That's a very excellent counter argument. It playing out that way certainly seems to be a real possibility as well. Which is why I'm not in a hurry to move on from my BTC I already own.
Bitcoin crash???
12,135 Views |
135 Replies |
Last: 8 days ago by TTUArmy
IMO its a certainty I've believed in at least since Standard & Poor's downgraded the US 14 years ago.
Im not a rich man so I've done what I could to by assets, including a home @ a 2% 15 yr mortgage, approximately 35% of my salary into an inflating stock market, and ~5% of portfolio into crypto once it was offered as an ETF and opened it up to everyone in a simple way
Im not a rich man so I've done what I could to by assets, including a home @ a 2% 15 yr mortgage, approximately 35% of my salary into an inflating stock market, and ~5% of portfolio into crypto once it was offered as an ETF and opened it up to everyone in a simple way
I agree it's a certainty the younger generation is getting absolutely financially oppressed. It's really quite sad and no one seemingly cares. Which the scary thing is that type of environment leads to very radical political solutions/ideals on both sides of the aisle. It will really come down to what they value.
Theoretically they could collectively decide DOGE coin is preferable to BTC. It'l be fascinating to watch. The handful of zoomers I know, mostly family members, are all into crypto but none of them have btc.
Theoretically they could collectively decide DOGE coin is preferable to BTC. It'l be fascinating to watch. The handful of zoomers I know, mostly family members, are all into crypto but none of them have btc.
Yukon Cornelius said:
I agree it's a certainty the younger generation is getting absolutely financially oppressed. It's really quite sad and no one seemingly cares. Which the scary thing is that type of environment leads to very radical political solutions/ideals on both sides of the aisle. It will really come down to what they value.
Theoretically they could collectively decide DOGE coin is preferable to BTC. It'l be fascinating to watch. The handful of zoomers I know, mostly family members, are all into crypto but none of them have btc.
BTC is less of a lotto ticket than it use to be for sure and young people probably do feel like they need to win a lottery.
Over time, hopefully they see, as i said elsewhere that "crypro" as a whole has a lot of crap friends and only a handful have use case.
I look forward to BTC and hopefully not many others being offered jn 401Ks
That's a great point! I wish we had some on here to share their point of views on it all.
FWIW, it does sound like a positive that younger generations feel like they gotta win the lotto, assuming thats what it is vs just a generationally contagious gambling bug
We just need them to understand risk reward a little more. And hopefully understand that socialism doesnt mean free stuff. I met a couple in Mexico this summer from Britain and they brought up their 45% taxes
We just need them to understand risk reward a little more. And hopefully understand that socialism doesnt mean free stuff. I met a couple in Mexico this summer from Britain and they brought up their 45% taxes
I know it is just psychological, but when buying bitcoin I wish to talk about selling it in satoshis and not just some .00000% of a bitcoin that you now own. Like I said, I know it's just psychological, but maybe it feels like you're actually buying something. Specially for the younger generations.
Yukon Cornelius said:
With all due respect I simply don't think you fully understand how technologically the ethereum blockchain runs. It doesn't run simply on computing power. It requires eth to be locked up for an extended period of time to participate in validating the network.
The short term volatility of ETH is largely irrelevant. Thats like saying anything that is volatile in price isn't valuable. Is oil valuable? It can be volatile. The price of oil per barrel went negative for a moment during Trumps first term if I'm not mistaken. But that didn't erode oils value.
Blackrock and fidelity and JPMorgan are looking at running their assets in the blockchain for near instant settlement time. If that comes to fruition and if it's on ethereum the entire network is incredibly valuable. And to process transactions on said network requires eth to be locked up so one can participate. I highly highly doubt that's big institutions won't be involved in processing transactions. So what's the value they will place on being able to do that? Whatever it is is the value of ETH itself.
"Locked up to participate in validating the network" is equivalent to power + compute.
While other commodities like oil are volatile, they are nowhere near the volatility of something like BTC or ETH.
And if there is value on validating the network, it should essentially be a simple function of compute cost + power cost, and we should easily be able to correlate the two to those costs.
But we can't. Because most of its adoption is not based upon those aspects, but rather speculation. And this is something that those heavily invested into the theory of crypto cannot seem to separate.
I've said this before.. but the power and compute is nonsense. Sunk costs. We don't value anything in the energy it took to create it. We value things in what someone is willing to buy it for. Hard stop. Bitcoin is no different, or else it wouldn't be so volatile.
Everything that has ever been traded has a bid and an ask. If we ever get to the point where BTC is all mined and the only game in town, there will be no ask. There would never be a reason to sell it. Which means there will never be any available to buy. Whatever your government has is what they will loan fractions of to the people to participate in society. And it would be a constantly deleveraging society. If we are going that route, we are going there with gold, not made up internet money.
Everything that has ever been traded has a bid and an ask. If we ever get to the point where BTC is all mined and the only game in town, there will be no ask. There would never be a reason to sell it. Which means there will never be any available to buy. Whatever your government has is what they will loan fractions of to the people to participate in society. And it would be a constantly deleveraging society. If we are going that route, we are going there with gold, not made up internet money.
Isn't the power /costs required to compute the cost of disallowing successful denial of service attacks, or something like that
It costs too much to go after the network
It costs too much to go after the network
jamey said:
Isn't the power /costs required to compute the cost of disallowing successful denial of service attacks, or something like that
Doesn't matter. If it costs you $100k to produce, but nobody wants it for more than $85k, then it's worth $85k. You either hang on to it with hopium or you take a loss.
Heineken-Ashi said:
I've said this before.. but the power and compute is nonsense. Sunk costs. We don't value anything in the energy it took to create it. We value things in what someone is willing to buy it for. Hard stop. Bitcoin is no different, or else it wouldn't be so volatile.
Everything that has ever been traded has a bid and an ask. If we ever get to the point where BTC is all mined and the only game in town, there will be no ask. There would never be a reason to sell it. Which means there will never be any available to buy. Whatever your government has is what they will loan fractions of to the people to participate in society. And it would be a constantly deleveraging society. If we are going that route, we are going there with gold, not made up internet money.
That's precisely my point. There's no value to bitcoin other than to speculate that the price will go up.
If all bitcoin becomes fully mined, there is a reason to sell - that is to liquidate it for actual currency where you can buy actual things, with the idea that the price will go down in the future. The ask does not magically go away.
Just because there's limited supply to something that does not mean it has any actual value. Bitcoin is completely fictitious just like those that claim Fiat currency is, but at least Fiat currency has legitimate legal tender and is backed by military, how we are all compensated, and how most transactions flow.
I agree it's been entirely speculative in nature to date. And I also agree using the power costs as a base line value proposition is pretty weak. Where I disagree with your original post on the subject saying there's no use case is I do think there's a very strong usecase for ETH. Ethereum seems (could be proved to be wrong) to begin to being used by blackrock etc. BR, Fidelity,BNY and JP Morgan are running MM funds on the ethereum network. Several of those CEOs have come out in further support of doing so with statements to increase the use.
I think the primary benefit for them is the near zero settlement time in a secured network. And thus to run and secure specifically ethereum requires staking ETH. If the network is valuable so to is the asset that runs it. I think it's a little bit dismissive to equate the ETH staking to "power costs".
I think the primary benefit for them is the near zero settlement time in a secured network. And thus to run and secure specifically ethereum requires staking ETH. If the network is valuable so to is the asset that runs it. I think it's a little bit dismissive to equate the ETH staking to "power costs".
Yukon Cornelius said:
I agree it's been entirely speculative in nature to date. And I also agree using the power costs as a base line value proposition is pretty weak. Where I disagree with your original post on the subject saying there's no use case is I do think there's a very strong usecase for ETH. Ethereum seems (could be proved to be wrong) to begin to being used by blackrock etc. BR, Fidelity,BNY and JP Morgan are running MM funds on the ethereum network. Several of those CEOs have come out in further support of doing so with statements to increase the use.
I think the primary benefit for them is the near zero settlement time in a secured network. And thus to run and secure specifically ethereum requires staking ETH. If the network is valuable so to is the asset that runs it. I think it's a little bit dismissive to equate the ETH staking to "power costs".
They are using it as a last ditch effort to prop up the fiscal dominance game. At the same time, bank reserves are dwindling, the FED is in a historically massive hole, the economy is weakening, people are losing jobs, and interest rates are flat at an elevated level that has trapped a large % of the liquidity underwater.
There's not really a scenario where the economy greatly expands from here. What we are witnessing is quality destruction, labor destruction, and the financialization of everything into a populous that is teetering on unaffordability. That game ends for the worse before it ends up anything productive. It's going to go down as the most extreme case of extend and pretend.
Maybe they see T+0 settlement time as a source of liquidity?
Yukon Cornelius said:
Maybe they see T+0 settlement time as a source of liquidity?
Yes. Lower cost to move money between each other where the overwhelming majority of their transactions come from.
Yukon Cornelius said:
I agree it's been entirely speculative in nature to date. And I also agree using the power costs as a base line value proposition is pretty weak. Where I disagree with your original post on the subject saying there's no use case is I do think there's a very strong usecase for ETH. Ethereum seems (could be proved to be wrong) to begin to being used by blackrock etc. BR, Fidelity,BNY and JP Morgan are running MM funds on the ethereum network. Several of those CEOs have come out in further support of doing so with statements to increase the use.
I think the primary benefit for them is the near zero settlement time in a secured network. And thus to run and secure specifically ethereum requires staking ETH. If the network is valuable so to is the asset that runs it. I think it's a little bit dismissive to equate the ETH staking to "power costs".
Sure, there's *always* been a use case for encryption. The technology is fairly ancient, and slowly evolving. It's not exactly novel at this point.
Let's assume everything you say is true - ethereum is a great technology that can reduce settlement time in a secure fashion.
Why exactly would I want to "invest" in that, rather than the businesses that adopt it as a means of transacting?
Just about everything other than stocks with a meaningful dividend are valued on what people want to value it.
So a company beats revenue estmates, its not like being a real owner of a company where you earn a piece of the profit.
Its almost all a matter of what people collectively say X is worth, just like trading a dollar for goods.
But at least BTC is intended to fight the global governments out of control and irresponsible spending. That in itself has some value imo. As this hole gets deeper and theres more talk on how it ends, i can see more turning to btc over their savings account
So a company beats revenue estmates, its not like being a real owner of a company where you earn a piece of the profit.
Its almost all a matter of what people collectively say X is worth, just like trading a dollar for goods.
But at least BTC is intended to fight the global governments out of control and irresponsible spending. That in itself has some value imo. As this hole gets deeper and theres more talk on how it ends, i can see more turning to btc over their savings account
I think that's a pretty fair question. One I've been thinking about a lot myself. I've mentioned before elsewhere that just buying blackrock or JPM stock might be the best way to financially benefit from blockchain adoption.
jamey said:
Just about everything other than stocks with a meaningful dividend are valued on what people want to value it.
So a company beats revenue estmates, its not like being a real owner of a company where you earn a piece of the profit.
Its almost all a matter of what people collectively say X is worth, just like trading a dollar for goods.
But at least BTC is intended to fight the global governments out of control and irresponsible spending. That in itself has some value imo. As this hole gets deeper and theres more talk on how it ends, i can see more turning to btc over their savings account
Owning a stock means you own a claim to its future cashflows, whatever they end up being valued in the future.
There's still an underlying business that can be valued.
You cannot value BTC whatsoever. How many people in the future are willing to adopt it expecting more people in the future to adopt it (all of which are speculating on price only)? I haven't the foggiest of clue.
Bitcoin is doing absolutely nothing to fight against global government spending. You act like debt is a new concept for governments. It is not. And bitcoin isn't solving that problem, in many ways it's making it worse.
AggiEE said:Yukon Cornelius said:
I agree it's been entirely speculative in nature to date. And I also agree using the power costs as a base line value proposition is pretty weak. Where I disagree with your original post on the subject saying there's no use case is I do think there's a very strong usecase for ETH. Ethereum seems (could be proved to be wrong) to begin to being used by blackrock etc. BR, Fidelity,BNY and JP Morgan are running MM funds on the ethereum network. Several of those CEOs have come out in further support of doing so with statements to increase the use.
I think the primary benefit for them is the near zero settlement time in a secured network. And thus to run and secure specifically ethereum requires staking ETH. If the network is valuable so to is the asset that runs it. I think it's a little bit dismissive to equate the ETH staking to "power costs".
Sure, there's *always* been a use case for encryption. The technology is fairly ancient, and slowly evolving. It's not exactly novel at this point.
Let's assume everything you say is true - ethereum is a great technology that can reduce settlement time in a secure fashion.
Why exactly would I want to "invest" in that, rather than the businesses that adopt it as a means of transacting?
Isn't that like saying why would anyone want to invest in Microsoft in 1991 which has gone up ~500,000% compared to the S&P thats gone up ~35,000% in that same time frame
Microsoft helped everyone in the S&P as crypto helps the banking sector
jamey said:AggiEE said:Yukon Cornelius said:
I agree it's been entirely speculative in nature to date. And I also agree using the power costs as a base line value proposition is pretty weak. Where I disagree with your original post on the subject saying there's no use case is I do think there's a very strong usecase for ETH. Ethereum seems (could be proved to be wrong) to begin to being used by blackrock etc. BR, Fidelity,BNY and JP Morgan are running MM funds on the ethereum network. Several of those CEOs have come out in further support of doing so with statements to increase the use.
I think the primary benefit for them is the near zero settlement time in a secured network. And thus to run and secure specifically ethereum requires staking ETH. If the network is valuable so to is the asset that runs it. I think it's a little bit dismissive to equate the ETH staking to "power costs".
Sure, there's *always* been a use case for encryption. The technology is fairly ancient, and slowly evolving. It's not exactly novel at this point.
Let's assume everything you say is true - ethereum is a great technology that can reduce settlement time in a secure fashion.
Why exactly would I want to "invest" in that, rather than the businesses that adopt it as a means of transacting?
Isn't that like saying why would anyone want to invest in Microsoft in 1991 which has gone up ~500,000% compared to the S&P thats gone up ~35,000% in that same time frame
Microsoft helped everyone in the S&P as crypto helps the banking sector
It's not at all the same.
The S&P 500 is a diversified collection of 500 separate businesses, Microsoft is a single business that comprises its own idiosyncratic risk to the market. Sometimes that idiosyncratic risk pays off and the company greatly outperforms, but there's no way of knowing that in advance. From 2000 - 2018, Microsoft underperformed the S&P 500.
ETH is a technology for transactions. Why should we expect it to go to the moon? Do I expect any other utility to go to the moon based on it improving things slightly but also confer its own set of potential drawbacks?
Like if my local water utility company is able to do things slightly cheaper but it introduces some unwanted elements in the water supply.... why would I invest in that thinking that it's going to 10X or 100X? At the end of the day, it's just a water utility company using its own processes for improved efficiency. Should we tokenize their process and allow people to speculate on it as a new meme may of gambling? At that point is anyone "investing" in the technology itself?
Microsoft is a technology for information, and every company uses it and benefits from what we had before.
I picked pricing for both long after their existence
I picked pricing for both long after their existence
jamey said:
Microsoft is a technology for information, and every company uses it and benefits from what we had before.
I picked pricing for both long after their existence
It's a company. Crypto tokens are not.
Ethereum technology is more akin to digitizing stocks. The stock market had close on Wednesdays to catch up on the trades back in the late 60s. But now we don't have that problem. This is just the next step in the speed of money and equities. If that's not a big deal to someone that's their opinion but to the brokerage firms it seems to be a fairly big deal. I try to remain pragmatic about all of this but it seems to all be moving towards a specific conclusion.
I guess the value of ethereum is ultimately settled by how much BR, Fidelity, BNY and JP Morgan among others buy
I assume theres calculations on how much they need to buy to tokenize things
I assume theres calculations on how much they need to buy to tokenize things
I think this is tom lees play. Is providing the control via BMNR so they never have to buy any.
Yukon Cornelius said:
I think this is tom lees play. Is providing the control via BMNR so they never have to buy any.
But thats only 5% of total, eventually
For price discovery dont we at least need some healthy portion of the other 95% to be purchased
Obviously Tom thinks it hits a price higher than he's buying at but I've never seen how those dots connect exactly
Anyone who wants to participate at scale will want to run their own validators. Other companies, local banks, etc etc. BMNr can't serve them all. I suspect he serves just the premier institution like JPMorgan and BR.
I guess the question becomes what percent of financial transactions are with premier institutions, at least as far as a rough calculation is conducted, and at varying percents of all financial transactions being tokenized
I just haven't found anything along those lines
I just haven't found anything along those lines
JP Morgan has been test running it for the last four years. Think they averaged between 2-3 billion a day.
Yukon Cornelius said:
JP Morgan has been test running it for the last four years. Think they averaged between 2-3 billion a day.
Remind me..which network is JP Morgan running their new tokens on?
Base layer if I'm not mistaken
Here's the sort of thing I run across but theres never a full explanation and you have to watch each X follow closely and delete the ones talking garbage
Here’s why Ethereum is going to $80,000
— borovik (@3orovik) November 21, 2025
Real-time proofs of every ETH L1 block are now possible using just two NVIDIA 5090 gaming GPUs thanks to zkSync’s Airbender research. This removes a major bottleneck and allows Ethereum to raise the gas limit significantly
Higher gas…
BTC will be fine. ETH is a ****coin.
Featured Stories
See All
Bobby Shuttleworth hired as Texas A&M's next head soccer coach
by Richard Zane
Six Aggies earn All-SEC recognition from the league's coaches
by Richard Zane
21:06
19h ago
6.4k
2027 Cy Fall EDGE Kaden McCarty commits to Texas A&M
by Ryan Brauninger
Fireman
Took a break after the tu game...has Elko given his version on what happened?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
17
tn_ags
Texas A&M's Incorrect Seeding is CFP Committee's Latest Mistake
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
16
Contract Extensions
So if Bisontis and York are only 3rd Team All SEC
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
15
Orlando Ayala Cant Read
Texas A&M's Incorrect Seeding is CFP Committee's Latest Mistake
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
10
Deerfield
Texas A&M's Incorrect Seeding is CFP Committee's Latest Mistake
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
8