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.

(3/)
Ideally an investment asset generates what's called a "return". You buy a product for €10,000, wait some time, then sell sell/generate €20,000 from it and then you made a 50% return on your investment.

(4/)
We want the exact opposite property of a currency. We want it to be stable relative to the goods you plan to purchase in an economy. It should be reliably saved, stored, and retrieved when needed for a purchase or transfer.

(5/)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money#Pro…
If I go the pub the bartender will sell me a pint of beer for €5. If I go tomorrow I expect to pay the same €5 for the same beer. I expect this not to vary drastically over short periods of time.

(6/)
What I don't want is to go to the pub have the bartender tell me:

The pint is €5
Now the pint is €9000
Now the pint is €170

If the purchasing value of the Euro fluctuates that much then the merchant, the customer, and financial intermediates all have a huge problem.
(7/)
Between when the merchant purchased the keg of beer and sells it if the value changes drastically either he has to update his prices constantly or take a loss. If it value fluctuates mid-transaction one party is getting screwed and the economy cannot efficiently price goods.
(8/)
We can't run an economy on a hypervolatile medium of exchange. The Euro doesn't drastically fluctuate relative to the value of a baguette baked in a boulangerie in Paris. And that's a good thing!
(9/)
Bitcoiners incessantly talk about the price of a coin going up as if this is a good thing, and it is *if and only if* they're treating it as an investment.

However it completely undermines any veracity to the argument for it being a currency.
(10/)
Euro is a fiat currency, not backed by gold, any commodity or anything. Just an idea, treaties, legal system and an economic region.

It's backed by the European Central Bank's monopoloy on the right to print the Euro and by the debt and assets of the Eurozone it supports.
(11/)
You get paid a salary in Euros, you buy groceries, pay your rent, pay your taxes, and this whole process has a circular flow from central bank to individuals to productive enterprise back to government that sustains and allows the economy to function.
(12/)
There is no economy in bitcoin.

Everyone simply hordes it and prays it goes up in value so they can exchange it for more real money than what they bought it for. There's zero rational economic reason to spend a bitcoin if one thinks it will appreciate in value.
(13/)
No vendors would accept it either, because it's an absolute pain to handle, custody and accept because of slow transactions and volatility.

The underlying technology is irreparably broken (by design) and can't be upgraded.
(14/)
Conversely as an investment, bitcoin also has a serious problem, there's no fundamental reason a token is worth anything or is priced at any specific value.

There's no rational valuation method that anyone can justify. Is it worth $1 or $1 million. Who's to say?
(15/)
Investments that have aren't tied to any economic activity are known as "greater fool investments". I covered them in this thread.

tldr; They inevitably implode because there aren't enough fools in the world to maintain returns on long time scales.

(16/)
Crypto advocates now usually cite a whataboutism argument where they claim "well the Euro or the Dollar isn't backed by anything either". Which is true.

Because the Euro is a currency. You get Euros to buy actual things in Europe and invest in productive economic activity.
(17/)
Crypto advocates really just want to cherry pick the get-rich-quick story of a speculative investment AND also fall back on whataboutism comparisons to unbacked currencies when the two are mutually exclusive.

It's an intellectual bait and switch that nobody buys anymore.
(18/)
Despite the namesake, cryptocurrencies are absolutely not currencies. They are predatory speculative investments where most people lose money.

The emperor has no clothes and some day very soon a little boy is going to yell and the whole thing will come crashing down.

/fin

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Stephen Diehl

Stephen Diehl Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @smdiehl

22 Apr
I keep using game theory and quantitative finance terms to describe why #bitcoin is a terrible investment. But let me try a different metaphor that might be more relatable. 🧵

Poker. 🃏

(1/)
In a poker game people show up with cash, a buy-in. They convert this money with the house to get tokens which they then use to play. (2/)
If you sum over all players buy-in you get the total possible winnings any one player could possibly win. This is a fixed value that can't increase unless more players are added. (3/)
Read 13 tweets
19 Apr
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/)
Read 15 tweets
26 Mar
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.
Read 18 tweets
25 Mar
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/)
Read 19 tweets
24 Mar
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.
Read 4 tweets
22 Mar
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.

cacm.acm.org/news/251337-th…
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.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!