- Reaction score
- 492
Top tier shitpost m8.
I just find making money on cryptos while early is more important than shrieking about womyn and sh*t. With crypto gains we could do plastic surgery and FUE's.
Guys Let's All Get Rich - Are You Ready?
- Thread starter macaroni
- Start date
Top tier shitpost m8.
I just find making money on cryptos while early is more important than shrieking about womyn and sh*t. With crypto gains we could do plastic surgery and FUE's.
CaptainForehead
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 4,302
This is the thing which makes me most hesitant about any particular cryptocurrency long term holds.That something better can always come along
- Reaction score
- 492
If something better comes along you will just be able to trade in for it. You won't lose much.
As for forks, Bitcoin has had quite a lot of hard forks already and kept it's price rising. Holders of original bitcoin had the forks airdropped.
So the original owner of 10 BTC has also fork of 10 BCH and Bitcoin Gold etc.
CaptainForehead
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 4,302
Why?
- Reaction score
- 6,504
- Reaction score
- 3,815
1) Yes it is, but particularly for institutional investors without a taste for that level of volatility or understanding its long term value this is unlikely to be a serious problem. Same with a stock, if they short it doesn't magically remove the underlying value of the asset, whether or not it moves the price in the short term. This can ultimately put upwards pressure on the price as the rest of the market knows that at some point they have to buy back to close the trade causing a "short squeeze". It's by no means a one way street, if you borrow to sell (short), you have to eventually BUY it back. The simple fact that you can short means very little to what it's worth, even less than it may for a stock where debt covenants and ratios can be an issue if you devalue the equity to a large enough extent. In other words, there is nothing to deduce from your statement, it's not a simple net positive or negative in one way or the other.
2) If you have $100 AUD and a random group comes along and says "everyone with AUD gets a piece of paper stating the equivalent value of this in a new currency called AUD V2" which is a new currency with no asset backing or established legitimacy, is every shop or person suddenly going to accept it? Would this be worth anything? Would you trade in your AUD for AUD V2 which a separate currency created out of thin air simply because they labeled it "AUD V2?" Has this random groups AUD V2 devalued the original AUD?
Of course the answer is absolutely not, the free market isn't a brain damaged 20 IQ retard and will obviously place a separate value on this new currency pulled out of thin air to the original. I can write on a piece of paper right now "$100 AUD", if I do so have I increased the money supply of AUD? You know the answer.
There is no confusion here and it is not a confusing issue, but the digital aspect seems to confuse people. In the case of the forks, these new currencies offer different features and have separate communities who may place value on them so they may not be entirely worthless, but they are clearly completely separate entities.
Last edited:
CaptainForehead
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 4,302
AUD has some backing (Australian govt taxes in AUD).
Bitcoin does not. There in lies the problem. It is easy to replace bitcoin, its value can fall by 90% in a year if the market buyers decide "why do I need bitcoin for, if there is other better cryptocurrency?"
- Reaction score
- 3,815
Because there has to be incentive to do so. There would have to be a REASON for this to occur "market buyers decide "why do I need bitcoin for, if there is other better cryptocurrency?"" This doesn't and won't occur for the same reason people don't suddenly move away from AUD or USD for example for sea shells or even gold. Because it just makes no f*****g sense and there is no incentive to do so. If you can't understand this you lack basic understanding of what creates demand or human nature. It is a feature of the network effect and functionality and value created through adoption.
The other issue is that cryptocurrency is also programmable and can be updated as time goes on, so bitcoin can potentially be "brought up to date", it is at no point a dead end which is truly fundamental to understanding it. Being backed by government and central banks is also a potentially a liability in that these systems require trust, unlike a cryptographic trust-less system without monetary policy that can and will ultimately devalue the currency over time.
Your point also completely ignores what I wrote and doesn't have anything to do with the argument about forks increasing the money supply. It is a strawman. Not to say your statement doesn't have credibility, but all currencies including AUD and various purchased goods require trust and the market to continue embracing them, this isn't new or a legitimate reason to avoid cryptocurrency.
Apply your point conversely, if you truly believe that it has no fundamental value because there are better options elsewhere and the network effect means nothing (Just f*****g lol....), then maybe you should make your own shitcoin or buy some random coin with better features but with a market cap of 20 million rather than bitcoins 240 billion, because apparently you think its just the same thing.
Your argument is simplistic and doesn't apply the realistic understanding of market dynamics or the network effect.
- Reaction score
- 3,815
And don't get me wrong, this point certainly has validity as a consideration and reason for diversification, but its not a valid thesis against cryptocurrency or any other currency either. Especially as it is an emerging in terms of technology and relatively young market it does require diligence on this issue.
CaptainForehead
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 4,302
I told you why people don't suddenly move away from AUD/USD. Comparing currencies that have been there for decades with govt backing to cryptocurrencies is asinine.
I don't have the technical know how to create new cryptocurrencies, but others do, as evidenced by the multiple options that came into existence after bitcoin.
Finally, believing bitcoins are worth 240 billion is the same mistake that happened during the housing crisis. if everyone decides to sell their bitcoins tomorrow, I guarantee they won't get 240 Billion AUD
- Reaction score
- 3,815
You don't understand market psychology or the technology. Again you ignore half my points as well, this particularly:
"The other issue is that cryptocurrency is also programmable and can be updated as time goes on, so bitcoin can potentially be "brought up to date""
You can ignore this if you like as you are clearly scared by the concept and not thinking rationally or holistically about it, but it is clearly fundamental.
"but others do, as evidenced by the multiple options that came into existence after bitcoin."
This has occurred and been the case for years and yet people haven't moved away from bitcoin. Again you ignore the value of the network effect and apply an assumption that it doesn't matter to your argument.
"I told you why people don't suddenly move away from AUD/USD."
And your reason was idiotic and didn't actually support your argument. "AUD has some backing (Australian govt taxes in AUD). ' USD for example is backed by a debt to GDP of 105% and gigantic devaluation over time that forces citizens to take on investment risk and in particular embrace leverage.
The reason this has been accepted is because there has been no alternative. Do you consider an inflationary, non peer-to-peer and debt mountain backed currency requiring trust of government and central banks (lol) the ultimate form of currency? Would you prefer this to trustless, decentralised, deflationary currency, digital peer-to-peer currency? This is a genuine question. In the longer term I know which side the majority of the population is likely to fall on, particularly if we have another financial crisis derived from the banking industry and regulatory issues.
"if everyone decides to sell their bitcoins tomorrow, I guarantee they won't get 240 Billion AUD"
And its the same with any regular currency or asset like a stock or housing. This isn't an argument against cryptocurrency, its a fact that supports a different argument to the one you're making.
All of your arguments are derived purely from fear or misunderstanding of the technology and none of your points support your arguments.
CaptainForehead
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 4,302
Yes. Because the govt has guns, and can make cryptocurrency illegal for market transactions. I believe alternative currencies have been illegal for a while.
On another note, what is your non-crypto trading system? How do you choose stocks? Do you trade purely on Technical Analysis, or do you go through company disclosures?
- Reaction score
- 3,815
Company disclosures, specific market analysis and company projection estimation, comparative ratio analysis (which I find most useful for valuations) then technical analysis for buy and sell points. Also other considerations like market sentiment, news articles, short selling numbers for example. Most of my stock buys have been long term so I don't trade often, I generally only make a change when I see a very strong opportunity or clear reason to expect a large selloff to avoid capital loss. Generally I focus on natural monopolies like Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook etc so this is a low risk.
At uni they focused a lot on valuation modelling like CAPM and discounted cash flow modelling but in my experience they are laughable f*****g garbage. They make too many assumptions to be useful. I haven't looked at any studies showing how accurate or usable they are for investment decisions, but in my experience looking at those of others or doing them for myself and doing them in assignments they're beyond useless. For start-ups and growth stocks they are even more useless (useful by negative 100x). Interestingly at uni they also told us technical analysis was meaningless voodoo.
"Yes. Because the govt has guns, and can make cryptocurrency illegal for market transactions. I believe alternative currencies have been illegal for a while."
This is accurate and certainly a risk, but in the short term those making money off cryptocurrencies will only increase consumption tax and capital gains tax intakes. With more institutional involvement and regulators allowing futures markets, and likely ETFs soon this becomes a smaller and smaller risk as government is unlikely to act against their banker donors in the case that they're engaging more substantially in it and also bringing in tax from it. There is a point where it becomes too big for the government to pull down, and currently and in the medium term there is no incentive for them to do so as its only beneficial to them.
CaptainForehead
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 4,302
How do you figure out market sentiment? Are there trading forums you frequent?
Are there trading books you recommend? I'm looking at a long term project to invest/trade prudently.
- Reaction score
- 3,815
For stocks forums like Hotcopper (an Australian website) and especially the Australian financial media like Australian Financial Review. Using this in conjunction with things like the short selling activity and numbers as well. Also the charts and price trends themselves to an extent. Obviously you'll have the equivalent wherever you live.
I don't think books are the best way to get into trading or charting, I think maybe the best way to get into it is to just play around with a few charting websites like this and fiddle with the indicators and Google things individually to understand what they each mean and imply.
https://www.tradingview.com/chart/?symbol=BITSTAMP:BTCUSD - not just crypto, good range of other charting options here too
Personally the main indicators I use are stochastic which is a momentum indicator, keltner channels which are volatility based channels which give buy and sell signals along with supports, and MACD which gives signals based on moving averages. Just try these on a chart like the one above and Google them individually. You don't need a million indicators and many of them are based on similar formulas and ideas. Stochastic or keltner alone will tell you a lot and give you largely accurate signals. Direction is easier to predict than magnitude of moves as well.
Beyond this look up basic pattern recognition of things like triangles and wedges, and get a good understanding of support and resistances levels. A lot of these are not absolutes either, an indicator and patterns or supports and resistances don't have to be EXACT for them to apply, they are rough guides.
For fundamentals basic ratios like P/E, GPE and reading debt levels and ratios on the balance sheet are fairly simple and worth looking into.
Last edited:
CaptainForehead
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 4,302
- Reaction score
- 3,815
Not in trading, but in valuations and fundamental analysis I sort of do. Sort of do in that the information from Google and personal experience has been more useful and I learnt from them before I did at uni but some of it mirrors each other. A lot of the info they taught at uni was blatantly bogus, some ideas like efficient market hypothesis (there are different degrees of this) which implies that the price of an asset reflects all publicly available and private information was emphasised in a bunch of subjects seemingly just for the sake of it despite most of the teachers acknowledging it wasn't particularly useful or accurate.
But yeah genuinely Google, personal experiences and the experiences of other traders are more worthwhile than teaching of dumbfuck academics who are trying to teach something they have not achieved (otherwise they'd be traders or investors not academics).
- Reaction score
- 11,939
Good post.
Another difference which I realized after is that of redistribution. Inflation or deflation is irrelevant in the absence of redistribution, for example when companies have stock splits. However, when the government prints money in the real world it actually changes the distribution of money, as the access to printed money is not proportional to existing capital.
It is not simply a change in the label. If everybody was twice as rich, and all prices doubled, it would be irrelevant.
The graphs showing the relative value of dollars to gold in the past hundred years are somewhat dishonest as there are more dollars in circulation now than then, whereas the gold supply has grown by less. If you were in a position where you could increase your total fractional share of dollars, than you've done well against gold. Now, that is harder than it used to be as there are banks like mine offering 0.04% interest rates on their savings account.
On the bright side, I have figured out how to invest in stocks and mutual funds. TD Ameritrade allows people on J-1 visas to do so.
- Reaction score
- 461
Blockchain technology paves the way and allows for true direct fianancial democracy, and thus
decentralization of power. It's technology truly gives opportunity for a fair and logic valuation
system of ones societal contributions.
The argument of no backing is actually the best argument for the technology as it doesn't need
anything else but sheer will from the majority of the people. Who would you rather place your trust in
that no drastic changes will occur and thus affect your investment; a few very powerful people and
prognosis based on their will and knowledge, or the many millions holding the same currency as you?
Who's more likely to result in a drastic change?
Also, by direct and true decentrelized democracy I can give a very simple example: Say if 95 % of
the total bitcoins(example) ended up in the control of very few select people/companies/families,
then they would suddendly be worth chit, because the majority of the people could just shift to or
make another cryptocurrency. You see, the more decetrilezid a cryptocurrency is (more democratic)
the bigger is it's power.
Lastly, one should never underestimate the power of the people.
Recent history shows that the biggest rise in the use of crypto has been happening in the
devoloping countries, ones with less stable economies and currencies, and thus trust. What would happen
if SP500 index took a hit of say 30% (not unlikely based on today's valuation) ? Imo it would
create a positive feedback and rush to cryptos.
Btw, bitcoin is just an example, it may or may not end up replacing worlds currencies, but it's
technology definitely wil have a much biger impact than it's current valuation. Another point is
that the different cryptocurrencies have all different ways of tackling similar problems with their
different solution, and they very often are not comparable (read ethereums tech application to
f. ex voting system).
Blockchain is here to stay. And good that is.
Cheers
decentralization of power. It's technology truly gives opportunity for a fair and logic valuation
system of ones societal contributions.
The argument of no backing is actually the best argument for the technology as it doesn't need
anything else but sheer will from the majority of the people. Who would you rather place your trust in
that no drastic changes will occur and thus affect your investment; a few very powerful people and
prognosis based on their will and knowledge, or the many millions holding the same currency as you?
Who's more likely to result in a drastic change?
Also, by direct and true decentrelized democracy I can give a very simple example: Say if 95 % of
the total bitcoins(example) ended up in the control of very few select people/companies/families,
then they would suddendly be worth chit, because the majority of the people could just shift to or
make another cryptocurrency. You see, the more decetrilezid a cryptocurrency is (more democratic)
the bigger is it's power.
Lastly, one should never underestimate the power of the people.
Recent history shows that the biggest rise in the use of crypto has been happening in the
devoloping countries, ones with less stable economies and currencies, and thus trust. What would happen
if SP500 index took a hit of say 30% (not unlikely based on today's valuation) ? Imo it would
create a positive feedback and rush to cryptos.
Btw, bitcoin is just an example, it may or may not end up replacing worlds currencies, but it's
technology definitely wil have a much biger impact than it's current valuation. Another point is
that the different cryptocurrencies have all different ways of tackling similar problems with their
different solution, and they very often are not comparable (read ethereums tech application to
f. ex voting system).
Blockchain is here to stay. And good that is.
Cheers