Merged Bitcoin - Part 3

[Checkmite]

Well wait times was the only thing you mentioned.

Perhaps give the post a second, closer look?

Just that. Are you being pressured to buy cryptos? Or are you just hearing some people extolling their benefits? And why isn't all of the negative commentary about cryptos "pressuring" hodlers to dump their holdings?

Why are you scare-quoting the word "pressure"? Whatever your personal special definition of the word is, I didn't use it in my initial post to describe what was going on. The first person to use it was you. But, even so, advertisement is nakedly a form of pressure - it's frankly bizarre of you imply otherwise. FOMO is created as an intended result of pressure.

But that's just the pressure put on outsiders to buy in. Owners face pressure to stay in, to not cash out. Cutesy lingo like "hodler" and other common cryptoverse terms were created to reinforce the existence of a community or in-group, and that also is definitely a form of pressure. This isn't some kind of conspiracy theorizing, it's Marketing 101 stuff.

 

[Samson]

The algorithm I find foolproof says sell bitcoin now.
27831

 

[psionl0]

This isn't some kind of conspiracy theorizing, it's Marketing 101 stuff.

No, it is strictly conspiracy theorizing. You are claiming that pro-crypto comments "force" (since you don't like "pressure") people to buy or hodl their cryptos. OTOH anti-crypto comments have no effect whatsoever.

 

[Checkmite]

No, it is strictly conspiracy theorizing. You are claiming that pro-crypto comments "force" (since you don't like "pressure") people to buy or hodl their cryptos. OTOH anti-crypto comments have no effect whatsoever.

No - and again, it's not about "forcing". I don't propose there's some crypto mafia that's going to come and beat you up if you don't buy crypto. You're not supposed to buy it or hold onto it because you're being "forced"; you're supposed to buy it or hold onto it because the messaging leads you to believe that you're smarter and gutsier than the people who aren't buying in or are cashing (read: "chickening") out.

But we also can't pretend that along with the cutesy positive lingo like "hodl" there aren't disparaging comments and names reserved for people who waver or decide that crypto no longer makes sense for them. An actual financial advisor will tell you they think pulling out of X mutual fund is a mistake, but they won't berate you for being a paper-hands loser and tell you to have fun staying poor. While I wouldn't call it "forcing", this kind of language absolutely can have a chilling effect - indeed, that's its entire point. And again, this isn't my personal theory - it's a relatively basic sociological concept.

 

[psionl0]

But this is a reality that the internal crypto world can't ever admit to itself, because if nobody's going to be forced to buy and use Bitcoin ten years from now, then it has no inherent value and there's no reason for you to buy and hoard it now.

No - and again, it's not about "forcing".

 

[Chanakya]

Nothing's effing busted. Checkmite's point was straightforward enough, and articulated completely clearly.

This kind of attempt at spin I find infuriating. An overreaction, no doubt, but given that that's the one thing the right wing are good at, brazen attempts at twisting words and putting in a spin to any and every thing, and we've been flooded with so much of that kind of thing in recent years, that dishonest gotcha attempts tend to set one on edge ---- even when one sees instances where the right wing has nothing to do with it.

It's perfectly true, that crypto "enthusiasts" --- which is a euphemism for deliberate grifters and their dupes --- do try to exert exactly this kind of "pressure".

Not everything about crypto is that sort of thing, obviously. Maybe not even the major part of it. But a sizeable and conspicuous part of it does answer to Checkmite's description.



eta: To be fair, though, crypto isn't the only asset class where this applies. Another conspicuous instance of this, that I've come across, in some circles and niches certainly and maybe more broadly as well, is high-risk investing strategies involving certain grades or risk categories of underlying businesses, as well as riskier derivative instruments, condensed into an overall toxic strategy that sometimes pays off but oftentimes doesn't, and that grifters encourage. Except we may be too inured to this to even notice any more, and in any case maybe it addresses a smaller niche.

With BTC et al, it is more conspicuous both because it is broader and because most of us haven't yet gotten inured to it. Nor is this all there is, in either of these two cases. But that this a thing with crypto is true enough --- even if it may also apply to some other specific instance/s, and even if that's not 100℅ of what crypto reportage/discussion is about.

 

[psionl0]

Nothing's effing busted. Checkmite's point was straightforward enough, and articulated completely clearly.

This is true only if you subscribe to Checkmite's made-up theory.

It was just a straightforward question about why positive spin on cryptos is supposed to induce people to spend ever more sums on cryptos while negative spin doesn't deter spending on crypto.

Checkmite had to go off on a massive tangent about "pressure" vs "force" to avoid answering this question.

 

[Chanakya]

This is true only if you subscribe to Checkmite's made-up theory.

Well, yes and no.

No, because the negative spin does not take away from the existence of the positive spin, that's far more conspicuous than with other investments.

A very qualified yes, because, like I said, this kind of positive spin, while not ubiquitous --- or at least not ubiquitously conspicuous --- you do come across in some other specific investment types as well. And also because, and like I said, what is conspicuous to one may well, in part at least, be a function of what one is inured to, and, yes, and as you say, whether one agrees with the propaganda being flogged.

(Kind of like being paranoid, that something is being spun, and flogged, does not in and of itself make it a dud, I guess. What I'm very qualifiedly agreeing with, in general terms, is that what jumps out at one, what is conspicuous to one, would probably, in part, depend on one's bias in terms of whether one happens to agree with the thrust of the message. Not that that changes my overall view about spin on crypto.)

 

[psionl0]

No, because the negative spin does not take away from the existence of the positive spin, that's far more conspicuous than with other investments.

What evidence do you have for this claim?

Why do you think that people will ignore the thousands of Email spam they get everyday but as soon as they get one recommending cryptos they suddenly can't buy fast enough?

 

[Chanakya]

What evidence do you have for this claim?

For the fact that crypto's been flogged IRL, while downplaying the over-the-top volatility of it? (I wasn't referring to this thread particularly, at least not in that comment.). The same as some other specific investment types, like derivatives-based strategies and/or risk-aggregation investment strategies and investments flogged to hedge funds and also to HNW types, to take a somewhat niche example; and also, to take another, broader-based example that comes to mind, TA-algo-based trading strategies, even apps, that are shamelessly and aggressively flogged IRL? Really?

Why do you think that people will ignore the thousands of Email spam they get everyday but as soon as they get one recommending cryptos they suddenly can't buy fast enough?

Heh, there you go again. Not what I said, at all.

But if you must look at effects, rather than the flogging per se, even though I myself did not touch on it, well then some/many well might fall for the crypto flogging rather than, say, the TA flogging, no? And should some/many fall for both, even then, I don't see how that takes away from the negatives of the crypto flogging.

 

[psionl0]

For the fact that crypto's been flogged IRL, while downplaying the over-the-top volatility of it?

No, I am referring to your claim that "the negative spin does not take away from the existence of the positive spin".

Few investment experts recommend including cryptos as part of an investment portfolio - let alone sinking your life savings into it. All you have left is kooks and scammers trying to encourage crypto "investment" and you are claiming that their influence far exceeds the influence they actually have.

The idea that the positive spin from kooks and scammers exceeds the negative spin from investment experts falls within the realm of CT.

Heh, there you go again. Not what I said, at all.

Sure it is. It might be hyperbolic to suggest that speculators can't wait to spend all of their money on cryptos (because the negative spin doesn't take away from the positive spin) but that is not far off what you have actually claimed.

 

[Checkmite]

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. In the meantime, let me try to lay out what I'm saying a little clearer for you.

The "hope", the bright future of crypto that was being sold to buyers originally (and to a degree continues being sold to this day), is that IN THE FUTURE, the unknown but not very distant future, the world will transition fully or partly to crypto for daily commerce. In this future, the global public will be forced to buy crypto - and it's very important to understand that when I say "forced", again, I'm not talking about some crypto mafia breaking down peoples' doors and compelling them at gunpoint to buy Bitcoin. The "forcing" would be systemic: the prophecy is that companies will eventually just start using crypto and other blockchain tokens for all manner of private, business, and even government transactions. We're talking concert tickets, internet subscription tokens, diplomas, insurance payments and settlements, loans, even identity and security credentials, depending on which crypto-shill you're listening to. In this golden new crypto age, people would simply have no choice but to get crypto wallets and buy whatever currencies and tokens are required in order to interact with these essential systems and products. If one day Ubisoft decides that "from now on subscriber access tokens are going to be Etherium smart contracts", then you thereafter will NEED an Etherium wallet in order to buy and play Ubisoft games and verify your identity and account in their system. That's what I mean by "forced".

This future vision of a global economy that's inevitably compelled to pivot to crypto, is dumb - but as laughable as it is to anyone on the outside of the cryptosphere, it is nevertheless the primary selling point of crypto to buyers in the here and now. Because if (WHEN, of course!) that great day comes when people have to buy into crypto because it's just necessary in order to live life and participate in society, it can only benefit YOU if you're the one they have to buy that cryptocurrency from once the demand sends sell prices through the roof.

 

[jeremyp]

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. In the meantime, let me try to lay out what I'm saying a little clearer for you.

The "hope", the bright future of crypto that was being sold to buyers originally (and to a degree continues being sold to this day), is that IN THE FUTURE, the unknown but not very distant future, the world will transition fully or partly to crypto for daily commerce. In this future, the global public will be forced to buy crypto - and it's very important to understand that when I say "forced", again, I'm not talking about some crypto mafia breaking down peoples' doors and compelling them at gunpoint to buy Bitcoin. The "forcing" would be systemic: the prophecy is that companies will eventually just start using crypto and other blockchain tokens for all manner of private, business, and even government transactions. We're talking concert tickets, internet subscription tokens, diplomas, insurance payments and settlements, loans, even identity and security credentials, depending on which crypto-shill you're listening to. In this golden new crypto age, people would simply have no choice but to get crypto wallets and buy whatever currencies and tokens are required in order to interact with these essential systems and products. If one day Ubisoft decides that "from now on subscriber access tokens are going to be Etherium smart contracts", then you thereafter will NEED an Etherium wallet in order to buy and play Ubisoft games and verify your identity and account in their system. That's what I mean by "forced".

This future vision of a global economy that's inevitably compelled to pivot to crypto, is dumb - but as laughable as it is to anyone on the outside of the cryptosphere, it is nevertheless the primary selling point of crypto to buyers in the here and now. Because if (WHEN, of course!) that great day comes when people have to buy into crypto because it's just necessary in order to live life and participate in society, it can only benefit YOU if you're the one they have to buy that cryptocurrency from once the demand sends sell prices through the roof.

It has its own acronym: FOMO.

 

[psionl0]

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. In the meantime, let me try to lay out what I'm saying a little clearer for you.

The "hope", the bright future of crypto that was being sold to buyers originally (and to a degree continues being sold to this day), is that IN THE FUTURE, the unknown but not very distant future, the world will transition fully or partly to crypto for daily commerce. In this future, the global public will be forced to buy crypto - and it's very important to understand that when I say "forced", again, I'm not talking about some crypto mafia breaking down peoples' doors and compelling them at gunpoint to buy Bitcoin. The "forcing" would be systemic: the prophecy is that companies will eventually just start using crypto and other blockchain tokens for all manner of private, business, and even government transactions. We're talking concert tickets, internet subscription tokens, diplomas, insurance payments and settlements, loans, even identity and security credentials, depending on which crypto-shill you're listening to. In this golden new crypto age, people would simply have no choice but to get crypto wallets and buy whatever currencies and tokens are required in order to interact with these essential systems and products. If one day Ubisoft decides that "from now on subscriber access tokens are going to be Etherium smart contracts", then you thereafter will NEED an Etherium wallet in order to buy and play Ubisoft games and verify your identity and account in their system. That's what I mean by "forced".

This future vision of a global economy that's inevitably compelled to pivot to crypto, is dumb - but as laughable as it is to anyone on the outside of the cryptosphere, it is nevertheless the primary selling point of crypto to buyers in the here and now. Because if (WHEN, of course!) that great day comes when people have to buy into crypto because it's just necessary in order to live life and participate in society, it can only benefit YOU if you're the one they have to buy that cryptocurrency from once the demand sends sell prices through the roof.

If you had been paying attention you would know that I have already discounted these superlative claims by kooks and scammers.

Nobody knows what the future holds for cryptos. It may be that some vendors will only accept certain cryptos as payment for their wares (but they can't do this if a debt is being settled) but it would take a major fiat crash for cryptos to replace fiat currencies and even then, it is just as likely that fiat would stage a recovery and deny cryptos their day in the sun.

Fears that the public will be forced to switch to cryptos for their daily transactions are mostly CT introduced in an attempt to turn people off cryptos.

 

[Chanakya]

No, I am referring to your claim that "the negative spin does not take away from the existence of the positive spin".

Few investment experts recommend including cryptos as part of an investment portfolio - let alone sinking your life savings into it. All you have left is kooks and scammers trying to encourage crypto "investment" and you are claiming that their influence far exceeds the influence they actually have.

The idea that the positive spin from kooks and scammers exceeds the negative spin from investment experts falls within the realm of CT.


Sure it is. It might be hyperbolic to suggest that speculators can't wait to spend all of their money on cryptos (because the negative spin doesn't take away from the positive spin) but that is not far off what you have actually claimed.

Haha, and there you go, one more time. I don't know if this is deliberate, I guess maybe not; but you do this thing, where you read something, and then respond to something very different than what you've read there.

This kind of interminable back-and-forths over I-said-you-said, not sure if it leads anywhere at all, but what the hell, let's go for it one last time.

Read again what I said, and what in fact you've actually typed down (or copy-pasted) from my post within quotation marks. Negative spin, should there be such, does not take away from the existence of positive spin.

Does the quantum of positive spin exceed the quantum of negative spin? I’ve said nothing at all about that, and in any case I frankly wouldn’t know: but even if it were the case that the quantum of negative spin exceeds the quantum of positive spin, that does not detract from the existence of the positive spin, from the fact that there is positive spin.

And does the cumulative effect of the positive spin exceed the quantum of negative spin? Again that’s something I’ve said nothing at all about, because again frankly I don’t know one way or the other; and in any case, regardless of which way the cumulative effect tilts (should someone go to the trouble to properly, verifiably working that out), even then, and even if the cumulative effect of negative spin outstrips the cumulative effect of positive spin, even in that outlier case that still does not detract from the existence of the positive spin.

And although I’ve said nothing about this in my earlier post/s, but just to spell this out and pre-empt further back-and-forths over this, the cumulative effect of both kinds of spin, whatever it might be, will not be exactly replicated across every individual. Even if it were the case that the cumulative effect of positive spin exactly counter-balances the cumulative effect of negative spin, that still doesn’t mean that positive spin has zero effect. That only means --- even in that extreme case of the two kinds of spin balancing each other (or, hell, the even more extreme case of negative spin outstripping positive spin) --- that some people whose risk appetite would have led them to reasonably invest in some instrument or strategy are (wrongly) being led not to invest there; but that does not detract from the fact that some people are being led to invest (wrongly) in instruments and schemes they should not rightly be touching. That positive spin on crypto exists, and that is fact.


-------



Whew, I just re-read that, and I’m kind of looking around at where exactly down the rabbit hole we’ve landed at!

Okay, would-be-half-humorous back-and-forths aside, this in short is where I’m at: Positive spin about crypto, the flogging of crypto, the unscrupulous selling of crypto, that is fact. I’ve already agreed, right at my initial post about this, that crypto isn’t alone in being so flogged: there are other specific investment types that also are flogged IRL just like crypto: one example would be certain kinds of risk-aggregation instruments and strategies that are aimed at HNW investors and hedge funds, and another and broader example would be TA-algo-based trading strategies. (And just to be very clear, and to make sure there’s no misunderstanding and no further back-and-forths around this again: when I refer to the flogging of crypto, I’m not referring to your posts here; and when I refer to the flogging of TA-algo-based strategies, I’m not referring to Samson’s posts here, at all; what I’m referring to, in both cases, is the incessant flogging of this sort of thing IRL).

Might there be negative spin to crypto as well? If there is negative spin, might the quantum of the negative spin exceed the quantum of positive spin? Also, might there be positive spin to other specific instruments than crypto? And might the cumulative effect of positive spin on crypto exceed, or equal, or be less than, the cumulative effect of negative spin on crypto? And further, might the cumulative effect of positive spin on other dodgy investment instruments and strategies exceed, or equal, or be less than, the cumulative effect of positive spin on crypto? I’ve no clue, really, and nor have I said anything at all about any of this; but all of this are essentially non sequiturs, irrelevancies. Well not entirely irrelevant obviously, obviously they’d make for interesting discussion should someone be able to reliably pronounce on those things: but thing is, firstly none of that I’ve spoken on at all, although you keep responding to me as if I have; and secondly none of that in any way takes away from the existence of positive spin on crypto, which is fact.

 

[Chanakya]

Sorry, I’d missed these two posts of yours, The Don and Suddenly.

On one level it kinda makes sense. After a period of price rises there is typically a correction as traders engage in profit taking. After a period of price falls there is typically a correction as traders close out their positions (if they're long) or take their profits (if they're short).

The thing is that it doesn't always happen and it's impossible to say when the current run has ended. A 10% price rise/fall could signal the start of correction/consolidation period or it could be the catalyst for everyone else to pile in.

Likewise with TA involving metrics other than price. In a rational market, a stock price trading outside "normal" price to earnings ratios would be the signal to take corrective action. The thing is that markets aren't rational.

In any case, a working TA model which is actually used to trigger trades would immediately invalidate itself if it's used to any real extent.

IMO the benchmark for any TA claims is how much money has the person made using it and over what period of time. If there's a track record for consistent returns over an extended period of time (years, ideally decades) in excess of market indices then there may be something of interest. Anything else is just aimless jibber-jabber.

Hm, what you’re saying is that what TA measures, then, is not overall transactions in stock, but only the trading part. That is, only those transactions which are made by (I presume relatively short-term) traders, whose only interest is to make short-term profits off of their positions, and whose transactions don’t reflect their long-term view (the fundamental view, if you will) of the underlying investments.

If I’ve not misunderstood you, then I agree, in principle --- or, more precisely, as far as abstract speculation --- that it might be possible to break (some of) those effects down to past trades. Hadn’t really thought of this, or come across this reasoning before. Agreed, that might present some logic, some reason, for why/how TA might work.

But then this would cover only a portion of the total transactions, and I don’t know how large a proportion that might amount to. And of course, all of this is speculation, and we don’t actually know whether this theory does translate into measurable results IRL (whether, that is, TA does capture at least a portion of purely-trading volumes), right?

From where I sit, TA looks like reading far more than warranted into random and/or incidental patterns, like reading tea leaves, or palmlines, or planets-and-constellations, or whatever.

It works in sports betting. Sports bettors have created some pretty clear patterns based on mass psychology / conventional wisdom which causes bookies to set inaccurate lines to balance the books. Those edges tend to correct themselves pretty quickly because getting enough money down to exploit an inaccurate line eventually moves the line.

Financial markets are more complex and have (to put it mildly) more sophisticated bettors so probably it isn't possible to exploit because like The Don suggests the variance would make it very hard to distinguish between luck and skill. It would be like trying to count cards at blackjack with money that randomly changes in value. Just a nightmare to filter the noise.

Plus the edges probably wouldn't justify the overhead and opportunity costs.

Not sure I follow. Every kind of transaction does involve psychology. I’m not sure why this should be uniquely different specifically for sports betting.

But then I don’t know anything about sports betting really, and I don’t actually understand the part where you explain, the part where you say this: “Those edges tend to correct themselves pretty quickly because getting enough money down to exploit an inaccurate line eventually moves the line.” Maybe you could break that up a bit?

In any case, are you saying TA does work in sports betting? Is there actually evidence that it does? If it does, then in principle at least I’d have to say, in fairness, that it might then work for other investments as well. Although I doubt that, very much.

Not to derail this thread by going off into a long-drawn tangent, but if there actually is evidence that TA works in sports betting, well then that would be something new as far as I’m concerned, and make me change how I look at TA. At least in principle, I’d then have to agree that there might be something to it after all.

 

[novaphile]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I can tell you that I don't see athletes and movie stars on TV recommending that I send my money to African Princes, but I do see them advertising crypto schemes...


(I'm not sure if I spelled scams correctly above.)

 

[psionl0]

Read again what I said, and what in fact you've actually typed down (or copy-pasted) from my post within quotation marks. Negative spin, should there be such, does not take away from the existence of positive spin.

If this non-statement is all you are saying then there is no need for a 1000 word post.

Clearly you want us to be terrified of the positive spin. You want us to believe that positive spin renders negative spin ineffective even though you will deny this if it is put to you.

 

[Chanakya]

If this non-statement is all you are saying then there is no need for a 1000 word post.

Nor 10,000 shorter posts, eh? Especially 10,000 shorter posts that go around misreading and/or strawmanning?

Clearly you want us to be terrified of the positive spin. You want us to believe that positive spin renders negative spin ineffective even though you will deny this if it is put to you.

And clearly you are out to covertly terrify and subdue the black and yellow and white and brown people of the world, and put through your racist agenda centered around supremacy of the green race. But you will brazenly deny your green-skin-supremacist agenda when that is put to you.

 

[psionl0]

Nor 10,000 shorter posts, eh? Especially 10,000 shorter posts that go around misreading and/or strawmanning?

Unfortunately your posts are so verbose that any point you are trying to make has been buried. It is still not clear if you believe that kooks and scammers trying to flog crypto investments is something to be worried about. And if it is, what do you want to do about it?

And clearly you are out to covertly terrify and subdue the black and yellow and white and brown people of the world, and put through your racist agenda centered around supremacy of the green race. But you will brazenly deny your green-skin-supremacist agenda when that is put to you.

By the standards of this thread, that is one of the more sensible statements.