Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (196347)	2/15/2023 9:02:25 AM
From: Pogeu Mahone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217733

"durable prosperity" a laugh a minute

To: TobagoJack who wrote (196347)	2/15/2023 5:32:27 PM
From: sense	Respond to of 217733

Still seeing nothing unexpected, or surprising, in the ongoing denouement of the most obvious of the frauds in the crypto space... the most interesting element of which is the degree in which they've collapsed of their own weight in hubris and excess, recently, rather than in result of any reasonable effort in oversight... which has been almost entirely absent. Not shockingly, the SEC is as useless in addressing the frauds and other issues in crypto as they are in pretty much everything else they do... "controlled opposition" existing to enable that it opposes in name only... seems as relevant in relation to the SEC and all of its "protection of investors" as it is to Republicans... Being unsurprised by any of that... I think "wait for it" continues to be the right call... as we're not even close to finishing the "culling" that is required. Every single one of them, of course, is built on a funding structure that is inherently a Ponzi scheme... that element NOT inherent in the technology... but, obviously, on the choice to make them into that... which makes them "self funding" as "start-ups"... and makes "trading profits" possible... all which also fully discredits their pretense to be intended as a counter to the same problem as that already existing in other "better established" brands of fiat... Neither the tech, nor the basic concept, depend on that element of fraud being enabled to create value... but, by tolerating the fraud, the SEC (et al) ensure their lack of future viability... The same appears true of the "exchanges"... the lack of standards ensuring they'll all fail, in due course... and the lack of enforcement of the laws, even where there are flagrantly obvious frauds... serving that same end better than forcing them to quit scamming people would. That there's value in the concept, and underlying tech... doesn't mean there's any value in the Ponzi exploits being posed with misdirection applied to lure you into participation. Still say... wait for the bottom in the ongoing market decline... and to see not only "what other shoes drop" but also what regulatory changes are still coming... before thinking there's any probability at all of success in sorting out future winners from losers in this space. I'm less interested, still, in the tech generating "future alternatives to fiat money"... than I am in its other applications. Expect, eventually... others will figure out that there is a "solution to the problem" crypto intends to address... or more than one. But, as long as Ponzi's are allowed... there seems to be no reason to bother with any of that... For now, I don't see that anyone has really quite understood what "the value" is... ? As far as "self generating" the value "backing" them... I don't have a problem with that at all... fully support it... only as long as the "backing" consists of some actual deliverable product... goods and services that are not a product of enabling self-referential "mining" or some other Ponzi-scheme function in trading... in an otherwise purely fictional "value". A Ponzi is a Ponzi... and it seems foolish, to me... to expect "real value" based on touting one as superior to the others... even if they are not all equally well managed as the "best" of them ?