At the time of the announcement, the moderators of most of the subreddits involved with the community points program claimed to be unaware of the decision.
It’s, by design, a deflationary asset. There’s a limited amount of it, the difficulty to mine it goes up as there’s more of it, therefore it’s designed to grow in value over time. So since its inception it’s been a scam. Sure, a scam some lucky people have been able to get in on early, but a scam none-the-less.
I initially replied but deleted my reply because I wasn’t sure of myself but I’ve looked it up just to be sure and I can reply again in confidence: Gold isn’t deflationary.
Gold is a standard in which remains stable among the currencies when compared to commodity goods. As other currencies inflate, gold also inflates, because it’s somewhat stable. Gold’s value does not increase over time, even though its value in relation to inflating currencies does.
Essentially, as an example but one pulled completely out of my ass here: If bread cost 1 gram of gold 200 years ago, but that was a single shilling but now it takes 1000 shillings to buy bread, gold is now worth “1000 shillings”, but still buys the same bread. So it’s not increasing in value vs the things around it, only other currencies because they are inflating.
Which means that it’s deflationary against euro or usd. Also “there’s a limited amount of it, the difficulty to mine it goes up as there’s more of it”. So according to your definition gold is a scam. I wonder who is going to pull the rug on it.
Wrong. Which means it’s stable, and the USD and EURO are inflationary. That’s why gold is gold. That’s why it’s a staple stock. Because it’s stable against everything that those currencies buy. It will basically, always be worth the same amount as it was 1000 years ago. Gold is the reference of a “stable” value. In the example I made, 1 gram of gold 200 years ago buys the same amount as 1 gram of gold today. That’s exactly how gold works. That’s why economies use it as a measuring stick of their own currency.
Worse, it’s value is based on the work it requires to grow/maintain it. And that work is based on how much electricity/world resources it uses. Aka. Bad for the environment. And if you were to make say a new crypto currency that used far less processing power, that would be less work and thus have little value.
In other words, you can’t fix the crypto currency problem of massive energy usage without destroying the value of it. When Bitcoin does die, it will have emitted millions of tons of green house gases while providing very few real services/transactions.
That’s not true at all. That only applies to coins using “proof of work.” Ethereum for example is extremely popular and doesn’t use that. You should really learn more about the topic before spreading misinformation.
Yes I am familiar with that and heard that argument before. It does provide some other functions that can negate some of the proof of work. But it is also subject to proof of work to a lesser degree but that means it will also hit some equilibrium. Will that outweigh the benefits it provides and this be ultimately viable and more important, environmentally viable? With my experience in it, I am dubious.
It’s, by design, a deflationary asset. There’s a limited amount of it, the difficulty to mine it goes up as there’s more of it, therefore it’s designed to grow in value over time. So since its inception it’s been a scam. Sure, a scam some lucky people have been able to get in on early, but a scam none-the-less.
This is not true of all crypto. It is true of bitcoin though.
So gold is a scam? lol
I initially replied but deleted my reply because I wasn’t sure of myself but I’ve looked it up just to be sure and I can reply again in confidence: Gold isn’t deflationary.
Gold is a standard in which remains stable among the currencies when compared to commodity goods. As other currencies inflate, gold also inflates, because it’s somewhat stable. Gold’s value does not increase over time, even though its value in relation to inflating currencies does.
Essentially, as an example but one pulled completely out of my ass here: If bread cost 1 gram of gold 200 years ago, but that was a single shilling but now it takes 1000 shillings to buy bread, gold is now worth “1000 shillings”, but still buys the same bread. So it’s not increasing in value vs the things around it, only other currencies because they are inflating.
Which means that it’s deflationary against euro or usd. Also “there’s a limited amount of it, the difficulty to mine it goes up as there’s more of it”. So according to your definition gold is a scam. I wonder who is going to pull the rug on it.
Wrong. Which means it’s stable, and the USD and EURO are inflationary. That’s why gold is gold. That’s why it’s a staple stock. Because it’s stable against everything that those currencies buy. It will basically, always be worth the same amount as it was 1000 years ago. Gold is the reference of a “stable” value. In the example I made, 1 gram of gold 200 years ago buys the same amount as 1 gram of gold today. That’s exactly how gold works. That’s why economies use it as a measuring stick of their own currency.
deleted by creator
Worse, it’s value is based on the work it requires to grow/maintain it. And that work is based on how much electricity/world resources it uses. Aka. Bad for the environment. And if you were to make say a new crypto currency that used far less processing power, that would be less work and thus have little value.
In other words, you can’t fix the crypto currency problem of massive energy usage without destroying the value of it. When Bitcoin does die, it will have emitted millions of tons of green house gases while providing very few real services/transactions.
That’s not true at all. That only applies to coins using “proof of work.” Ethereum for example is extremely popular and doesn’t use that. You should really learn more about the topic before spreading misinformation.
Yes I am familiar with that and heard that argument before. It does provide some other functions that can negate some of the proof of work. But it is also subject to proof of work to a lesser degree but that means it will also hit some equilibrium. Will that outweigh the benefits it provides and this be ultimately viable and more important, environmentally viable? With my experience in it, I am dubious.