←back to thread

544 points josh2600 | 9 comments | | HN request time: 1.604s | source | bottom
Show context
Geee ◴[] No.26715348[source]
There are 250 million units of mobilecoin, and majority of them are owned by the founders. Only 37.5 million have been distributed. With current price ($65), they're worth $14B already. This makes the project a scam and impossible for it to work as a reliable money that holds value. Bitcoin had no pre-mine and has been fairly distributed from the start.
replies(15): >>26716669 #>>26717253 #>>26717289 #>>26717334 #>>26717384 #>>26717443 #>>26717846 #>>26717892 #>>26718428 #>>26718433 #>>26718469 #>>26720601 #>>26721205 #>>26726961 #>>26727388 #
CynicusRex ◴[] No.26717384[source]
No “pre-mine” doesn't mean fairly distributed. Bitcoin is a multi-level marketing pyramid scheme as well. Early adopters mine or buy large proportions at negligible prices while late adopters mine or buy negligible proportions at large prices.
replies(3): >>26717475 #>>26717496 #>>26719614 #
anonporridge ◴[] No.26717496[source]
By this definition, every company stock is a multi-level marketing pyramid scheme.

In fact, company stock is WAY worse, because the majority of people are legally prohibited from investing in private companies unless they're an accredited investor (already rich). So, only rich people (other than founders and early employees) are allowed to buy in at super low prices before handing off the bag to the public.

replies(4): >>26717629 #>>26717652 #>>26719218 #>>26719647 #
PragmaticPulp ◴[] No.26717629[source]
This is incorrect. Stock represents actual ownership of a scarce resource (a company). That company would have value whether or not it was explicitly sold as a stock. The value doesn’t come from the stock.

Cryptocurrency removes the underlying asset and simply sells shares of artificial scarcity. It’s only as valuable as what people decide to trade it at, because it doesn’t represent ownership of anything other than itself.

replies(3): >>26717864 #>>26718002 #>>26719628 #
chrisco255 ◴[] No.26718002[source]
> This is incorrect. Stock represents actual ownership of a scarce resource (a company). That company would have value whether or not it was explicitly sold as a stock. The value doesn’t come from the stock.

Depending on the voting rights embedded in the share, your ownership is likely meaningless. It doesn't guarantee you rights to dividends necessarily and even if it does, the company can just choose to never issue a dividend (like Amazon). It doesn't necessarily grant you voting rights for the Board of Directors either. Worse, you have to go through a 3rd party broker to buy a share or trust a company like Robinhood to hold your shares for you. As we saw with GameStop, they can rug pull on you at any time. With decentralized cryptos like BTC & ETH, that can't happen from your own private wallet. You can always transact.

Cryptos such as BTC & ETH are provably scarce, not artificially scarce. You can validate supply at any time by running your own node and joining the network. You don't need anyone's permission to do that. It's a public blockchain.

replies(3): >>26718182 #>>26718206 #>>26718570 #
gruez ◴[] No.26718570[source]
>As we saw with GameStop, they can rug pull on you at any time. With decentralized cryptos like BTC & ETH, that can't happen from your own private wallet. You can always transact.

ETH is probably not the best example here because they have rug-pulled people with a hard fork.

replies(1): >>26718723 #
whimsicalism ◴[] No.26718723[source]
> they have rug-pulled people with a hard fork.

"People" here being criminals that exploited a flaw in the DAO, yeah?

replies(2): >>26718777 #>>26720480 #
gruez ◴[] No.26718777[source]
Just like how the US financial system only freezes the assets of Bad Guys, right? As for GME? We had to rugpull them because they were manipulating the market[1].

[1] Yes I know that wasn't the real reason why trading was halted

replies(1): >>26718794 #
whimsicalism ◴[] No.26718794[source]
I don't know enough to comment on those things, I'm discussing the specific example of the ETH fork which was given.
replies(2): >>26718829 #>>26718923 #
1. gruez ◴[] No.26718923[source]
The point is that in your initial comment, you were saying that with decentralized cryptocurrencies you'll be free from third party interference, but with ETH the DAO hacker was subject to the very interference you claimed crypto wasn't subject to. Therefore it weakens your claim from something like "with crypto, nobody can stop you!", to "with crypto, nobody can stop you! ...except if you do something we don't like in which case we'll hardfork", which is pretty similar to how centralized systems work today.
replies(2): >>26719009 #>>26719093 #
2. whimsicalism ◴[] No.26719009[source]
That wasn't my comment. Also, people freely chose to start using the new version of ETH, they weren't required to.
3. leppr ◴[] No.26719093[source]
A hard fork in a decentralized cryptocurrency is democratic, users chose which of the 2 new chains assets' they want to keep. No binary winner is decided, the market currently values ETH as 122 times more valuable than ETC, but ETC is not censored.

The sentencing of criminals in republics is very removed from democratic action (see drug criminalization).

replies(2): >>26720129 #>>26721812 #
4. jude- ◴[] No.26720129[source]
> A hard fork in a decentralized cryptocurrency is democratic, users chose which of the 2 new chains assets' they want to keep.

Show us the votes, then. Did a majority of miners and/or coinholders vote to hard-fork?

5. perryizgr8 ◴[] No.26721812[source]
> A hard fork in a decentralized cryptocurrency is democratic

Yup, and I don't want public votes to decide the amount of money I have.

replies(1): >>26725347 #
6. whimsicalism ◴[] No.26725347{3}[source]
> public votes to decide the amount of money I have.

Unfortunately, there is no alternative. The value of what you have is decided by what people are willing to pay for it in markets. If people decide that they value the forked ETH that doesn't provide the money to the people who stole from the DAO more than the version where those people have all of the money, then it is going to be more valuable. You don't escape this problem with fiat either.

Basic market mechanisms like this are pretty much inescapable.

replies(1): >>26728256 #
7. leppr ◴[] No.26728256{4}[source]
Gold or other physical scarce assets come pretty close to allowing you to escape this.
replies(1): >>26728637 #
8. whimsicalism ◴[] No.26728637{5}[source]
Ah yes, the constant value of gold https://www.macrotrends.net/1333/historical-gold-prices-100-...

As I said, there is no escaping market mechanisms, as value is market contextual. Certainly, there are assets with more or less stable value, but that is still due to the whims of what people (ie. the "public") are willing to pay.

replies(1): >>26731600 #
9. leppr ◴[] No.26731600{6}[source]
Yes, the point here is not about the total valuation of each asset, which affects every holder equally, but about how individuals can influence, or not, the relative distribution of said asset.

If I'm, say, from a persecuted cultural group, I'll want to keep my wealth in an asset that has the same value whether I or someone else own it. Precious metals fit this bill better than both fiat and public-ledger cryptocurrencies.