Why Did Reddit Trigger a GameStop Stock Surge?

[russ_watters]

It can't be both.

But it can be neither.

 

[fluidistic]

I'd go a step further - crypto should not be an "investment",. If it's a currency, it's supposed to be a stable store of value. (Currencies can fluctuate with respect to each other, but that's the intent. And yes, it doesn't always work out that way. Failures to maintain a stable store of value include the Zimbabwe dollar, Venezuelan Bolivar, a handful from Brazil, etc.)

Or is crypto an investment, with ups and downs? If so, what's the underlying asset?

It can't be both.

I didn't study economics, so the following may be wrong (correct me if necessary), but the more a cryptocurrency is used as a currency, the more stable it becomes. Regarding, say bitcoin to pick one, why wouldn't it be possible for it to be a currency, assuming that it's deflationary and is regarded as an investment, because it presumably didn't reach enough popularity?

I would say that.the underlying value of bitcoin is that, as of today at least, one can safely prove ownership of a particular address on the bitcoin blockchain. I think it's extremely complicated to dig into all the details and caveats of how bitcoin works, so that most people take for.granted.that it's a safe way to prove ownership, while in reality there is a big leap of faith involved, it's much more complicated than public and private keys of addresses. I think the biggest drawback of bitcoin is that proof of work pollutes the Earth too much due to insane energy consumption, and as such I don't know if it will succeed in the very long term (say in 80 years from now).

There are other cleaner cryptocurrencies, some much more efficient, which, if it wasn't for their swing in price, could be used on large scale. Bitcoin isn't used in el salvador, there's no transaction visible on the blockchain when people do trades with chivo wallet (they use a wrapped bitcoin pegged to the bitcoin, which they can convert into real bitcoins, but it isn't done by default).

 

[russ_watters]

...but the more a cryptocurrency is used as a currency, the more stable it becomes.

I think the cause-effect relationship goes the other way: stability and security (reliability) are traits of a good gurrency, so they cause people to adopt it. For example, USD or Euros instead of Mexican Pesos for international trade. I don't see why adoption should cause stability except due to inertia(and then only a limited amount). And since the actual use is tiny compared to the investment holding, what happens if people stop buying it.

Regarding, say bitcoin to pick one, why wouldn't it be possible for it to be a currency, assuming that it's deflationary and is regarded as an investment, because it presumably didn't reach enough popularity?

I hold investments, but buy and sell stuff with money. They're fundamentally different. I don't expect or want massive deflation in my checking account and I can't and won't buy a soda by feeding a stock certificate into the machine.

It's generally regarded by economists that slight inflation is good. I feel like people who hope for deflation think they will get to have their cake and eat it too.

I would say that.the underlying value of bitcoin is that, as of today at least, one can safely prove ownership of a particular address on the bitcoin blockchain.

How? My checking account statement proves I own the money in it, but the statements usefulness has nothing to do with the value in it. I don't see why bitcoin advocates see value in the features of bitcoin.

Or...there's value in credit card processing, buy it's fixed as a small percentage of the money flow, not stand-alone.

I think it's extremely complicated to dig into all the details and caveats of how bitcoin works, so that most people take for.granted.that it's a safe way to prove ownership, while in reality there is a big leap of faith involved...

Agreed. And that's a great feature for a scam.

 

[phinds]

 

[Vanadium 50]

It's generally regarded by economists that slight inflation is good.

Inflation transfers welath from creditors to debtors. In principle, if you are a debtor you want inflation, and if you're a creditor, you want deflation. Too much of either, of course, causes other, deeper problems.

one can safely prove ownership of a particular address on the bitcoin blockchain

If that were strictly true, Bitcoin heists would be impossible. And, in principle, I suppose one could photograph every dollar one ever had and get at least as good results.

US dollars have a unique aspect: US taxes must be paid in US dollars = not euros, yen, pesos, loonies or bitcoins. The US spends $6T a year in federal spending, and states about $2T on a GDP of about $25T. So about a third of the US economy must be on dollars.

Given that, what does Bitcoin buy you?

• The ability to buy things you don't want the government knowing about.
• Stonks only go up! Bitcoin too!

Neither seems a compelling reason to switch away from dollar when buying a gallon of milk. In the US, crime is a few percent of the economy, so there is little use of Bitcoin day-to-day. Only when you want someone whacked.

That leaves "stonks always go up" - with no underlying asset and limited purchsing ability,. the only point is the Greater Fool Theory. Get in now, and sell it later to someone else. Historically this has not ended well. You won't want to be the one standing up when the music stops.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Inflation transfers welath from creditors to debtors. In principle, if you are a debtor you want inflation, and if you're a creditor, you want deflation. Too much of either, of course, causes other, deeper problems.

I have a personal theory that the real point of inflation, or at least one point, is to give everyone a pay cut. Over time there are jobs that are relatively less valuable, and either the pay for those people needs to be cut, or everyone else needs to be paid more. I think psychologically people are very adverse to pay cuts so a small amount of inflation is necessary if we want jobs to fade away in the economy.

 

[fluidistic]

If that were strictly true, Bitcoin heists would be impossible. And, in principle, I suppose one could photograph every dollar one ever had and get at least as good results.

US dollars have a unique aspect: US taxes must be paid in US dollars = not euros, yen, pesos, loonies or bitcoins. The US spends $6T a year in federal spending, and states about $2T on a GDP of about $25T. So about a third of the US economy must be on dollars.

Given that, what does Bitcoin buy you?

• The ability to buy things you don't want the government knowing about.
• Stonks only go up! Bitcoin too!

Neither seems a compelling reason to switch away from dollar when buying a gallon of milk. In the US, crime is a few percent of the economy, so there is little use of Bitcoin day-to-day. Only when you want someone whacked.

That leaves "stonks always go up" - with no underlying asset and limited purchsing ability,. the only point is the Greater Fool Theory. Get in now, and sell it later to someone else. Historically this has not ended well. You won't want to be the one standing up when the music stops.

What I meant is that as long as you have the private key of a particular address, you can prove it, for example by transfering funds out of the address (but I'm sure there are other ways too). If someone have access to the key, he gains ownership of that address, and this may happen by scammer/gunpoint/drug/whatever else way.

I don't really see why taxes in the US are important regarding bitcoin in particular (or other cryptocurrencies), it's supposed to be a currency ungoverned by any state. Plus, nothing forbids taxes to be paid in bitcoins, this already happened in Ohio a few years ago, but they messed up the implementation (they were supposed to save money but made it the other way around) and gave up on this. Given more time, older people being replaced by more crypto-friendly people may well make things change.
Apparently some people sell apartments in bitcoin. And many people transfer cryptocurrencies to relatives. You can pay "cold wallets" in bitcoins, too.

I don't really agree with your last paragraph. For some people, of course, this is true, but for others, it is "Get in now, wait several decades, possibly giving it to your children, hopefully in a world where insert any crypto is accepted as a way of payment for everyday goods. I.e., never, ever, get it back to fiat.". But sure, get "early" so that you make a good deal in the long run, that's the same idea in both cases.

Then there is the pump and dump schemes, stupid cryptos with no use and no future, etc. Some people are looking to get into those to make quick bucks.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I have a personal theory

Not allowed on PF! Mods! Mods!

It's not actually a personal theory. Marx would held that the actual economic "thing" is the hour of labor, and inflation just alterns the exchange rate between that and the little green pieces of paper we use to track it.

Inflation makes a pay cut or a smaller increase harder to see and therefore more psychologically tolerable. Also, if prices of goods, services and labor are in constant motion, it is easier for them to adjust relative to one another tnan if everything is static.

 

[Vanadium 50]

nothing forbids taxes to be paid in bitcoins,

Except the law.

 

[fluidistic]

How? My checking account statement proves I own the money in it, but the statements usefulness has nothing to do with the value in it. I don't see why bitcoin advocates see value in the features of bitcoin.

Or...there's value in credit card processing, buy it's fixed as a small percentage of the money flow, not stand-alone.

Agreed. And that's a great feature for a scam.

I don't think you do. I certainly don't own the money in my bank account. For instance, when I tried to perform a wire transfer to a cryptocurrency exchange, my bank refused, even though what I wanted to do isn't illegal. I asked why and they replied they do not want to deal with these kinds of business, although they suggested me to use a debit card to purchase crypto (but they charge around 2 percent instead of zero!). If I were to gamble in a casino or buy a weapon, I guess my bank wouldn't prevent me from doing it, but eventually it's up to my bank to decide what I cannot do with ''my'' money, not me. They can also freeze my account for any reason.
In Argentina, banks kept the dollars people had put in (in their savings accounts), and gave them pesos instead (pesofication), legally robbing people off.

Bitcoin, as far as I know, doesn't suffer from these features. If you own an address, then you're your own bank and your funds are yours.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Yes, you can use crypto to skirt the law (pesoification) and your banking agreement (your wire transfer example), but not everyone sees these as positive. But this is an argument that crypto is a more convenient currency. Did BTC somehow get a factor of 3 less convenient since its peak?

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think you do. I certainly don't own the money in my bank account.

That's nonsense. Not only is it yours, but it is federally insured against loss.

For instance, when I tried to perform a wire transfer to a cryptocurrency exchange, my bank refused...

Owning the money doesn't mean you get every account feature/term you want, and because you are lending them your money but it is protected, it is in both their interest and the government's that they don't do stupid or illegal things for you just because you ask them to.

Bitcoin, as far as I know, doesn't suffer from these features. If you own an address, then you're your own bank and your funds are yours.

But few people actually hold their own keys. That's why they use shadier banks (exchanges) to hold their money and help them do dumb/illegal things with it.

Also, holding your keys makes it even harder to use.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Getting rid of all that pesky institutional oversight gets rid of all that pesky institutional oversight.

 

[fluidistic]

That's nonsense. Not only is it yours, but it is federally insured against loss.

Owning the money doesn't mean you get every account feature/term you want, and because you are lending them your money but it is protected, it is in both their interest and the government's that they don't do stupid or illegal things for you just because you ask them to.

But few people actually hold their own keys. That's why they use shadier banks (exchanges) to hold their money and help them do dumb/illegal things with it.

Also, holding your keys makes it even harder to use.

I still want to do what I wish with my money. "Investing" in cryptos shouldn't be forbidden by banks, even in the worst (legal) case that the cryptos goes to 0 in value. Buying cryptos isn't forbidden by the law.
A stupider thing would be to buy a pack of cigarettes, don't you think?

Few people hold their own keys because they buy cryptos on centralised exchanges and let the money there because of either choice or laziness. These exchanges are indeed similar to banks in several aspects, one of them being fractional reserve. Unlike banks though, we can see the amount each exchange really owns, in real time (except for Monero since its blockchain is obfuscated). The exchanges usually offer "high" reward rates for keeping the crypto there, and the insurance is probably not as good as a real bank, which makes them just terrible for the long run, or even short/medium term.

Holding your keys and managing your funds isn't particularly hard, but it is heavily dependent on which crypto we're talking about, and whether it's a software/hot or hardware+software/cold wallet.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I still want to do what I wish with my money. "Investing" in cryptos shouldn't be forbidden by banks, even in the worst (legal) case that the cryptos goes to 0 in value. Buying cryptos isn't forbidden by the law.
A stupider thing would be to buy a pack of cigarettes, don't you think?

You can do whatever you want with your money. You can't make the bank do things it doesn't want to do. For example, if you buy a car, that car is your car. If you park your car on your neighbor's lawn and leave it there, it will eventually be towed. That doesn't mean you don't own the car. You can take the money out of the bank and do whatever you want with it. I'm sympathetic to the claim that the US government over leverages its regulatory power to limit what banks do, but that doesn't mean you don't own your money.

Few people hold their own keys because they buy cryptos on centralised exchanges and let the money there because of either choice or laziness. These exchanges are indeed similar to banks in several aspects, one of them being fractional reserve. Unlike banks though, we can see the amount each exchange really owns, in real time (except for Monero since its blockchain is obfuscated).

You know what the reserves are, but who checks how fractionalized it is? Banks have to report all their assets and liabilities to their regulators, and are required to maintain certain capital limits. That feels like it might be more transparent.

 

[BWV]

and why do we have all those bank refs? Because history is full of panics wiping out depositors and creating depressions, like is currently happening with DeFi

 

[kyphysics]

Which bubble dies first?

$GME/$AMC

or crypto

 

[Bystander]

Which bubble dies first?

"Place your bets, you can't win without a ticket..."

 

[phinds]

Which bubble dies first?

$GME/$AMC

or crypto

$GME/$AMC are "bubbles" only in that the value of their stock is too high for the underlying value of the companies. They are NOT without ANY underlying value so the thought of their going all the way to zero is pretty much a non-starter. Crypto coins on they other hand generally have NO underlying value so it is not at all unthinkable that their value could go to zero.

 

[BWV]

Bitcoin Jesus goin down - wasnt the whole point of crypto to create a system that would not need contracts and trust?

https://cryptobriefing.com/roger-ver-defaults-on-coinflex-for-47-million/

According to CoinFLEX CEO Mark Lamb, the previously reported large counterparty responsible for the crypto exchange’s $47 million debt is none other than Bitcoin celebrity Roger Ver. Lamb stated on Twitter that Ver had been served a notice of default for failing to top up his margin requirements.

Lamb’s announcement came shortly after Ver himself tweeted that rumors of his default to a counterparty were false. “Not only do I not have a debt to this [counterparty], but this [counterparty] owes me a substantial sum of money, and I am currently seeking the return of my funds,” Ver posted.

Ver’s denial prompted Lamb to “clarify to the public that yes – the debt is 100% related to [Ver’s] account” and that “CoinFLEX also categorically denies that we have any debts owing to him,” insisting the accusation was a tactic by Ver to “deflect from his liabilities and responsibilities.”

 

[fluidistic]

$GME/$AMC are "bubbles" only in that the value of their stock is too high for the underlying value of the companies. They are NOT without ANY underlying value so the thought of their going all the way to zero is pretty much a non-starter. Crypto coins on they other hand generally have NO underlying value so it is not at all unthinkable that their value could go to zero.

Regarding cryptocurrencies, can we consider their underlying values tied to what they offer, i.e. what we can accomplish with them?
No bank can offer the same service. Some cryptos have unique features.

 

[kyphysics]

$GME/$AMC are "bubbles" only in that the value of their stock is too high for the underlying value of the companies. They are NOT without ANY underlying value so the thought of their going all the way to zero is pretty much a non-starter. Crypto coins on they other hand generally have NO underlying value so it is not at all unthinkable that their value could go to zero.

AMC is still a "useful" business, whereas I find GameStop more and more useless each time I think about it.

I just think there is very little need for GameStop with the way the world works today. I know they're trying to reinvent themselves, but the physical retail stores business just feels obsolete and nearly pointless with the ability to do everything online.

 

[russ_watters]

I still want to do what I wish with my money.

Then withdraw it and stick it in a duffle bag and meet the guy you want to transfer it to in the alley behind the dumpsters and hand it to him. This has nothing to do with whether you own your money.

"Investing" in cryptos shouldn't be forbidden by banks, even in the worst (legal) case that the cryptos goes to 0 in value. Buying cryptos isn't forbidden by the law.

Since I have no idea what you were actually trying to do (since you didn't tell us), I can't really comment directly on that. In general though, banks can't prevent you from using your money for what you want.

A stupider thing would be to buy a pack of cigarettes, don't you think?

Grblabllethetch.

These exchanges are indeed similar to banks in several aspects, one of them being fractional reserve. Unlike banks though, we can see the amount each exchange really owns, in real time.

Really? How much does Coinbase have deposited and currently held? If that's an easy/obvious thing, why do exchanges keep going under?

Of course the big difference is FDIC insurance...and also the reserve requirements are legally required.

Regarding cryptocurrencies, can we consider their underlying values tied to what they offer, i.e. what we can accomplish with them?

Sure. Credit cards, for example, have 1-4% processing fees...tied to the real money they are transacting. That's basically it. Otherwise, there's no reason for crypto to have any value at all.

No bank can offer the same service. Some cryptos have unique features.

In order for those features to have value, people have to want to use them*. Don't be disingenuous: almost nobody wants/uses those features.

*"Crypto: It's everywhere you want to be."

 

[russ_watters]

$GME/$AMC are "bubbles" only in that the value of their stock is too high for the underlying value of the companies. They are NOT without ANY underlying value so the thought of their going all the way to zero is pretty much a non-starter. Crypto coins on they other hand generally have NO underlying value so it is not at all unthinkable that their value could go to zero.

For some reason my broker still reports that I hold some TDFX stock even though it went to zero and got bought-up by Nvidia like 20 years ago. I wish it would stop. Anyway, it happened fast. Yes, GME has assets, but it also has liabilities and could go to zero pretty quickly.

That said, the same people who are propping-up GME are also propping up crypto so they may have similar longevity.

 

[kyphysics]

For some reason my broker still reports that I hold some TDFX stock

I thought you were more of an indexer only from various comments you've made. So, you buy single stocks too, eh? Any 10 baggers?

 

[kyphysics]

That said, the same people who are propping-up GME are also propping up crypto so they may have similar longevity.

If judging by Reddit's WallStreetBets page, a lot of these people are broke.

I wonder, too, should we enter a recession, if some of these people will be forced to sell their meme stocks (whatever is left of them) just to have $$$?

Same w/ crypto...perhaps the desperate gamblers will be crushed and have to sell out at the bottom after having lost X amount of money...and maybe it ends that way?

 

[kyphysics]

Then, again, if we get stimmy checks sent out...maybe it starts again? Who knows...

 

[russ_watters]

First investment book I bought, at age 22. Dated now of course, but still readable and the mindset is timeless. [emphasis added]

I bought the most recent edition (April, 2022) for this discussion. A few excerpts:

Crypto: No excerpt needed. It says exactly what I expected/hoped it would and have already said.

NFTs: "NFTs are your opportunity to buy nothing, with the possibility of selling it to someone else for more." Incidentally, NFTs are going to court and are likely to be judged to really be nothing. Best case for NFTs is that the courts rule that they need to be...regulated. Ruh roh.

GME/AMC/Meme stocks: Don't. Unless you think musical chairs with your money is fun.

Important advice from the recent discussions: Chapter 4: Trust No one. Related in that chapter: don't invest in something you don't understand. These are pretty much my money management mantra. Incidentally my sister is a senior CFA who won't give me financial advice, but said she steered her company away from mortgage backed securities because she didn't understand them. Yes, these are simple platitudes that could be taught in middle school instead of sewing a football pillow.

 

[russ_watters]

The 1 percent shouldn't be a general rule. I don't blame people who have very little saved (say less than 15k dollars), who even though are in their 20s, 30s or 40s won't ever be able to afford to buy a place to live if they continue with their current job/carrier path. They have very little to lose in placing most of their money into crypto, even if they lose 100 percent of it.

Disagree. First off, I think you over-estimate how much hardship most people face. For example, I doubt you realize that about 2/3 of households in the US own their homes - a fraction that has changed little over the past few decades. Next, ~41% of Americans contribute to a 401k (just one retirement savings vehicle). The amount of people who are truly screwed unless they win the lottery is pretty low...and given the extremely low odds of winning the lottery, most would still be better off saving the money.

For the very young, it's not clear. I made a bad bet, but it was only a few hundred dollars and it didn't keep me from moving out of my parents' house into my first apartment. The stakes might be low if someone else is paying the bills, but they may not be if you're really on your own. I saved-up $25k for a down-payment on my house 17 years ago. I put it in the stock market over 5 years.

It won't make a big difference in their lives. If bitcoin or whatever they bought goes up 3x or 5x in their lifetime, it might make a little change, and if it goes 100x, then they would have won.

If you're in your 20s and you put some money into an S&P index fund and forget about it until after you retire it is likely to go up by about 50x. That's a heckuvalot more likely/less risk than trying it with crypto. And, of course, there's the actual odds. That crypto bet might go up by 100x but it is much more likely to go to zero. The stock bet might go up 50x or 20x or 100x, but there's pretty much zero chance of it going to zero. That's very, very unlike crypto.

About diversification, sure... easy to do when you're rich and can afford the whole spectrum of things to invest in. Art, gold, stocks, cryptos, appartments, etc. When you're broke, you don't have much diversification possible.

C'mon. For the vast majority of people, "diversification" means a diversified stock portfolio (mixed with some bonds), and most Americans have one. You're using a dystopian/defeatist perspective to justify gambling with what should be investing money.

 

[russ_watters]

I thought you were more of an indexer only from various comments you've made. So, you buy single stocks too, eh?

I was in college when I bought that and using a career-starter loan. I also bought AMD and ATI(later bought by AMD) which did pretty well for me. Today I probably have 60% of my holdings in S&P index funds, another 20% in various other mutual funds, 10% in bonds and 10% in individual stocks. Maybe I'll look up the exact numbers later...

But yes, I still do a little gambling. For example, I own a few shares of facebook (did very well), alibaba (notsomuch) and Chesapeake Energy (cratered).

Any 10 baggers?

I have no idea what that means.

 

[russ_watters]

If judging by Reddit's WallStreetBets page, a lot of these people are broke.

I wonder, too, should we enter a recession, if some of these people will be forced to sell their meme stocks (whatever is left of them) just to have $$$?

Same w/ crypto...perhaps the desperate gamblers will be crushed and have to sell out at the bottom after having lost X amount of money...and maybe it ends that way?

If we're in for a significant bear market/recession, yeah, that's the scenario. If you're an individual investor saving for retirement (me), you just hunker-down and avoid looking at your portfolio until it passes. But if you're an over-leveraged exchange and people are pulling their money out, you may fail.

The wallstreetbets crowd...I think they're already broke so this only affects them in the abstract. Like @fluidistic suggests, they are spending their get-out-of-their-parents-basement money at the dog track and if they lose it then they just stay in their parents' basement a while longer. No biggie as long as their parents can stomach it. That guy in his 40s who bet his house on it that you quoted I hope/expect is somewhat rare.

 

[kyphysics]

I was in college when I bought that and using a career-starter loan. I also bought AMD and ATI(later bought by AMD) which did pretty well for me. Today I probably have 60% of my holdings in S&P index funds, another 20% in various other mutual funds, 10% in bonds and 10% in individual stocks. Maybe I'll look up the exact numbers later...

I have no idea what that means.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? You've never read Peter Lynch's investing books? 10 baggers are 10x gainers!

As for $AMD, my cousin bought when it was like $2 or something. Very jealous. He's had big losses too on stocks, but that's probably his biggest gainer. It's so stupid to be buying literally the most obsolete business on Earth possibly in $GME and not $AMD.

 

[kyphysics]

re: facebook

Do you (or anyone) have faith in the metaverse?

 

[fluidistic]

Disagree. First off, I think you over-estimate how much hardship most people face. For example, I doubt you realize that about 2/3 of households in the US own their homes - a fraction that has changed little over the past few decades. Next, ~41% of Americans contribute to a 401k (just one retirement savings vehicle). The amount of people who are truly screwed unless they win the lottery is pretty low...and given the extremely low odds of winning the lottery, most would still be better off saving the money.

I have made no assumption nor guess at the percentage of those people. I just focused on that group (I may consider myself to be into that group, except that I'm not based in the US). From your comment, except for the valuable information about the numbers, all I get is "most would still be better off saving the money. ", which may be true, but I don't see the argument.

If you're in your 20s and you put some money into an S&P index fund and forget about it until after you retire it is likely to go up by about 50x. That's a heckuvalot more likely/less risk than trying it with crypto. And, of course, there's the actual odds. That crypto bet might go up by 100x but it is much more likely to go to zero. The stock bet might go up 50x or 20x or 100x, but there's pretty much zero chance of it going to zero. That's very, very unlike crypto.

I think 50x is an exaggeration of what is to come, but I get your point. In Europe though, the picture looks much less appealing, as I've already discussed with you several months ago, I pointed out that the population of many countries will drop dramatically, Italy will be wiped out by half (or almost) by 2100. In developed European countries, the median age will be around 65 years old by that time (currently around 40 years old). Even though up to now the numbers of their stocks looked appealing, I wouldn't consider it a nice and safe bet for the future of a 20 years old, in these European countries at least.

C'mon. For the vast majority of people, "diversification" means a diversified stock portfolio (mixed with some bonds), and most Americans have one. You're using a dystopian/defeatist perspective to justify gambling with what should be investing money.

Point taken.

Then withdraw it and stick it in a duffle bag and meet the guy you want to transfer it to in the alley behind the dumpsters and hand it to him. This has nothing to do with whether you own your money.

That's not how it works, and you know it. :) The only way to send money to the exchange without a % fee is by using SEPA transfer. But I agree with you about taking the money out of that particular bank.

Since I have no idea what you were actually trying to do (since you didn't tell us), I can't really comment directly on that. In general though, banks can't prevent you from using your money for what you want.

Converting part of my fiat into cryptos, with the hope to use it as such in a far future, of course with the hope that it allows me to pay for things I am unable to afford now. For me it would be a non luxurious place to live.

Grblabllethetch.

Not really convincing me that "investing" in cryptos is worse than buying a pack of cigarettes. I'm open to change my mind, but that argument isn't really convincing to me.

Really? How much does Coinbase have deposited and currently held? If that's an easy/obvious thing, why do exchanges keep going under?

Of course the big difference is FDIC insurance...and also the reserve requirements are legally required.

I don't know, the information has to be extracted from each blockchain Coinbase is into. I can give you an address of what I believe pertains to Binance: bc1qm34lsc65zpw79lxes69zkqmk6ee3ewf0j77s3h (currently has 54k BTC, and that's the address that sent me the BTC I withdrew from Binance).
Here are another Binance addresses, this time for Algorand's cryptocurrency: HEOQ3S6V47RFLU2RZ5GTQYJBEFRL54UWZ77PNUBNTDVSXIPYOPE2XZJSLE and SP745JJR4KPRQEXJZHVIEN736LYTL2T2DFMG3OIIFJBV66K73PHNMDCZVM. The website algorandexplorer marked these addresses as pertaining to Binance (so the information is easily available to everyone). With little effort I was able to spot a few Coinbase (and Coinbase Pro) addresses. Their full transaction history as well as their total balance at any time is available. You can do the same for many other cryptos, but not all.

In order for those features to have value, people have to want to use them*. Don't be disingenuous: almost nobody wants/uses those features.

True as of now. But I hope things will change in the future.

 

[russ_watters]

re: facebook

Do you (or anyone) have faith in the metaverse?

No. I wouldn't rule it out, and Meta aren't the first to try (google glass?), but I don't think it's something people really want. Cool for movies though (Ready Player One, Free Guy).