In your FT article you stated "Letting crypto burn may no longer be realistic. If that is the case..."
But I really like the alternative solution suggested by FT Alphaville column a few days ago--Let crypto burn." Why is this no longer realistic?
In addition, Unhedged, also at FT, argued recently that "we really don't know yet what crypto assets are? Currencies? Commodities, Investment contracts? Ownership of payment infrastructure? Game pieces, Plain bullshit?"
Is your assumption that crypto should be regulated in some way (under the rubric of gambling rather than banking) partially biased by your apparent general preference for more centralized regulatory control which in my opinion often ends up stabilizing a quite corrupt international (World Bank etc.) as well as domestic (U.S Federal Reserve managed) financial structure?
Crypto assets are simple. They are attribution on a registry: nothing more; nothing less. Iow, they are hat checks: not hats. Money is the only kind of registered attribution that has value in itself.
What Steve Howard said. There was something absolutely sublime about this post. That I’m just home from vacation in Italy somehow made it feel . . . Extra . . . What a fascinating and fabulous post. Thank you!
Hmmm... isn't fortune favors the brave just another way of saying nothing ventured nothing gained? Sometimes it works, sometimes you get covered in lava or find out they were just tulips. Flip side: Discretion is the better part of valor. Now, if only we could keep those who like to let it all ride on 7 from betting with everyone else's money.
Ha! Chartbook #175. Why I will ALWAYS subscribe.
Out of the blue. Through the roof. Clichés fail me.
In your FT article you stated "Letting crypto burn may no longer be realistic. If that is the case..."
But I really like the alternative solution suggested by FT Alphaville column a few days ago--Let crypto burn." Why is this no longer realistic?
In addition, Unhedged, also at FT, argued recently that "we really don't know yet what crypto assets are? Currencies? Commodities, Investment contracts? Ownership of payment infrastructure? Game pieces, Plain bullshit?"
Is your assumption that crypto should be regulated in some way (under the rubric of gambling rather than banking) partially biased by your apparent general preference for more centralized regulatory control which in my opinion often ends up stabilizing a quite corrupt international (World Bank etc.) as well as domestic (U.S Federal Reserve managed) financial structure?
Crypto assets are simple. They are attribution on a registry: nothing more; nothing less. Iow, they are hat checks: not hats. Money is the only kind of registered attribution that has value in itself.
They are electronic gambling tokens.
What Steve Howard said. There was something absolutely sublime about this post. That I’m just home from vacation in Italy somehow made it feel . . . Extra . . . What a fascinating and fabulous post. Thank you!
Hmmm... isn't fortune favors the brave just another way of saying nothing ventured nothing gained? Sometimes it works, sometimes you get covered in lava or find out they were just tulips. Flip side: Discretion is the better part of valor. Now, if only we could keep those who like to let it all ride on 7 from betting with everyone else's money.
Can we draw some conclusions from this analysis about the role crypto will play in the future?
!Que impresionante!
"Nothing is true."
Big, if true.
What we owe the present...