Well most crypto currency is backed by maths and no matter how many guns you point at it, you cannot make 2+2= anything other than 4.
Sure, you can make one type of coin or other rare or rate limited or whatever, but you can also just make up a different shit coin and give yourself a metric shit ton of that new coin, and then eventually try to move to either a more stable coin or back into fiat once you’ve gotten enough suckers holding the bag to exit.
That makes crypto ultimately not based on maths at all, but based on hype, stupidity, and scams alone.
The main difference between these “shit coins” and fiat is once the shit coin scammers eventually pull the rug, they cannot just print more of that coin. Fiat scammers can just print more of that currency.
But in both situations one does need to look at the economics of the coins, and the priors of the people in control.
What I am trying to get through to you is, just like how the LIBOR scandal doesn’t implicate fiat, scammy crypto projects doesn’t implicate crypto. My criticism of fiat is it’s fundamental systemic weaknesses. It seems your criticism of crypto is it’s used by scammers. A criticism that, incidentally can also be levied at fiat.
That’s quite a privileged point of view. Take a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation#Notable_hyperinflationary_periods. In the crypto world, this is the very definition of a pump and dump. Except the pumping in the fiat world is the money supply and a dumping is the value. As for scam coins, I disagree, the scam isn’t usually the currency (we’ll, not more than fiat) it may be created and used to facilitate a scam, but unless the creator programmed in a flaw that can be taken advantage of, it currency itself isn’t the scam. And since scam creators are usually lazy, ignorant, or just optimising for returns, most of the code behind their coins have been forked from other, more legitimate crypto projects.
Sure, you can make one type of coin or other rare or rate limited or whatever, but you can also just make up a different shit coin and give yourself a metric shit ton of that new coin, and then eventually try to move to either a more stable coin or back into fiat once you’ve gotten enough suckers holding the bag to exit.
That makes crypto ultimately not based on maths at all, but based on hype, stupidity, and scams alone.
The main difference between these “shit coins” and fiat is once the shit coin scammers eventually pull the rug, they cannot just print more of that coin. Fiat scammers can just print more of that currency.
But in both situations one does need to look at the economics of the coins, and the priors of the people in control.
“Once they’ve completed the scam they have to move onto other scams.”
Are you even thinking at all when constructing these arguments?
What I am trying to get through to you is, just like how the LIBOR scandal doesn’t implicate fiat, scammy crypto projects doesn’t implicate crypto. My criticism of fiat is it’s fundamental systemic weaknesses. It seems your criticism of crypto is it’s used by scammers. A criticism that, incidentally can also be levied at fiat.
Sure both can be used by scammers, but in fiat the currency itself isn’t usually the scam.
That’s quite a privileged point of view. Take a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation#Notable_hyperinflationary_periods. In the crypto world, this is the very definition of a pump and dump. Except the pumping in the fiat world is the money supply and a dumping is the value. As for scam coins, I disagree, the scam isn’t usually the currency (we’ll, not more than fiat) it may be created and used to facilitate a scam, but unless the creator programmed in a flaw that can be taken advantage of, it currency itself isn’t the scam. And since scam creators are usually lazy, ignorant, or just optimising for returns, most of the code behind their coins have been forked from other, more legitimate crypto projects.
How is that a privileged point of view?