Cryptocurrency
- Thread starter Playboi Carti
- Start date
Elizabeth Warren and Janet Yellen say whats up.
If the chair of the finance committee and the treasury of the secretary are against it (and they openly have been critical of crypto), I don't know if anything is a sure thing for crypto.
I'm curious as to why you think that Amazon is going to start taking crypto. It's not like there is a huge community using only crypto as currency that they are losing sales from. Why would they incur the expense (and risk) associated with accepting crypto when there is no incentive?
Feels more like someone holding crypto as an investment hoping that Amazon will start accepting it so the value will increase.
Crypto use cases are far more than a currency- however there is a lot of chatter about it coming down the pipeline.
Quiznos is going to start accepting Bitcoin soon for sandwiches. It’s a start. Cryptocurrency is going to be mainstream within the next few years. Great time to invest right now since a lot of the platforms are still cheap to buy into.
Desperation move by a chain that has closed over 90% of its stores over the last 15 years. Crypto is less convenient to use than $ and doesn't solve any issues that $ have. It's not going mainstream as a method to perform transactions. It will suffer even more since there are too many platforms.
What are those use cases? How many Americans (or humans for that matter) do those use cases apply to?
I mean besides buying drugs and child porn, hiring hit men, etc.
There are interesting use cases being worked on - more block chain than crypto, but they kind of go hand-in-hand right now. Like making school records verifiable and portable, smart contracts, NFTs
Is the school records thing a big problem right now?
I understand the concept of smart contracts, but I only see them catching on for applications where the terms are ridiculously easy to monitor or enforce anyway. Like, having a smart contract would not have made any difference in the current Big 12 issues - most contract disputes will still go to court.
I don't understand the appeal of NFTs. When art is digital and able to be copied exactly, over and over for almost no cost, why do I care if I have the first one versus any other one? If anything, I DON'T want the first one because that was the most expensive one to make and for my purposes - looking at pleasing art - the cheap copies are just as good. Sure some people may care, but probably not that many. It's artificially creating a "one of a kind" item from a commodity to supply a tiny market composed of people who 1) are kind of weird for wanting an "original .gif" and 2) have enough money to make it worthwhile as an investment.
ETA: I'm all for research into new ways for creating value. And maybe blockchain will lead to something amazing that really does benefit humanity. I just don't see what the excitement is about yet - it still feels like a solution looking for a problem. Hopefully that changes and you all get rich.
disruptive technology....
Early adopters = b2c, venmo....etc
Early late adopters = b2c...generational adoption
peak/late adoption = right around the corner
critical thought will lead you to a place where crypto is the standard.
traditional financial instruments = gas pump attendant (sorry those under 40)
....this is the time
I have a friend who is super into crypto, we had a very long conversation about it and all of the other use cases for crypto, and he's even going to install a miner in my house for one of the other smaller offshoot currencies.
Ultimately crypto isn't that disruptive right now though. There is nothing that it does that something else doesn't do very easily. I've never done anything with crypto and I don't understand how it could improve anything that I am doing. That's not disruptive, it's not even a minor tingle.
Ultimately crypto isn't that disruptive right now though. There is nothing that it does that something else doesn't do very easily. I've never done anything with crypto and I don't understand how it could improve anything that I am doing. That's not disruptive, it's not even a minor tingle.
Depends on where you are. The school records case is in Africa (if I remember correctly) and there isn’t a great system in place/records can be falsified. Block chain at least would create a record that is accessible anywhere/anytime.
NFTs are more for the artist than the owner. Subsequent sales can still have a royalty kickback to the original creator. Pirating also decreases in the published world as sites could prove they owned the work.
I think the reason is that Amazon recently posted a job opening for something like a crypto expert or something like that. The crypto world speculators are going wild over it. https://www.americanbanker.com/payments/news/beyond-the-rumors-amazons-likely-direction-in-crypto
Personally, I think a big player like Amazon is probably just looking to keep someone on staff to monitor it and be ready to jump in if it ever seems like a good business decision. That's a really low cost to someone like them.
Crypto will never be mainstream as an actual currency used for buying and selling goods. It's just not practical in any way. The blockchain is too slow and inefficient to process the volume of transactions necessary, and cryptocurrencies are too volatile to be a good means of purchasing anything.
The only possibility of long term mainstream use for crypto is the whole "digital gold" commodity thing. I think there is a chance it does become something like that, but for the same reason we don't use gold coins to buy things, we will not use bitcoin or etherium or whatever either.
This is the main value right now. As long as there is a market for buying and selling crypto, it serves as a store of value against inflation fueled by the devaluation of central bank currencies, as crypto tends to go up as those go down in value (for exactly that reason).
