yuppies instead.

 

[JustAnotherTimeline]

I'll start with the TLDR version: The thinking in this piece is 100% binary.

1. He's making massive assumptions about why people are into Bitcoin based on his circle of friends, which if he were such an intellectual giant he would know is an extremely poor way to look at things on a global scale.

His friend Dan doesn't think Bitcoin will reach a million. That's the only information we have. We don't know if Dan thinks bitcoin at 20k is a good investment or not. We don't know if Dan got burned in on bitcoin in a prior dip and is now wary of it. In fact we don't know anything, which is why pieces like this on any topic are tripe.

2. The notion that bitcoin maximalists are actually just the smartest and most distrustful of the system people out there is completely unsupported by any evidence I see in that article other than a troll meme. Again, there are many reasons why people choose to invest in a lot of things. Truth is unless he wants to do the research we don't know the profile of bitcoin maximalists and he's making broad assumptions about people's psychology and behavior which is incredibly difficult to do for people with a lot of information and funding who do research in this area.

3. His notion that "Yuppies believe they are people in the know" is absolutely hilarious considering that he himself was talking about how he has an information asymmetry super smart Dan. If there is anything Bitcoin maximalists think, it's that they are possessing secret knowledge that gives them a leg up on the "yuppies". Actual quote from the article: The same is not true for my yuppie friends - they know it is unwise to invest money in something that they do not understand. At the same time, they lack the time, conviction, and persistence to replicate my years of research. The man has done his research people!

I could go on and on, but ultimately the article is majorly flawed and wouldn't be published in any self respecting journal. There is no data on the profile of bitcoin maximalists. There is no data on how bitcoin maximalists are allocating their finances. There is no data at all other than a gut feel based on his circle of friends.

For the record, I have two friends who are massively into crypto. I've talked about them multiple times in this thread. The system absolutely has worked for them. One is maybe the hardest working person I've ever met who has owned his own business for a long time and has certainly made a whole lot more money than I have in my life. The other is a guy with advanced degrees who was a college athlete. For lack of a better term these are financially successful cool people who have no reason to get into crypto other than they thought it was a good investment.

I mean this sincerely - this article reads like some incel article talking about Chads, except they are talking about yuppies instead.

I appreciate the reply. Although, I feel bad you felt you needed to provide such a lengthy response. The article was obviously just one mans anecdotal ruminations. Of course there isn't some journal like study for this.

I shared it not as some kind of lock down scientific study, but as something that has echoed my own experience.

In my life, when talking to people who have a general trust and favorable opinion in our current system they do not see a problem. Therefore, if there is no problem, then there doesn't need to be a solution. So to them bitcoin is pointless and a waste of resources. I think that is the opinion of most people and some are very intelligent.

Conversely, I think there is a problem. Therefore, I am compelled to research and understand possible solutions. I used to be far more into the ethereum ecosystem. Now I am more of a bitcoin maxi then anything else.

I am close friends with a couple "Dans" myself. Our conversations on bitcoin have been brief to say the least. Why? Well, I agree with the authors insights.

 

[BryceC]

I appreciate the reply. Although, I feel bad you felt you needed to provide such a lengthy response. The article was obviously just one mans anecdotal ruminations. Of course there isn't some journal like study for this.

I shared it not as some kind of lock down scientific study, but as something that has echoed my own experience.

In my life, when talking to people who have a general trust and favorable opinion in our current system they do not see a problem. Therefore, if there is no problem, then there doesn't need to be a solution. So to them bitcoin is pointless and a waste of resources. I think that is the opinion of most people and some are very intelligent.

Conversely, I think there is a problem. Therefore, I am compelled to research and understand possible solutions. I used to be far more into the ethereum ecosystem. Now I am more of a bitcoin maxi then anything else.

I am close friends with a couple "Dans" myself. Our conversations on bitcoin have been brief to say the least. Why? Well, I agree with the authors insights.

Okay. I guess this is a difference in opinion again then. I don't think articles like that are meaningful in any way unless we are looking to confirm our biases. I'm not particularly interested in blog posts. Give me at least some data and not feelings, when it comes to investments, I literally don't care why people are investing in something, merely that they are.

I've had multi-hour conversations with my crypto believing friends. I think perhaps the author of the article may have turned off his friends by being incredibly arrogant about his position. Most of the time I don't want to have conversations with people in that position either.

 

[JustAnotherTimeline]

Okay. I guess this is a difference in opinion again then. I don't think articles like that are meaningful in any way unless we are looking to confirm our biases. I'm not particularly interested in blog posts. Give me at least some data and not feelings, when it comes to investments, I literally don't care why people are investing in something, merely that they are.

I've had multi-hour conversations with my crypto believing friends. I think perhaps the author of the article may have turned off his friends by being incredibly arrogant about his position. Most of the time I don't want to have conversations with people in that position either.

Fair enough. I'll try to dial it back. I'd hate to make an enemy out of one of the few people who will talk crypto with me