When economists describe crypto assets like bitcoin as a "greater fool" investment what do they mean? 🧵 (1/)
It's important to note the actual buying behaviour people have with crypto assets.
People buy them from a service like Robinhood or Coinbase and hold their tokens in hopes that "number go up" so it can be redeemed for dollars. This is effectively 99% of consumer behavior. (2/)
Because there's no utility or cashflow from a bitcoin, they only way one can possibly make money from this scheme is for the exchange who holds your tokens to find someone who will buy your tokens from you for more than you paid. (3/)
Except this is a really terrible form of investment because unlike stocks, bonds, or real estate there's no fundamental reason why your tokens should be worth more or less tomorrow because they're not tied to any economic activity in the real world. (4/)
When you buy a crypto token, you buy a hot potato that you then have to offload on someone else, who then has to offload it on someone else and so on and so on forever. Each person has to be increasingly more foolish to buy it for more than what you initially paid. (5/)
The problem with this should be obvious if you think about it for more than 5 seconds. There simply isn't an infinite supply of greater fools to pay out everyone on earth.
When you run out fools to sell to, the scheme collapses. (6/)
The basic math on a greater fool investment is that every one winner is necessarily paid out by multiple losers.
There are vastly more people that lose money on cryptocurrency than make anything at all. But nobody brags about their loses and so you don't hear about them. (7/)
Greater fool investments are predatory investment schemes where the "asset" has a strictly-zero net present value and where redemption for cash is purely based on increasing the pool of foolish buyers for the investment rather than on fundamentals of the asset itself. (8/)
And this is where crypto assets venture into the same territory as multi-level marketing, where investors in a token are financially incentivized to go promote the investment to others because that's the only way they'll offload their stock. The pool of fools must grow. (9/)
And that will come as no shock to anyone whose has experienced the aggressive social media crypto marketing pitch from advocates who prey on financially vulnerable people to convince them to be the next greater fool to buy into their scam. (10/)
Think about it. There is no high-pressure sales pitch for index funds or Apple stock because these are assets that have intrinsic value, and we can ascribe real value beyond just what some fool will pay for it next. (11/)
All of cryptocurrency is nothing but a bunch of snake oil salesmen making promises of money for nothing out of nothing, they just need you to invest your money early and ask that you not question the dodgy economics or externalities of the whole scheme. (12/)
Cryptocurrency is for all intents and purposes a multi-level marketing scheme of techno-babble obscurantism, distrust of institutions and libertarian philosophy that mostly preys on young vulnerable men to sell and promote token investments to their friends and families. (13/)
The reason so many of us speak up against these schemes is the same reason the anti-MLM movement speaks up beauty product pyramid schemes that prey on young women.
People really get hurt and it's on all of us to prevent the frauds because regulators won't do a damn thing. (14/)
Ask yourself the basic Economics 101 question: Where will all the actual money come from to pay out all these "number go up" paper wins people think they have?
The answer is simple ...
They need it to come from you.
You are the greater fool if you buy crypto.
/fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Let's talk about why the #bitcoin narrative is intellectually incoherent and why the emperor has no clothes. 🧵 (1/)
Bitcoiners are deeply confused people. In particular they are duplicitous (or genuinely confused) about the purpose of their allegedly paradigm-shifting technology and whether it is:
A) An Investment
B) A Currency
(2/)
These two classes of financial instruments are complete opposites. The better something is as a speculative investment, the worse it is as an actual currency.
However crypto advocates want to use and refer to the properties of both simultaneously without justifying either.
Let's discuss the nature of 'control fraud' in the corporate world, and how businesses which are legitimate in their individual components can be fraudulent in their overarching structure. 🧵
So say you're an executive at a company (maybe like a bank or a crypto company), and you want to commit some activity that is legally prohibited and/or fraudulent. But you also want to protect yourself against liability from that action.
The absolute best way to do this is not to create a line of business for the fraud, personally profit, and then cover it up; but instead create a sufficiently criminogenic corporate environment in which others do the fraud for you "without" your knowledge while you profit.
With Gamestop and Robinhood recently in the news I've seen quite a few developers making some very silly and needlessly risky financial decisions. Let's talk about investing a bit. 🧵(1/)
First a BIG disclaimer. Giving financial advice outside of an advisory relationship is illegal. This is not investment advice, just my personal opinions.
However it is common knowledge there are well-known ways to needlessly light money on fire. Let's talk about those. (2/)
The first is day trading. Day trading is a ridiculously stupid activity, and not all that different from gambling or other risk-seeking addictive behaviour that hacks your brain's dopamine-cycle. Not even once. (3/)
There's a strong argument that Proof of Stake token networks have a colonialist taint.
Negative-sum speculative assets based on no economic activity are a net wealth redistribution back to early stakeholders. Which are moneyed Westerners with capital and influence to buy early.
Every early investor that makes a return on the sale of negative-sum "investment" token is necessarily paid out by a pyramid of hundreds of small losers.
If these products are marketed in developing economies as "solutions" to the unbanked, that's very ethically problematic.
Primarily because the premise of these get-rich-quick investments is based on confusion and that's exploited in marketing.
They aren't stores of values, they aren't currencies, they're simply greater-fool gambling products.
The question the ACM can't ask in this article is the obvious one. Ransomware wasn't a threat until bitcoin, when you create an anonymous network to transfer money to strangers sight unseen ... of course criminals will exploit that. That's it's purpose.
If you go to a bank and try to wire ransom money to a hacker in Siberia, they won't let you. That's a feature. It's an unprofitable enterprise for the criminals and they then don't bother.
Making ransoms unpayable stymies crime.
Ransomware is going to be an absolute plague on Western economies for the next decade. Like the point where it starts effecting GDP.
Enterprise software is creaking around the corners and this is going to an *absurdly* profitable enterprise for hacking groups.
When we do diligence on investment schemes, it's not all that different then when we analyze functions in computer programming. We're interested in the cash inputs, cash outputs, and the expected return on investment. 🧵
When you invest in a burrito company, they make burritos. They sell the burritos to the public for more than it costs to produce the burrito and that makes a profit. The profits go back into the business to expand the business or pay back shareholders.
If you run a good business, the public gets fed, the employees get paid, and the shareholders see a return. This is a very vanilla investment that forms the basis of our market economy.