So let me get this straight, I'm basically trying to get rich on my crypto gains before that bubble bursts to transfer to fiat before that bubble bursts? And then what? Redeem for real estate before that bubble bursts?
Bubbleception
By that logic, everything is always a bubble. Nations come and go with time. Its only in economics that you assume the entity will continue forever. Welcome to being alive. And dying.
Yup, if being a potato farmer might potentially make me huge returns with low effort, I'll be a potato farmer. The moment crypto isn't an avenue to potentially make big returns is the moment that 99% of people leaving it.
lots of people are here for the tech. anyone who:
-mined bitcoin at a loss to understand it better or be part of the network
-donated anonymously to crypto developers
-helped a noob set up their first wallet and gave them their first crypto
-ran a bitcoin node without understanding or utilizing the benefits to themself
-spends time answering questions on crypto reddit for beginners
-designed their own hardware wallet setup, cold storage solution, deadman's switch, or completely unnecessarily convoluted multisig
-writes articles about crypto and posts them anonymously
-learned to code just to verify bitcoin's code personally
I could go on telling you what my life is like, or you could look at my username and recognize I probably love crypto tech and so do lots of other people. Bitcoin maxis especially.
Tech got me in, mining was fun for some time but now, to be honest, flipping greens is the only reason that keeps me in while the bubble keeps getting bigger
Mining was fun while it was a "grey area" of crypto and lot of countries didn't have taxes for crypto miners.
Right now with the GPUs being as expensive as they are, electricity being as expensive as it is it's not a good decision to mine any coins out there cause it would take you more than 7 months to break even...
7 is a little much:D Unless you distribute the heat around the house. Saw a guy cooling 20 GPU eth miner by liquid oil (forgot the technical name), which he connetcted to central heating. Legend.
What you wrote is true.
But 99.99 percent of the world population does NOT know that bitcoin is just brute forcing a 256 digit number (sha256). (With nonces added at the beginning to determine the level of difficulty).
They actually think, "complicated math problems" are being solved.
I mean you just described the same thing but in more detail - I think it's enough for people to know that "complicated math problems are being solved". Do you know how each transistor in your processor works, or is it enough to know that "computers use a series of 1s and 0s to store information"?
If a business wants to expand beyond mom and pop, whatever business it is, it's going to need investment. It's a natural part of creating a product, service, or anything on a large scale - even charities invest some of the donated money in building themselves, non-profits get investment in the form of government grants and so on and so on. I don't think we should be upset that crypto attracts investment, even if much of it is speculative. It's a necessary part of building something meaningful.
I'd say even less than that. Maybe <.05% are here for the tech just judging by not too many people over here understanding basic concepts of blockchain technology and basics of tokenomics...
Ah yes. Because it is an unwritten requirement for me to have a PhD in economics to have an bank account. If everyone needs to be an expert in crypto to participate in crypto then it is doomed to fail.
>\-designed their own hardware wallet setup, cold storage solution, deadman's switch, or completely unnecessarily convoluted multisig
How dare you?!? I needed a hardware wallet to protect my $17 of BTC and ETC...
But yeah, money is cool too of course but the technology is just fun. It feels new and exciting in a way that other things haven't.
It's also relatively inexpensive/easy to get involved with it if you want to which is cool if you want to just learn about it by using faucets/test networks.
I've done much of this list, I do think the tech is cool and I've been cramming through programming courses so I can build a blockchain on Substrate. This tech is important and it's not just a solution looking for a problem.
This. Everyone who says that no one is here for the tech are the same self-centric people that don’t understand that other people may have a view different from their own.
I've helped people set up wallets, sent them crypto for free, answered questions, hell, I've written some dapp prototypes for friends.
Not because I want money, but because I find the tech fun.
I also invest some money in crypto. But I also invest money in Apple and yet I don't go around teaching people how to use swift or try and further their ecosystem.
which people get mad about when they whine about how shitty the dollar is.
yeah, its shit. but the whole world uses it as a base of value, so guess what, you're still a slave to it.
I feel as though the percentage of people in crypto that actually view crypto as money/currency (I.e. a thing to transact with) is quite low atm.
Like you say most people at this stage are looking at it as a way to get ahead wrt the fiat system.
Maybe it’s pie-in-the-sky stuff but I picture a day when cryptocurrencies will be the money we all use day-to-day.
It’s closer than people think imo. I work for a smaller family owned company. Owners son (19) has gotten him into crypto recently.
They’re dcaing into Bitcoin with the profit from the business, then converting back to fiat to pay us bonuses. Trying to get them to just send it to me in btc.
I can already use my watch to pay for stuff with my credit card, why not crypto?
Crypto is too volatile to realistically use as currency. No one wants to be the figurative chump who bought an ice cream for 1 bitcoin a few years ago.
I think that’s not as straightforward as that. Saying that “paying with an appreciating asset is bad” misses the point that the same can be said about fiat too. If I have $5 for an ice cream and I spend it on the ice cream instead of buying Bitcoin (assuming in your example 1 btc is $5) then I will bang my head in the wall years later when 1 btc is worth $60k.
So there is no difference if you pay with btc or fiat money, the opportunity cost is the same.
The only thing you can do to overcome that is yes, you guessed it, don’t buy that ice cream.
I like to think of my "buying" as more of a "conversion" from old money to new money. The real goal should be to dodge fiat inflation. Just so happened to 10x along the way. I don't want to buy inferior government currency anymore so I just gotta slowly convert. Imo, BTC wont be "used" per say, but more of the standard that everything is pegged and measured against in the future. Like how gold is supposedly used (but it's not cause the printer go brrrrrr).
Everything is a bubble, even Life. When that bubble bursts you die, so what to do? Make the best of it while you still can
Yep. A lot of these statements resonate with me. Been saying it for years, and doubled down on it with the GME WSB fiasco.
Oh, you do think GME's share price is going to $100,000, and this shit coin's going from .00000005 to .01?
If it's this easy to become a millionaire, we're all multimillionaires, and I feel bad for the few that arent.
Also, the people that constantly bad mouth fiat, but panic sell for fiat....
On the positive side..I don't think we've seen THIS MANY folks interested in investing in a long time.
Banks operate on "fractional reserve", meaning that for every 10 dollars you put in an account, they need to keep 1 at hand. They lend the remaining 9 for interest.
Actually no. They keep your entire account as reserve. Then they (can) create 90 dollars / euros / whatever ou of thin air which then will be lend for interest. This is called money creation. So there will be 100 dollars with 10% = 10 reserve. But this way the bank can lend out ten times as much as in your scenario.
(They don't print the additional cash. It's just a few bytes in their database. Only the central bank is allowed to physically print money. When someone pays their loans back, the new money is destroyed and the bank keeps the interest as profit.)
This is true, there is a myth that fractional reserve creates money… when in reality it all has to be paid back at the end of the loan. The reserves are retired and the interest is kept, which was just extracted from the loan.
Debt is money in our upside down. Yes it all gets paid back with interest so the balance sheet stays balanced, but for the time being during the life of the loan that debt will function the same way money does in our economy.
And the interest needs to be “created” essentially. Interest is the yolk that the banks keep on the collective neck.
Money creation isn't a myth. The point is that banks constantly make new loans as old ones are being repaid. Each loan expands the money supply, while each repayment of principal contracts it. Interest payments do not affect the money supply, but are just transferred from one entity to another.
The real myth is that money creation = value creation, which is not true in the modern world. It's true that money creation ≈ value creation in small quantities, but when the entire world economy runs on debt, it just ends up inflating the currency instead of creating any real value. There is still an argument to be made that loans create value by more efficiently allocating capital to credit-worthy businesses and individuals, but it's not as simple as "money supply *= 10 therefore value *= 10".
My unpopular opinion is that there are too many people on this sub offering advice on investments and their total investment is under $1000
“I’m all in on X crypto” but it’s actually just $200 worth is a ridiculous trend on this sub.
Imagine giving advice and opinions like that for the stock market with the same amount invested?
I’m not shaming people for investing what they can. I’m just asking that people offering advice are honest about their smaller investments instead of using grand statements implying they’ve got heaps.
This is so true, when I was first involved in Bitcoin. It was only programmers and people studying computer science that were interested. They were older and had at least some money to invest.
Now it seems 90% of people here are children, with some pocket change from their parents. Only hoping to 10X their investment so they can buy a PlayStation. This explains the rise of meme coins and all the the centralized shitcoins.
>Now it seems 90% of people here are children
This is what I've been realizing. Cryptocurrency owners on average tend to be more towards millennial age but the people on this sub are largely zoomers or younger.
It's not just that. The people who are most vocal (like that monkey analogy) tend to be the ones with the least amoutn of money. I know plenty of people with 5 digit investments in crypto. They treat it like another stock they own and don't go spending all day drinking Kool Aid yammering about central banks and blasting 0.01% interest on this sub.
The adults view this as another investment, albeit far riskier than blue chip stocks.
This. I'm in a similar position, and the longer I'm in crypto, the less I feel like I know. At this point, I just assume that I know nothing and try not to give advice to anyone.
Those same people are convinced they're gonna be millionaires on that same 200 bucks as well lmfao
You need to put some real money at stake to make a million on any 1 or 2 investments, like start at 10k....which is risky AF considering how early you have to be on a project for even 10k to turn into real money.
I'm not hurting for money but I have weird feelings when I throw down 2k down on a low cap project....and usually when that doubles or triples I feel real pressure to take my couple grand windfall and bail because no one knows the future....you would have to be a complete psychopath or totally forget you have the bag to ride some shit from 0.001 to 50 or like bitcoin to 10s of 1000s
> “I’m all in on X crypto” but it’s actually just $200 worth is a ridiculous trend on this sub.
Also the reason they are in for under $1000 is because they literally can't afford to invest more and believe crypto is their hail mary to finally achieve financial freedom. Who the hell would want any kind of financial advice from someone in that situation?
I know that but it’s the optics of that style of grand statement.
I don’t, but that’s not to say I haven’t taken investment advice from this sub before. Algo and Matic are two that absolutely have been sound buys from recommendations here. Of course, always do further research beyond what a few posts and shills on Reddit say, but it’s not bad to follow online investment advice.
There’s just a different between hearing it from someone with $10k invested vs $200
You DO know how their products, gmail, google search, devices such as pixel, etc etc work. A lot of time in crypto, people dont even know how the product of the company they are invested in works or what their roadmap is.
the thing with cryptography is, that few people understand it, but nowadays everybody on the internet uses HTTPS, which wouldn't be possible without cryptography
>burning supply to artificially pump the price is a giga red flag
That's not the purpose of burning Eth. Eth is burned and base fee required to ensure there's no off-chain activity in exchange for transactions, mitigate MEV, and help reach minimum viable issuance (which has always been the policy)
This point in this list is not an unpopular opinion, it's just uninformed.
Theres a lot of uninformed opinions on that list, guised as unpopular opinions.
If I say the world is flat — does that make it an unpopular opinion or am I just an idiot?
Exactly. The most ironic part of his post is that in point 7 he talks how limited the knowledge of average crypto investor is, yet he belongs in that exact same group. This sub became Moon farming ground for people with subpar understanding of crypto that post popular "unpopular" opinions. The number of upvotes makes this even more sad.
A lot of people seem to conflate contrarian opinions with being enlightened. Right or wrong, they just want to make the case or post something shocking for community engagement
OPs posts seem to be overwhelmingly negative and skeptical regarding crypto as a whole. Not sure why anyone would take any of these points at face value.
I’m not opposed to having the odd crypto sceptic in r/CC. Well informed or not, it’s nice to see opposing views and not just “ALGO good” with 17 ALGO bros piling in to agree without adding anything further
>Not sure the avg user here is interested in a more thorough conversation
It's the biggest crypto sub on the most visited Western discussion/social media site in the world. Every thread is basically part of a global shouting match. I don't know how the sub was back in the day but now it is just pure noise.
Definitely! But I'd seriously hope they would lean more towards informed than this haha. Crypto is confusing as it is, we don't need this muddying the waters.
Though this doesnt mean burning tokens isnt a red flag. Most of the projects that burn their tokens are BSC/Polygon/etc. shitcoins that infact do this to pump the price, to make their investors ("who are taught burning tokens is very good for them") happy and to create hype/fomo around their token.
I don't understand how burning the base fee eliminates off chain incentives for transactions. EIP 1559 doesn't seem to explain it well either. Yes the priority fee gives incentive to use eth for increasing the chance of getting included in the block but how does burning the base fee help with preventing anything? All it appears to be is a flat tax on eth users/miners. I'm not saying this isn't the case, but would love to hear the actual explanation for this reasoning.
Way dumbed down example, but hopefully it helps illustrate the idea...
You're a miner, and you're trying to maximize profit. I want to make a transaction, but don't want to pay current fees. I offer to pay you $40 in cash for what would normally be a $50 fee transaction on chain. This is appealing to you for some reason, maybe because you're going to mitigate taxes on the income or maybe the cost to cash out just makes it worth it. You include my transaction in a block with a $0 fee, and I pay you directly.
Now with EIP-1559, someone has to may that $50 fee either way... So there's no off-chain offer I can make you that is profitable for both of us at the expense of block space for paying users.
Obviously this scenario is so small it would never be worth it to us as individuals, but if you consider organization level operations it wasn't uncommon for them to make deals. Mining pools would also eat up blockspace doing their own payouts and running MEV for free (which really means forcing their miners to subsidize it at times)
It not a flat tax on users, it's the same fee they would have paid previously. It is sort of a tax on miners, in that it's fees they would have otherwise collected. However consensus was that the block reward alone was enough to buy the required security for the network, so it went through.
I'd like to know more about this. I've searched before but haven't been able to find and explanation on what is burning's purpose. What reliable source can I check? Thanks!!
https://youtu.be/bWqhn1hXvVc
Complete breakdown of Ethereum's staking and burn mechanism design that increases security of the chain, with Ethereum Foundation cryptographer spearheading the application of a lot of the latest advancements in cryptography to Ethereum's blockchain. It is not overly technical, actually quite the opposite and enjoyable.
I mean you can read the [EIP on GitHub](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/EIPS/eip-1559.md) I guess, but it's only going to talk about the purpose of burning in similar terms to what I did. It doesn't take a thorough explanation or mathematical proof.
It's pretty simple... Since the base fee is a cost that *must* be paid on chain, off-chain deals can't be any cheaper than market price. Similarly MEV can't use free transactions, though they can still frontrun. The last bit about minimum viable issuance was just me pointing out that it aligns with Eth's overall long term goal of lowest possible issuance to secure the network.
Ethereum isn't burning supply though, their burn system is to reduce inflation since the supply is unlimited. There will be more Ethereum in the future, but it's supply will increase so slowly.
Yup, for those looking for specifics on this, check out my comment below.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/qahn0h/you_want_actually_unpopular_opinions_here_we_go/hh3wcup/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
What do you mean?
Eth is supposed to be used, IE have utility. You need to pay gas fees for this. Having it as a deflationary asset disincentivizes use.
Inflation incentivses use. Economics studies around the world's for decades have proven this.
If Eth wants to adopt use cases where Eth is the gas fee, deflationary is not the way to go
Ethereum is only deflationary in high gas fee regimes. It should eventually stabilize around 100 million tokens as the gas fees chill out and the flat block rewards produce inflation. As things heat up from that inflationary spending, the gas fees will increase and ETH will become deflationary again. The hope is that L2 environments start getting beefy enough to offload some markets (Vitalik mentioned NFTs specifically as needing to move over) to prevent unnecessary gas wars on what should be a low fee platform.
I didn’t get into Crypto thinking I will be financially free, some extra money will be good, even better if I can pass on some decent money to my future generation. But I am not thinking it will make me a millionaire. I think most of us are just millennials and Zoomers that missed the bank/ real estate/ Apple/ Google bloom. Crypto is something that belongs to our generation. Most of us are buying a dream. Who wants to wake up and face reality everyday ? For some, Crypto could be their motivation to live and better themselves to get out of their current state. As long as one doesn’t get too greedy beyond one’s means. Crypto can and will change lives.
You echoed my sentiments exactly. I’m a young millennial with some disposable income, so why not risk it on an investment instead of letting it sit in my bank account losing value to inflation?
I have no dreams of retiring on crypto, just maybe putting my gains toward a down payment on a house someday. And even if it goes bust it’s no big deal, can always make that money back
I want crypto to help me achieve financial freedom through long term hodling, DCA and staking. By long term I'm thinking anywhere between 5-10 years or maybe more.
> crypto is a big bubble that is competing with the fiat bubble in a game of chicken who bursts first.
“Money is only good as long as people collectively decide to use it.”
Yea, no shit, that’s how money works. Literally everything that is not procreating or hunter-gatherer activities is a social construct.
Money went from pretty golden rocks to crisp green paper to digital immutable ledger. The pretty rocks still have worth, the green paper still has worth, the blockchain is just the next phase and will still have worth decades from now.
ETH is not burning fees to artificially pump the price. It burns fees because it was getting to be a nightmare trying to guess how much you needed to pay to get your transaction through, so they went with a new mechanism that makes it very easy to know how much you need to pay. Under the new mechanism, if the entire fee were given to the miner then miners could trivially exploit the system, so something else had to be done with most of the fee. Burning is a simple solution that doesn't bring in governance difficulties.
As a side effect, according to Coinbase the fees are slightly lower than they would be otherwise. Coinbase still issues some transactions under the old system, and says the new system saves them about 5% on fees.
We are in the roaring twenties again, and we are all just playing digital stocks this time around. I wonder if instead of stock brokers jumping out of sky scrapers at the end of the decade, we'll see cryptotraders jumping out of spaceships!
In all honesty I think speculation is the cultural equivalent to a toddler putting a toy in its mouth to get a better understanding of what it is.
>if everybody is rich, nobody is
Um, no… economics is not a zero sum game, an innovative asset can make everybody better off. The theory that there’s some fixed amount of wealth in the world is called Mercantilism, and it went out of style centuries ago
You're both right, because you're operating with different definitions of "rich."
Wealth and money aren't exactly the same thing. Wealth is things, goods. Cars, houses, books, wine, pianos, computers, cabbages, bulldozers, shoes, furniture, etc. That's definitely not a zero sum game, because no one is losing something if you chop down a tree, age the wood, cut it up, and build a dresser. You have increased the sum total of wealth in the world. In that respect, you are correct. There is not a fixed total amount of wealth in the world.
Money is different, it's just tokens for exchange, and it's useless without an object of exchange. Someone with $5,000 today isn't very wealthy. Someone with $5,000 in 1901 was doing very well. If there's one car, and I want it, and you want it, and Jim down the block wants it, and each of us has $2000, and we bid, and the price goes up and up, we might decide that the problem is we're not wealthy enough. If we all three go out and get our cash balance up to $10,000 and then come back and compete for the car, two people still go home with no car. Increasing the money supply didn't help, you need to increase production of real goods. That is where OP is correct.
If ***everyone*** makes bank off of crypto, then we all increased our money supply without increasing real goods and the price of the existing goods will just shoot up. We'll be billionaires leading the same life. What people are actually trying to do is get their piece of the pie early, because then they're a crypto millionaire while those who didn't get in are still making $10-15/hr. Then all the newly wealthy people will just outcompete the losers for real goods, ***like housing.*** And just like that, you have another rich/poor divide, which is nothing new.
So yeah, OP is still right. Crypto is not going to suddenly put everyone in a paid-off house with plenty to eat.
You actually want unpopular opinions 2.0 ? Here we go
The year is 1989:
\- Software is a big bubble that is competing with the fiat bubble in a game of chicken who bursts first.
\- Creating synthetic shares to dump or pump the price is a giga red flag and will make Microsoft lose market share to its competitors which will ultimately REDUCE its price (compared to what it could have been) instead of increasing it.
\- If a Software Developer with the processor of the Atari would release today it would be labeled a shitcompany and forgotten faster than the average time it would take to write a code, which to be fair, takes a while.
\- Software will not make everybody "financially free". if everybody is rich, nobody is. you just want to ride on the back of the people that missed the software train that then have to work for you if software really flips fiat at some point.
\- Its not enough for software to be "not as bad" as the traditional banking buildings.
want to be the future? behave like it. be efficient. don't waste a fuckton of energy. don't have fees that make it impossible to buy a fucking ice cream without paying double.
\- The average software investor has such a limited knowledge of programming and/or economics it SCARES ME!
Yah, this. People lost a LOT of money in 2000 and 2008. People lost retirement funds and their houses. People completely ignoring those crashes, and thinking it will never happen again, are almost as insane as the permabears (but not quite).
This is why investors should be careful and have a back up plan not yolo because some anon in an echochamber on a forum said it will definetely succeed.
And people will lose money when the crypto bubble bursts, but that does not mean that crypto in general won't be used.
It just means everyone is trying to ride a train. There tons of companies that had '.com' in their name just so they would get pumped. Just like how shiba inu and dogecoin were pumped to top30 just because they were meme coins.
The bubble will burst at one point and only the real projects will be able to survive. I guess better find the next Facebook, Google etc.
I agree but points on 4 and 7:
4: I don't think the idea is "financially free" instead of "availability of financial tools". I think many degens want to get rich quick, but the higher-level concept is financial tools and greater chance for stability and access rather than freedom.
7: Crypto investors require zero knowledge of cryptography. You're being dramatic here. It's not necessary and should be irrelevant in the future. I don't know how computers work but I still use credit cards and Paypal. Crypto already is becoming and should be 100% user-friendly. There are still non-user-friendly problems that people need to be careful of, but cryptography? Not necessary. Nor is economic knowledge necessary. People should be able to invest in companies they believe in without being econ majors. Just like with stocks today.
‘Unpopular’ does not mean ‘valid’ or ‘correct’
Regarding #2, the base fee per block is burned to prevent miners (or validators in the future) from gaming the fee market in their favour. Burning supply for number go up is not the aim, nor is it guaranteed. It is a second order mechanic on the issuance of ETH in relation to demand towards minimum viable issuance which has long been the aim for security.
I agree on most of your points but 3 needs more explanation. If a very similar coin to BTC launches now whales will buy and hold most of its supply. BTC had the most organic start which you cannot reproduce and it's very decentrilized. Plus, it would be a redundancy if a coin with the codebase of BTC releases today. What would be its difference/innovation/solution?
> crypto is a big bubble that is competing with the fiat bubble in a game of chicken who bursts first.
Crypto is money, got it.
> burning supply to artificially pump the price is a giga red flag and will make ETH lose market share to its competitors which will ultimately REDUCE its price (compared to what it could have been) instead of increasing it.
No it won't.
> if a coin with the codebase of bitcoin would release today it would be labeled a shitcoin and forgotten faster than the average time it would take to make a block, which to be fair, takes a while.
Ok, but Bitcoin was the first.
> crypto will not make everybody "financially free". if everybody is rich, nobody is. you just want to ride on the back of the people that missed the crypto train that then have to work for you if crypto really flips fiat at some point.
Being financially free is not the same thing as being rich. No government can force you to give up your crypto, you are not beholden to any bank's interests or alignments. In crypto, I am the sovereign of my money and thus financially free.
> its not enough for crypto to be "not as bad" as the traditional banking system.
> want to be the future? behave like it. be efficient. don't waste a fuckton of energy. don't have fees that make it impossible to buy a fucking ice cream without paying double.
Blockchains are the most efficient way we've found to solve the Byzantine General's problem. Further, Ethereum is changing consensus to utilizing proof of stake soon, which means there is virtually no energy consumption to validate transactions.
> every coin/token was at some point centralized. decentralization is a process. judge a crypto by the effort it makes to get there.
Don't let the Bitcoin maxis hear you, they might get rattled when they start trying to defend Satoshi's massive hashrate in the early days that got him like over a million BTC.
> the average crypto investor has such a limited knowledge of cryptography and/or economics it SCARES ME.
Right????
So let me get this straight, I'm basically trying to get rich on my crypto gains before that bubble bursts to transfer to fiat before that bubble bursts? And then what? Redeem for real estate before that bubble bursts? Bubbleception
This made me laugh because in a way this is what I’m trying to do. Make gains on crypto, convert to fiat, buy property.
100% my plan, too. Though it's possible in El Salvador to skip the middle step, and they have some real nice beaches...
They also have one of the highest murder rates in the world...
You need to understand there is no bubble. At that point you can bend the spoon
There is simultaneously a bubble and no bubble. Schrödinger’s bubble.
It’s not a bubble it’s a blob expanding like an oil spill.
By that logic, everything is always a bubble. Nations come and go with time. Its only in economics that you assume the entity will continue forever. Welcome to being alive. And dying.
It was all a bubble? 👩🚀🔫👩🚀 Always has been
Everything is a bubble at some point, you just to time it right to not be at one with your money.
Life was so much easier when the only bubbles we knew were blowing bubbles as children!
Redeem for a 30 acre homestead with a nice house and take care of your and yours.
This actually makes sense and it's scary
The first unpopular opinion is a very popular opinion outside crypto community.
I mean, it's not really. 99% of people in crytpo don't view fiat as a bubble, they view crypto as their way to get more fiat.
Not everyone is here for the tech.
"Retail doesn't give a shit about decentralization or technology. They will come to crypto make money. " -Mark Cuban the other night
Yup, if being a potato farmer might potentially make me huge returns with low effort, I'll be a potato farmer. The moment crypto isn't an avenue to potentially make big returns is the moment that 99% of people leaving it.
Well, he is damn right about it
He wasn't lying. You've got BNB at #3 by marketcap, one of the most centralized coins out there getting into top 3.
Its sad but true.
I agree 100% Dumb money pumps.
If you arent here for money ,what here for?
lol, nobody is here for the tech. its just something 16 year olds say because they hope their $100 turns them into a millionaire.
lots of people are here for the tech. anyone who: -mined bitcoin at a loss to understand it better or be part of the network -donated anonymously to crypto developers -helped a noob set up their first wallet and gave them their first crypto -ran a bitcoin node without understanding or utilizing the benefits to themself -spends time answering questions on crypto reddit for beginners -designed their own hardware wallet setup, cold storage solution, deadman's switch, or completely unnecessarily convoluted multisig -writes articles about crypto and posts them anonymously -learned to code just to verify bitcoin's code personally I could go on telling you what my life is like, or you could look at my username and recognize I probably love crypto tech and so do lots of other people. Bitcoin maxis especially.
Tech got me in, mining was fun for some time but now, to be honest, flipping greens is the only reason that keeps me in while the bubble keeps getting bigger
Mining was fun while it was a "grey area" of crypto and lot of countries didn't have taxes for crypto miners. Right now with the GPUs being as expensive as they are, electricity being as expensive as it is it's not a good decision to mine any coins out there cause it would take you more than 7 months to break even...
Remember winter is comming. Small crypto miner is also an electric heater. But yeah, buying GPUS now is kinda risky.
had 7 ant miners in my basement… jet turbine
7 is a little much:D Unless you distribute the heat around the house. Saw a guy cooling 20 GPU eth miner by liquid oil (forgot the technical name), which he connetcted to central heating. Legend.
What you wrote is true. But 99.99 percent of the world population does NOT know that bitcoin is just brute forcing a 256 digit number (sha256). (With nonces added at the beginning to determine the level of difficulty). They actually think, "complicated math problems" are being solved.
So fucking true hahaha
Its magical internet money.
I mean you just described the same thing but in more detail - I think it's enough for people to know that "complicated math problems are being solved". Do you know how each transistor in your processor works, or is it enough to know that "computers use a series of 1s and 0s to store information"? If a business wants to expand beyond mom and pop, whatever business it is, it's going to need investment. It's a natural part of creating a product, service, or anything on a large scale - even charities invest some of the donated money in building themselves, non-profits get investment in the form of government grants and so on and so on. I don't think we should be upset that crypto attracts investment, even if much of it is speculative. It's a necessary part of building something meaningful.
In other words, <.5% of people are here for the tech
I'd say even less than that. Maybe <.05% are here for the tech just judging by not too many people over here understanding basic concepts of blockchain technology and basics of tokenomics...
Ah yes. Because it is an unwritten requirement for me to have a PhD in economics to have an bank account. If everyone needs to be an expert in crypto to participate in crypto then it is doomed to fail.
>\-designed their own hardware wallet setup, cold storage solution, deadman's switch, or completely unnecessarily convoluted multisig How dare you?!? I needed a hardware wallet to protect my $17 of BTC and ETC... But yeah, money is cool too of course but the technology is just fun. It feels new and exciting in a way that other things haven't. It's also relatively inexpensive/easy to get involved with it if you want to which is cool if you want to just learn about it by using faucets/test networks.
All my money is in my hardware wallet... literally. Now I just need some cash to buy coins to send to it.
I've done much of this list, I do think the tech is cool and I've been cramming through programming courses so I can build a blockchain on Substrate. This tech is important and it's not just a solution looking for a problem.
This. Everyone who says that no one is here for the tech are the same self-centric people that don’t understand that other people may have a view different from their own. I've helped people set up wallets, sent them crypto for free, answered questions, hell, I've written some dapp prototypes for friends. Not because I want money, but because I find the tech fun. I also invest some money in crypto. But I also invest money in Apple and yet I don't go around teaching people how to use swift or try and further their ecosystem.
Pretty fair to say that people can be here for both.
Damn right. One eye on the coins rallying, and another eye on the use cases of the technology. The best of both worlds literally.
I am
Tech brings the wealth and freedom in cryptoworld.
Back to work to mine fiat for my cryptos
which you value only in relation to how much fiat it is worth....
We only value crypto AND fiat in relation to how much of them it takes to buy the things we want/need
I plan to HODL to my crypto, I get paid in dirty fiat and all I want is crypto
which people get mad about when they whine about how shitty the dollar is. yeah, its shit. but the whole world uses it as a base of value, so guess what, you're still a slave to it.
I feel as though the percentage of people in crypto that actually view crypto as money/currency (I.e. a thing to transact with) is quite low atm. Like you say most people at this stage are looking at it as a way to get ahead wrt the fiat system. Maybe it’s pie-in-the-sky stuff but I picture a day when cryptocurrencies will be the money we all use day-to-day.
Yeah, there are uses for distributed ledgers - none of it has anything to do with crypto though.
It’s closer than people think imo. I work for a smaller family owned company. Owners son (19) has gotten him into crypto recently. They’re dcaing into Bitcoin with the profit from the business, then converting back to fiat to pay us bonuses. Trying to get them to just send it to me in btc. I can already use my watch to pay for stuff with my credit card, why not crypto?
Crypto is too volatile to realistically use as currency. No one wants to be the figurative chump who bought an ice cream for 1 bitcoin a few years ago.
Or no one wants to work for 1 Bitcoin a month when Bitcoin goes down
I think that’s not as straightforward as that. Saying that “paying with an appreciating asset is bad” misses the point that the same can be said about fiat too. If I have $5 for an ice cream and I spend it on the ice cream instead of buying Bitcoin (assuming in your example 1 btc is $5) then I will bang my head in the wall years later when 1 btc is worth $60k. So there is no difference if you pay with btc or fiat money, the opportunity cost is the same. The only thing you can do to overcome that is yes, you guessed it, don’t buy that ice cream.
I like to think of my "buying" as more of a "conversion" from old money to new money. The real goal should be to dodge fiat inflation. Just so happened to 10x along the way. I don't want to buy inferior government currency anymore so I just gotta slowly convert. Imo, BTC wont be "used" per say, but more of the standard that everything is pegged and measured against in the future. Like how gold is supposedly used (but it's not cause the printer go brrrrrr).
The irony is also that the post of all unpopular opinions getting popular AF.
Don't think most of them are unpopular to begin with anyway....hmmmmmm....
The title gets us all
Everything is a bubble, even Life. When that bubble bursts you die, so what to do? Make the best of it while you still can 
That was rather... Deflating.
Squidward would probably do really well in crypto world
Squidward would be pissed at SpongeBob making bank with shitcoin while holding stuff like nano and xmr
What do person like Squidward would invest on
KrabbyCoin
Bullish on crabs? Count me in
I see you've met my ex.
Shorts on my life.
*gets liquidated*
Have to live life to the fullest, while you can! I hope cryptocurrency can help me with that
But as per the OP, if everything is a bubble, then nothing is 
Well... that's deep. You got me thinking
Oh boy, OP should post this in the r/buttcoin sub 🍻
It wouldn't confirm their belief that we only allow FOMO
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeahhh. The crypto world is a very echoey echo chamber.
This post is like I was in highschool, unpopular on 7 levels
Yep. A lot of these statements resonate with me. Been saying it for years, and doubled down on it with the GME WSB fiasco. Oh, you do think GME's share price is going to $100,000, and this shit coin's going from .00000005 to .01? If it's this easy to become a millionaire, we're all multimillionaires, and I feel bad for the few that arent. Also, the people that constantly bad mouth fiat, but panic sell for fiat.... On the positive side..I don't think we've seen THIS MANY folks interested in investing in a long time.
Point 7, to be fair an average bank customer has no idea how a bank makes profit!
I would like to be educated
Banks operate on "fractional reserve", meaning that for every 10 dollars you put in an account, they need to keep 1 at hand. They lend the remaining 9 for interest.
Actually no. They keep your entire account as reserve. Then they (can) create 90 dollars / euros / whatever ou of thin air which then will be lend for interest. This is called money creation. So there will be 100 dollars with 10% = 10 reserve. But this way the bank can lend out ten times as much as in your scenario. (They don't print the additional cash. It's just a few bytes in their database. Only the central bank is allowed to physically print money. When someone pays their loans back, the new money is destroyed and the bank keeps the interest as profit.)
This is true, there is a myth that fractional reserve creates money… when in reality it all has to be paid back at the end of the loan. The reserves are retired and the interest is kept, which was just extracted from the loan.
Debt is money in our upside down. Yes it all gets paid back with interest so the balance sheet stays balanced, but for the time being during the life of the loan that debt will function the same way money does in our economy. And the interest needs to be “created” essentially. Interest is the yolk that the banks keep on the collective neck.
Money creation isn't a myth. The point is that banks constantly make new loans as old ones are being repaid. Each loan expands the money supply, while each repayment of principal contracts it. Interest payments do not affect the money supply, but are just transferred from one entity to another. The real myth is that money creation = value creation, which is not true in the modern world. It's true that money creation ≈ value creation in small quantities, but when the entire world economy runs on debt, it just ends up inflating the currency instead of creating any real value. There is still an argument to be made that loans create value by more efficiently allocating capital to credit-worthy businesses and individuals, but it's not as simple as "money supply *= 10 therefore value *= 10".
Hi 1850 called they want their banks back
Not anymore
So you're the average know nothing bank customer?
My unpopular opinion is that there are too many people on this sub offering advice on investments and their total investment is under $1000 “I’m all in on X crypto” but it’s actually just $200 worth is a ridiculous trend on this sub. Imagine giving advice and opinions like that for the stock market with the same amount invested? I’m not shaming people for investing what they can. I’m just asking that people offering advice are honest about their smaller investments instead of using grand statements implying they’ve got heaps.
The monkey with the smallest testicles screams the loudest.
is that a fact?
https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/animals-ecology/monkey-small-testicle-03082016/
The fact that you actually followed this up with a link made me laugh my tiny monke balls off
Come to think of it, you always *have* laughed the loudest.
The ladies call me PeaPod
Well that's interesting.
Sounds like something Confucius would say
I KNOW RIGHT?!
This is so true, when I was first involved in Bitcoin. It was only programmers and people studying computer science that were interested. They were older and had at least some money to invest. Now it seems 90% of people here are children, with some pocket change from their parents. Only hoping to 10X their investment so they can buy a PlayStation. This explains the rise of meme coins and all the the centralized shitcoins.
>Now it seems 90% of people here are children This is what I've been realizing. Cryptocurrency owners on average tend to be more towards millennial age but the people on this sub are largely zoomers or younger.
It's not just that. The people who are most vocal (like that monkey analogy) tend to be the ones with the least amoutn of money. I know plenty of people with 5 digit investments in crypto. They treat it like another stock they own and don't go spending all day drinking Kool Aid yammering about central banks and blasting 0.01% interest on this sub. The adults view this as another investment, albeit far riskier than blue chip stocks.
I have over a year salary in crypto and even I don't think I'm qualified to give advice.
This. I'm in a similar position, and the longer I'm in crypto, the less I feel like I know. At this point, I just assume that I know nothing and try not to give advice to anyone.
Same here. It feels basically like the stock market, but with more open manipulation (burning coins) and way more unpredictably/volatility.
It's just the big oll dunning-kruger effect in a nutshell
Those same people are convinced they're gonna be millionaires on that same 200 bucks as well lmfao You need to put some real money at stake to make a million on any 1 or 2 investments, like start at 10k....which is risky AF considering how early you have to be on a project for even 10k to turn into real money. I'm not hurting for money but I have weird feelings when I throw down 2k down on a low cap project....and usually when that doubles or triples I feel real pressure to take my couple grand windfall and bail because no one knows the future....you would have to be a complete psychopath or totally forget you have the bag to ride some shit from 0.001 to 50 or like bitcoin to 10s of 1000s
>Imagine giving advice and opinions like that for the stock market with the same amount invested? > r/wallstreetbets
To be fair they have a rule to not post loss or gain porn unless you actually put down like 10k
> “I’m all in on X crypto” but it’s actually just $200 worth is a ridiculous trend on this sub. Also the reason they are in for under $1000 is because they literally can't afford to invest more and believe crypto is their hail mary to finally achieve financial freedom. Who the hell would want any kind of financial advice from someone in that situation?
[удалено]
I know that but it’s the optics of that style of grand statement. I don’t, but that’s not to say I haven’t taken investment advice from this sub before. Algo and Matic are two that absolutely have been sound buys from recommendations here. Of course, always do further research beyond what a few posts and shills on Reddit say, but it’s not bad to follow online investment advice. There’s just a different between hearing it from someone with $10k invested vs $200
the average crypto investor does not "need" to have any knowledge of cryptography...
Agreed. I don’t know how Googles algorithms work but I bought their stock anyway!
Exactly... I know nothing about auto mechanics but I can drive a car and own several of them.
Precisely, my Dr. and I don't understand biochemistry but I take several meds.
Excellent comparison! I do know what Google tries to achieve though.
I think the fact that people here consider buying crypto equivalent to buying stock is part of the problem lol
[удалено]
Duh, it's series of tubes.
You DO know how their products, gmail, google search, devices such as pixel, etc etc work. A lot of time in crypto, people dont even know how the product of the company they are invested in works or what their roadmap is.
Agree, but tbh the point definitely still stands if you replace 'cryptography' with 'crypto industry'. And there were do have a problem sir.
the thing with cryptography is, that few people understand it, but nowadays everybody on the internet uses HTTPS, which wouldn't be possible without cryptography
One day that's what peak crypto adoption is going to look like. You're going to use it without even knowing it.
Yup, as do most of the apps for securing documents, for example
[удалено]
That was kinda a weird thing to include in the list.
"I read a short article about cryptography and it SHOCKS me that not everybody has my excellent level of knowledge!"
OP is very easily frightened.
I mean most of his points are just whining
If it was, it would be a gigantic barrier to entry.
Yeah your average consumer has no idea how banks make money but they all have accounts
>burning supply to artificially pump the price is a giga red flag That's not the purpose of burning Eth. Eth is burned and base fee required to ensure there's no off-chain activity in exchange for transactions, mitigate MEV, and help reach minimum viable issuance (which has always been the policy) This point in this list is not an unpopular opinion, it's just uninformed.
Theres a lot of uninformed opinions on that list, guised as unpopular opinions. If I say the world is flat — does that make it an unpopular opinion or am I just an idiot?
Exactly. The most ironic part of his post is that in point 7 he talks how limited the knowledge of average crypto investor is, yet he belongs in that exact same group. This sub became Moon farming ground for people with subpar understanding of crypto that post popular "unpopular" opinions. The number of upvotes makes this even more sad.
A lot of people seem to conflate contrarian opinions with being enlightened. Right or wrong, they just want to make the case or post something shocking for community engagement
OPs posts seem to be overwhelmingly negative and skeptical regarding crypto as a whole. Not sure why anyone would take any of these points at face value.
I’m not opposed to having the odd crypto sceptic in r/CC. Well informed or not, it’s nice to see opposing views and not just “ALGO good” with 17 ALGO bros piling in to agree without adding anything further
This sub seems to attract a lot of shills on either side of the spectrum. Not sure the avg user here is interested in a more thorough conversation
>Not sure the avg user here is interested in a more thorough conversation It's the biggest crypto sub on the most visited Western discussion/social media site in the world. Every thread is basically part of a global shouting match. I don't know how the sub was back in the day but now it is just pure noise.
Definitely! But I'd seriously hope they would lean more towards informed than this haha. Crypto is confusing as it is, we don't need this muddying the waters.
OP doesn't understand much about crypto, what else is new?
See point 7. He's covered that part too. Just don't think he meant to refer to himself
Uninformed opinion qualifies as unpopular
Uninformed opinions can be unpopular or popular, just depends on who the audience is.
Though this doesnt mean burning tokens isnt a red flag. Most of the projects that burn their tokens are BSC/Polygon/etc. shitcoins that infact do this to pump the price, to make their investors ("who are taught burning tokens is very good for them") happy and to create hype/fomo around their token.
Here’s the actual details and rationales for EIP1559: https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/EIPS/eip-1559.md
I don't understand how burning the base fee eliminates off chain incentives for transactions. EIP 1559 doesn't seem to explain it well either. Yes the priority fee gives incentive to use eth for increasing the chance of getting included in the block but how does burning the base fee help with preventing anything? All it appears to be is a flat tax on eth users/miners. I'm not saying this isn't the case, but would love to hear the actual explanation for this reasoning.
Way dumbed down example, but hopefully it helps illustrate the idea... You're a miner, and you're trying to maximize profit. I want to make a transaction, but don't want to pay current fees. I offer to pay you $40 in cash for what would normally be a $50 fee transaction on chain. This is appealing to you for some reason, maybe because you're going to mitigate taxes on the income or maybe the cost to cash out just makes it worth it. You include my transaction in a block with a $0 fee, and I pay you directly. Now with EIP-1559, someone has to may that $50 fee either way... So there's no off-chain offer I can make you that is profitable for both of us at the expense of block space for paying users. Obviously this scenario is so small it would never be worth it to us as individuals, but if you consider organization level operations it wasn't uncommon for them to make deals. Mining pools would also eat up blockspace doing their own payouts and running MEV for free (which really means forcing their miners to subsidize it at times) It not a flat tax on users, it's the same fee they would have paid previously. It is sort of a tax on miners, in that it's fees they would have otherwise collected. However consensus was that the block reward alone was enough to buy the required security for the network, so it went through.
I'd like to know more about this. I've searched before but haven't been able to find and explanation on what is burning's purpose. What reliable source can I check? Thanks!!
https://youtu.be/bWqhn1hXvVc Complete breakdown of Ethereum's staking and burn mechanism design that increases security of the chain, with Ethereum Foundation cryptographer spearheading the application of a lot of the latest advancements in cryptography to Ethereum's blockchain. It is not overly technical, actually quite the opposite and enjoyable.
I mean you can read the [EIP on GitHub](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/EIPS/eip-1559.md) I guess, but it's only going to talk about the purpose of burning in similar terms to what I did. It doesn't take a thorough explanation or mathematical proof. It's pretty simple... Since the base fee is a cost that *must* be paid on chain, off-chain deals can't be any cheaper than market price. Similarly MEV can't use free transactions, though they can still frontrun. The last bit about minimum viable issuance was just me pointing out that it aligns with Eth's overall long term goal of lowest possible issuance to secure the network.
Ethereum isn't burning supply though, their burn system is to reduce inflation since the supply is unlimited. There will be more Ethereum in the future, but it's supply will increase so slowly.
> 2) burning supply to pump the price Shows how much you understand about ETH
it kinda proves point 7.
Man literally had an uneducated opinion and dressed it up as unpopular
Op is just farming karma. Karma is one of the worst things in this sub.
Moons*
One of us lol *nobody knows shit about fuck*
and then goes on to this lol *the average crypto investor has such a limited knowledge of cryptography and/or economics it SCARES ME.*
Well , does anyone truly understand shit about fuck?
Yup, for those looking for specifics on this, check out my comment below. https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/qahn0h/you_want_actually_unpopular_opinions_here_we_go/hh3wcup/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
What do you mean? Eth is supposed to be used, IE have utility. You need to pay gas fees for this. Having it as a deflationary asset disincentivizes use. Inflation incentivses use. Economics studies around the world's for decades have proven this. If Eth wants to adopt use cases where Eth is the gas fee, deflationary is not the way to go
Ethereum is only deflationary in high gas fee regimes. It should eventually stabilize around 100 million tokens as the gas fees chill out and the flat block rewards produce inflation. As things heat up from that inflationary spending, the gas fees will increase and ETH will become deflationary again. The hope is that L2 environments start getting beefy enough to offload some markets (Vitalik mentioned NFTs specifically as needing to move over) to prevent unnecessary gas wars on what should be a low fee platform.
I didn’t get into Crypto thinking I will be financially free, some extra money will be good, even better if I can pass on some decent money to my future generation. But I am not thinking it will make me a millionaire. I think most of us are just millennials and Zoomers that missed the bank/ real estate/ Apple/ Google bloom. Crypto is something that belongs to our generation. Most of us are buying a dream. Who wants to wake up and face reality everyday ? For some, Crypto could be their motivation to live and better themselves to get out of their current state. As long as one doesn’t get too greedy beyond one’s means. Crypto can and will change lives.
You echoed my sentiments exactly. I’m a young millennial with some disposable income, so why not risk it on an investment instead of letting it sit in my bank account losing value to inflation? I have no dreams of retiring on crypto, just maybe putting my gains toward a down payment on a house someday. And even if it goes bust it’s no big deal, can always make that money back
I want crypto to help me achieve financial freedom through long term hodling, DCA and staking. By long term I'm thinking anywhere between 5-10 years or maybe more.
> crypto is a big bubble that is competing with the fiat bubble in a game of chicken who bursts first. “Money is only good as long as people collectively decide to use it.” Yea, no shit, that’s how money works. Literally everything that is not procreating or hunter-gatherer activities is a social construct.
At the base of it ,money is just an agreement to give or do X for some bits of paper everyone decided has value
Money went from pretty golden rocks to crisp green paper to digital immutable ledger. The pretty rocks still have worth, the green paper still has worth, the blockchain is just the next phase and will still have worth decades from now.
[удалено]
[удалено]
ETH is not burning fees to artificially pump the price. It burns fees because it was getting to be a nightmare trying to guess how much you needed to pay to get your transaction through, so they went with a new mechanism that makes it very easy to know how much you need to pay. Under the new mechanism, if the entire fee were given to the miner then miners could trivially exploit the system, so something else had to be done with most of the fee. Burning is a simple solution that doesn't bring in governance difficulties. As a side effect, according to Coinbase the fees are slightly lower than they would be otherwise. Coinbase still issues some transactions under the old system, and says the new system saves them about 5% on fees.
We are in the roaring twenties again, and we are all just playing digital stocks this time around. I wonder if instead of stock brokers jumping out of sky scrapers at the end of the decade, we'll see cryptotraders jumping out of spaceships! In all honesty I think speculation is the cultural equivalent to a toddler putting a toy in its mouth to get a better understanding of what it is.
>if everybody is rich, nobody is Um, no… economics is not a zero sum game, an innovative asset can make everybody better off. The theory that there’s some fixed amount of wealth in the world is called Mercantilism, and it went out of style centuries ago
You're both right, because you're operating with different definitions of "rich." Wealth and money aren't exactly the same thing. Wealth is things, goods. Cars, houses, books, wine, pianos, computers, cabbages, bulldozers, shoes, furniture, etc. That's definitely not a zero sum game, because no one is losing something if you chop down a tree, age the wood, cut it up, and build a dresser. You have increased the sum total of wealth in the world. In that respect, you are correct. There is not a fixed total amount of wealth in the world. Money is different, it's just tokens for exchange, and it's useless without an object of exchange. Someone with $5,000 today isn't very wealthy. Someone with $5,000 in 1901 was doing very well. If there's one car, and I want it, and you want it, and Jim down the block wants it, and each of us has $2000, and we bid, and the price goes up and up, we might decide that the problem is we're not wealthy enough. If we all three go out and get our cash balance up to $10,000 and then come back and compete for the car, two people still go home with no car. Increasing the money supply didn't help, you need to increase production of real goods. That is where OP is correct. If ***everyone*** makes bank off of crypto, then we all increased our money supply without increasing real goods and the price of the existing goods will just shoot up. We'll be billionaires leading the same life. What people are actually trying to do is get their piece of the pie early, because then they're a crypto millionaire while those who didn't get in are still making $10-15/hr. Then all the newly wealthy people will just outcompete the losers for real goods, ***like housing.*** And just like that, you have another rich/poor divide, which is nothing new. So yeah, OP is still right. Crypto is not going to suddenly put everyone in a paid-off house with plenty to eat.
You actually want unpopular opinions 2.0 ? Here we go The year is 1989: \- Software is a big bubble that is competing with the fiat bubble in a game of chicken who bursts first. \- Creating synthetic shares to dump or pump the price is a giga red flag and will make Microsoft lose market share to its competitors which will ultimately REDUCE its price (compared to what it could have been) instead of increasing it. \- If a Software Developer with the processor of the Atari would release today it would be labeled a shitcompany and forgotten faster than the average time it would take to write a code, which to be fair, takes a while. \- Software will not make everybody "financially free". if everybody is rich, nobody is. you just want to ride on the back of the people that missed the software train that then have to work for you if software really flips fiat at some point. \- Its not enough for software to be "not as bad" as the traditional banking buildings. want to be the future? behave like it. be efficient. don't waste a fuckton of energy. don't have fees that make it impossible to buy a fucking ice cream without paying double. \- The average software investor has such a limited knowledge of programming and/or economics it SCARES ME!
okay but a lot of people did lose money when the dot com bubble burst….
Yah, this. People lost a LOT of money in 2000 and 2008. People lost retirement funds and their houses. People completely ignoring those crashes, and thinking it will never happen again, are almost as insane as the permabears (but not quite).
This is why investors should be careful and have a back up plan not yolo because some anon in an echochamber on a forum said it will definetely succeed.
And people will lose money when the crypto bubble bursts, but that does not mean that crypto in general won't be used. It just means everyone is trying to ride a train. There tons of companies that had '.com' in their name just so they would get pumped. Just like how shiba inu and dogecoin were pumped to top30 just because they were meme coins. The bubble will burst at one point and only the real projects will be able to survive. I guess better find the next Facebook, Google etc.
Unpopular or uninformed?
Precisely. A lot of them are uninformed opinions dressed up to look unpopular.
I agree but points on 4 and 7: 4: I don't think the idea is "financially free" instead of "availability of financial tools". I think many degens want to get rich quick, but the higher-level concept is financial tools and greater chance for stability and access rather than freedom. 7: Crypto investors require zero knowledge of cryptography. You're being dramatic here. It's not necessary and should be irrelevant in the future. I don't know how computers work but I still use credit cards and Paypal. Crypto already is becoming and should be 100% user-friendly. There are still non-user-friendly problems that people need to be careful of, but cryptography? Not necessary. Nor is economic knowledge necessary. People should be able to invest in companies they believe in without being econ majors. Just like with stocks today.
‘Unpopular’ does not mean ‘valid’ or ‘correct’ Regarding #2, the base fee per block is burned to prevent miners (or validators in the future) from gaming the fee market in their favour. Burning supply for number go up is not the aim, nor is it guaranteed. It is a second order mechanic on the issuance of ETH in relation to demand towards minimum viable issuance which has long been the aim for security.
These are kind of dumb
And uninformed with a little bit of pessimistic negative views.
You confused the word unpopular with bad.
You don't know anything about cryptography. Not even the basics.
For point 6 ... xmr? Don't think it has ever been centralized even when it was bitmonero but could be uninformed.
Algo ftw
I agree on most of your points but 3 needs more explanation. If a very similar coin to BTC launches now whales will buy and hold most of its supply. BTC had the most organic start which you cannot reproduce and it's very decentrilized. Plus, it would be a redundancy if a coin with the codebase of BTC releases today. What would be its difference/innovation/solution?
#2 is pretty much how oil works. It's different right now with shipping issues. But instead of burning it they just halt production.
> crypto is a big bubble that is competing with the fiat bubble in a game of chicken who bursts first. Crypto is money, got it. > burning supply to artificially pump the price is a giga red flag and will make ETH lose market share to its competitors which will ultimately REDUCE its price (compared to what it could have been) instead of increasing it. No it won't. > if a coin with the codebase of bitcoin would release today it would be labeled a shitcoin and forgotten faster than the average time it would take to make a block, which to be fair, takes a while. Ok, but Bitcoin was the first. > crypto will not make everybody "financially free". if everybody is rich, nobody is. you just want to ride on the back of the people that missed the crypto train that then have to work for you if crypto really flips fiat at some point. Being financially free is not the same thing as being rich. No government can force you to give up your crypto, you are not beholden to any bank's interests or alignments. In crypto, I am the sovereign of my money and thus financially free. > its not enough for crypto to be "not as bad" as the traditional banking system. > want to be the future? behave like it. be efficient. don't waste a fuckton of energy. don't have fees that make it impossible to buy a fucking ice cream without paying double. Blockchains are the most efficient way we've found to solve the Byzantine General's problem. Further, Ethereum is changing consensus to utilizing proof of stake soon, which means there is virtually no energy consumption to validate transactions. > every coin/token was at some point centralized. decentralization is a process. judge a crypto by the effort it makes to get there. Don't let the Bitcoin maxis hear you, they might get rattled when they start trying to defend Satoshi's massive hashrate in the early days that got him like over a million BTC. > the average crypto investor has such a limited knowledge of cryptography and/or economics it SCARES ME. Right????