There's a wide variety of technological innovations, known collectively as cryptocurrencies, that are being lumped together here by some into one vague idea of dodgy speculative assets, money laundering schemes and so on. But I would challenge anyone to do an hour or two of real research into, e.g., Ethereum and not be impressed. Other than that, yes, cryptocurrencies are VOLATILE. That doesn't imply "dodgy". It simply means if you are investor, you have to have confidence enough in the long-term prospects of the technology you are investing in that you can stomach 90%+ drawdowns to get your eventual 1000%+ return. You also have to understand the market. Most internet start-ups, even wildly hyped ones, failed. Similarly, most cryptocurrencies will go to zero and some will do so because they were scams, ponzi schemes or otherwise worthless. But there will also be Amazons, Googles, and Apples. The right orientation towards cryptocurrencies imo is to see them as opportunities; first, for research and understanding, and then and only then, for investment. The majority of posters here don't seem to have got anywhere significant with the first step before giving their opinion on the second.

It appears that a lack of regulation inevitably leads to disaster in markets of this type. Or do you think some entities are just more upstanding than others? And if so, how would you identity them?

It appears that a lack of regulation inevitably leads to disaster in markets of this type. — frank

:up:

It appears that a lack of regulation inevitably leads to disaster in markets of this type — frank

That's not an unfair comment, but it depends to a degree what you mean by "disaster". The FTX, LUNA and 3AC debacles could be characterised that way, but those who invested responsibly in things they understood, followed best practices, and kept an eye on the market, most likely made money. And the overall market (though volatile) continues to expand at an impressive pace, so there are dangers and opportunities there. What's desirable imo is a reasonable regulatory framework that curbs the worst excesses of the market but still leaves room for the freedom to take risks in pursuit of returns, i.e. for personal responsibility.

do you think some entities are just more upstanding than others? And if so, how would you identity them? — frank

Absolutely. And they can be identified by research and paying attention. LUNA was an algorithmic stablecoin and so prone to collapse like every one of its type before. Anyone paying close attention knew this and therefore knew at least some of the risks involved, which became more and more apparent closer to the time of its collapse. Similarly, warnings were plentiful before FTX went bankrupt.

As for cryptocurrencies themselves, the difference between a random memecoin and an, e.g. Layer 1 cryptocurrency is huge. The Ethereum foundation, for example, are good actors with a well-established product in the Ethereum network, which has clear battle-tested functionality, very obvious practical long-term uses, and a deflationary cryptocurrency, Ether, that despite the recent crash is up 2000% since the lows of March 2020. Dogecoin is an inflationary memecoin--disparaged as a joke even by its founder--that was popularized by one dude, Elon Musk, and has multiplied massively in value, but has a future largely dependent on whether or not he feels like clowning around with it again. No prizes for spotting the more reliable entity there.

This is an old thread, but I thought better to post this here than start a new one. Sam Bankman-Fried: A Personal Verdict (Washington Post gift link) by Michael Lewis who had written a book on him. (Also author of the Big Short.)

It’s a long read which I won’t try to summarise, other than to note that all of the investors in FTX got their funds back, which was announced in May this year. Which, I think, tends to throw the very long sentence that SBF received into some question. Lewis doesn’t say it outright, but he seems to suggest it. He says in conclusion ‘I think the truth is closer to “young person with an intellectually defensible but socially unacceptable moral code makes a huge mistake in trying to live by it” than “criminal on the loose in the financial system.” ‘ And the fact that none of the investors lost their money - although they did fail to realise Bitcoin gains they might have made - makes me feel a bit uneasy about it.

to note that all of the investors in FTX got their funds back, which was announced in May this year. Which, I think, tends to throw the very long sentence that SBF received into some question. Lewis doesn’t say it outright, but he seems to suggest it. He says in conclusion ‘I think the truth is closer to “young person with an intellectually defensible but socially unacceptable moral code makes a huge mistake in trying to live by it” than “criminal on the loose in the financial system.” — Wayfarer

Wow! Okay. I'm gonna say it outright that you are mistaken and -- Jesus Christ!

The damage to the financial industry is much more than getting their money back. Are you really saying "No harm done"?

The damage to the financial industry is much more than getting their money back. Are you really saying "No harm done"? — L'éléphant

Not at all. But reading that article - as I said, a long read - one of the points that Lewis made was that it might have been possible for FTX to have recovered the supposedly missing funds by itself:

On May 7, 2024, John Ray, FTX’s new CEO, revealed to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware that, against the $8.7 billion in missing customer deposits, FTX was now sitting on something like $14.5 to $16.3 billion. Whatever the exact sum, it was enough to repay all depositors and various other creditors at least 118 cents on the dollar — that is, everyone who imagined they had lost money back in November 2022 would get their money back, with interest. After paying off FTX’s debts — and paying themselves at least half a billion dollars — Ray and his team will likely still be sitting on billions of dollars. How many billions of dollars is still an open question, but very few of these dollars can be the result of Ray’s various lawsuits to claw back money paid out by FTX in good times. The money came almost entirely from a fire sale of the contents of Sam Bankman-Fried’s dragon’s lair.

The success of the bankruptcy clearly surprised, and maybe even alarmed, the lawyers running it. Months after Sam Bankman-Fried handed him the company, Ray had been keen to stress how little of value he’d been given. More than a little bizarrely, he talked down the value of the assets he was meant to dispose of to repay creditors. Ray called the 20 percent stake Sam had acquired in Anthropic “worthless.” The giant pile of Solana tokens Sam had acquired for pennies were “shitcoins” whose value had been falsely inflated by Sam’s purchases. The Anthropic stake has wound up being worth billions. The Solana token, even without Alameda Research around to prop it up, popped back up from roughly $10 at the end of 2022 to $150 a year and a half later. To this day, Ray hasn’t spoken to Sam Bankman-Fried. It’s hard not to wonder, if they had simply called Sam, what else the lawyers running the FTX bankruptcy might have learned about the contents of his lair. Also, how much more money would be on hand if, for their first 18 months on the job, the bankruptcy lawyers had simply not shown up for work.

It's nuanced tale, of competing judgements about what SBF was really up to. Lewis doesn't try to absolve him of guilt, but he does call into question whether SBF was conniving or delusional.

(Incidentally, Caroline Ellison has just now been sentenced to two years for her role in the scheme.)

I consider it a marker when someone continues this thread: This thread is a living memory accurately describing how smart people, that are interested in philosophy, start such a thread. It's informative and telling to look how the discussion has gone about the subject for the last seven years.

Yes, two years ago (when the thread was forgotten for a while) Bitcoin price was a little bit above one third of what it is now. So to comment on Cryptocurrencies thread was likely to come, and thanks to @Wayfarer, he even remembered this thread!

Why, thanks. If I see an item about a popular topic that I want to post, I'll generally look for an existing thread rather than start a new one. I'm a total spectator when it comes to Crypto, although I do recall (somewhat painfully) one of my more techsavvy friends telling me about this new thing, Bitcoin, in 2009, and how tricky it was to buy one, at the price of around nine cents.

Whether there was damage is irrelevant. You do not use the money of clients of another company, that you are holding on behalf of that other company to pay of your loans. You do not invest with money of clients of another company that you are holding on behalf of that other company. He invested with money that wasn't his which is only permitted with the appropriate licenses and meeting certain capital requirements. The company had neither the license or came remotely close to the capital requirements needed if he would've had such license. That Solana bounced back was pure luck, it really could've been a huge loss.

What I'm more baffled about is what SBF's role was at Alameda Research. How come the CEO gets away with this shit - she's the one presumably running the company! Is that just because she put SBF out to dry? And if SBF was just a shareholder then he again fucked up by trying to direct the company, which wasn't his role as a shareholder.

And Michael Lewis has a tendency to withhold pertinent facts. How many of those billions were paid out from the FTX holdings SBF and Ellison forfeited? Not clear to me. If they were funded from the FTX holdings then "depositors" had a loss, they just managed to cover it with other gains.

With the aim to look for responsibility and responsables, we have to find out how the administrators were. It is true that it depends on the legislation, but in most countries, the admins are the first responsables of the negligence of the company. The stakeholders just respond with their asset, nothing more. So, if she was 'running' the company, it seems she was a stakeholder with a big percentage of assets. The responsibilities inside a company could be complex, and they are usually formed in a complex manner. Well, I don't know how it works there or in the Netherlands (I also tag @Tobias if he can help). Here, our law distinguishes two types of responsibility: the admins are responsible for the done acts by and for the company's name. Stakeholders are responsible just with the money that was put in the assets. 

A "CEO" is not and admin... as much as I can understand Anglo-Saxon companies structures...
Running the company does not equal to manage it in and out of court.

Thanks for the mention Javi, but I know nothing of corporate law. Benkei is a much better source here for Dutch law on crypto...

It's quite telling that cryptocurrencies marketed as "freedom from governments and the central banks" then will have these shady frauds etc. I think it's basically a natural result when you don't have legislative supervision.

I think it's something that was forgotten in the ideological fervour of liberalism, that free markets have to have institutions to keep them trustworthy and operational. Otherwise simple theft is so easy.

I can't find how Alameda Research was set up. Whether it was single or two tier. It appears single tier, making the CEO the representative of the company and responsible for its decisions.

From the histories, it seems SBF took some distance from Alameda Research and started working for FTX and put Ellison and another trader in charge as CO-CEOs. Ellison ended up as CEO later when the other co-CEO left. Before the meltdown, SBF apparently told everyone to take out personal loans against the company. There were 5 billion in personal loans on the balance sheet. It's not clear during what time they were entered into and whether SBF was CEO at the time or the two co-CEO's or just Ellison. In any case, who lends 5 billion without collateral? Only a criminally liable idiot when it goes south.

Alameda Research had special privileges allowing it to directly use customer deposits. SBF probably thought that the insane 65 billion USD line of credit from FTX to Alameda Research made that ok. This credit line (again INSANELY high) was never disclosed to investors, FTX clients or auditors.
Some people would also deposit money directly into the account of Alameda Research, they would skim money of it for expenses and only then forward it to FTX.

It was FTX who transferred the 8 billion USD in deposits to Alameda Research. That does seem to be mostly on SBF's shoulders then. It's not clear what the basis for the transfer was. Was it a loan? Some kind of asset swap? Or really as dumb as a straight transfer? (It couldn't be the credit line, because pulling that would be done by Alameda).

But Ellison didn't return the money as she should have.

As far as I'm concerned, the whole thing stinks to high heaven. The fact the credit line was hidden, the ridiculous amount of personal loans, the absence of appropriate hedges (they were all traders for crying out loud!) and even not hiring risk managers and giving them appropriate tools is really on the company leadership.

As far as I'm concerned Ellison got off way too lightly.

Good summary, thanks.

It is quite blurred all the transfers, and it is not really clear why they asked for personal loans and then the company transferred that amount to Alameda Research. It seems to me that the deposits were not arranged with good faith or intentions. After reading the summary twice, it reminds me a bit of a fiduciary role. Some people put money on FTX or Alamde Research to do some purposes, but it turned out to be a complex, structured relationship where the loans and deposits went to and fro without a clear path to follow. 
 
I can't say whether this is a criminal felony or not. From a civil perspective, it is clear to me that they arranged the money with opaque and obscure intentions, and this is opposed to the law.
 
I now understand why "trusts" are forbidden in my country. They create infinite transfers very difficult to follow. It can only apply to inheritance here.
 

It's quite telling that cryptocurrencies marketed as "freedom from governments and the central banks" then will have these shady frauds etc. I think it's basically a natural result when you don't have legislative supervision. — ssu

The official ruling mafia defends their monopoly on expropriation, called "taxation". Lions also fight other lions trying to feed on prey in their territory. They won't allow it, because in their case, the expropriation is called "stealing".

I think it's something that was forgotten in the ideological fervour of liberalism, that free markets have to have institutions to keep them trustworthy and operational. Otherwise simple theft is so easy. — ssu

A market authority is usually necessary but it does not need to be the government.

For example, in darknet markets, there is always a third-party adjudicator holding the third signature in the 2-of-3 multi-signature escrow contract.

In an atomic swap, for example, there is not even a need for a human adjudicator. The two interlocking smart contracts will automatically prevent both parties from defrauding each other.

https://atomicdex.io/en/blog/atomic-swaps

An atomic swap is a trade of cryptocurrency made directly from one user to another, without any intermediary to facilitate the transaction.

These swaps are called "atomic" because either the trade is successfully completed and each trader receives the other one's funds, or nothing happens and both traders simply keep the funds they started with. Atomic swaps are made wallet-to-wallet, in a fully peer-to-peer (P2P) manner.

The basic idea is that Bob and Alice can send each other funds that are locked by the hash of a predetermined secret code. Bob publicly reveals the secret code to collect Alice's funds, which allows Alice to also see the secret code and use it to collect Bob's funds. If Bob doesn't collect Alice's funds, then Alice can never spend Bob's funds. In this case, the locktime set by the CLTV command would expire and both Bob and Alice would get their money back. That's what makes the swap atomic.

If ownership of an asset can be represented by a digital token, such as goods in a bonded warehouse or just money, then any such assets can be swapped without third-party involvement.

We are only at the very beginning of tokenizing commercial traffic. In my opinion, just 0.1% of the possibilities have currently been implemented already. It will completely change the world of commerce.

The official ruling mafia defends their monopoly on expropriation, called "taxation". — Tarskian

And unfortunately we do need that thing called "taxation". Also the ruling mafia also defends their monopoly legal tender. Which cryptocurrencies aren't, but currencies of sovereign states are.

Of course it could be different.

Think about the following situation: You work for your employer, FU Employee Corp. Now when the payday comes and you get your salary, your employers pays your salary by their own money, FU Dollars. You then can use the FU Dollars in a local shop that your employer FU Employee Corp owns, where they happily accept FU Dollars. And naturally FU Dollar aren't accepted anywhere else, hence it isn't convertible. Need housing? Sure thing, your employer has these small shacks that you can rent, which also can be paid FU Dollars again. Everything so convenient!

Sounds enjoyable? Well, that was actually reality during the time of true liberal policies of the 19th Century. You can guess what happened to all those FU Dollars that you had earned by years of hard work when the Corporation goes bankrupt.

Hence there were also some reasons just why legal tender was monopolized.

A market authority is usually necessary but it does not need to be the government. — Tarskian

Do you think that is a great solution? Just like a previous chairman of NASDAQ and the board of "National Association of Securities Dealers" (nowdays called FINRA), which the latter acts as a self-regulatory organization (SRO) that regulates member brokerage firms and exchange markets.

His name was Bernie Madoff.

Yessir, All you need is self-regulation from the smartest!!! No government needed!

We are only at the very beginning of tokenizing commercial traffic. In my opinion, just 0.1% of the possibilities have currently been implemented already. It will completely change the world of commerce. — Tarskian

Method how your payment is done different from the various roles a market and it's actors have.

And unfortunately we do need that thing called "taxation". — ssu

Certainly not to the extent that it exists in the West. For example, personal income taxation was introduced only in 1913 while the human race has been around for almost 300 000 years. Governments outside the West may also have it on the books but until this day they still do not collect it and they probably never will.

Also the ruling mafia also defends their monopoly legal tender. Which cryptocurrencies aren't, but currencies of sovereign states are. — ssu

Bitcoin is now already legal tender in El Salvador. We are also rapidly making geopolitical progress with the Russian Federation:

https://www.chainalysis.com/blog/russias-cryptocurrency-legislated-sanctions-evasion

In response to mounting financial pressures of Western sanctions, Russia enacted significant legislation legalizing cryptocurrency mining and permitting the use of cryptocurrency for international payments.

Getting the Russian Federation on our side is a significant breakthrough because now the system is also backed by an arsenal of thousands of nuclear weapons. The next step, is getting China onboard in matters of cryptocurrency. That will be hard, but I suspect that Russia will sooner or later manage to convince them.

Hence there were also some reasons just why legal tender was monopolized. — ssu

Legal tender where exactly?

Along the Russian-Chinese axis, the entire Global South is now rallying and making their preferred geopolitical choice.

In this new multipolar world order, it is the cryptocurrencies, especially Bitcoin, that will eventually reign supreme.

In the new multipolar world order, international trade and commerce will be increasingly de-dollarized. Along with the enormous debt, this process will lead to hyperinflation in the dollar and the euro. Hence, the end result of our efforts is that we will successfully bankrupt and utterly destroy these fiat currencies. i.e. the American dollar and the European euro. When everything will have been said and done, they won't be legal tender anywhere on earth. The final goal is the complete and utter eradication of the American dollar and European Euro. It is clearly a lenghty process, but it is inevitable that we will geopolitically achieve our goal.

This process is called hyperbitcoinization:

https://www.tokenmetrics.com/blog/hyperbitcoinization

Defining Hyperbitcoinization

At its core, Hyperbitcoinization envisions a future where Bitcoin supplants fiat currencies as the predominant medium of exchange, store of value, and unit of account globally.

This phenomenon transcends mere adoption; it represents a paradigm shift in which Bitcoin becomes the universal currency, facilitating transactions, settlements, and economic activities worldwide.

The concept of Hyperbitcoinization was first introduced in 2014 by Daniel Krawisz, an entrepreneur and researcher at the Satoshi Nakamoto Institute.

Hyperbitcoinization is why Bitcoin maximalists do not care much about the exchange rate or about measuring its value in dollars or in euros, as we seek to destroy the dollar and the euro:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hodl.asp

Cryptocurrencies will eventually replace government-issued fiat currencies as the basis of all economic structures. Should that occur, then the exchange rates between cryptocurrencies and fiat money would become irrelevant to crypto holders.

Predictably, a meme best captures this HODL maximalist philosophy. Neo from The Matrix asks Morpheus, "What are you trying to tell me, that I can trade my Bitcoin for millions someday?" Morpheus responds, "No Neo, I'm trying to tell you that when you're ready … you won't have to."

Certainly not to the extent that it exists in the West. For example, personal income taxation was introduced only in 1913 while the human race has been around for almost 300 000 years. Governments outside the West may also have it on the books but until this day they still do not collect it and they probably never will. — Tarskian

Having to deliver 15 sacks of grain you harvested is effectively income tax. It existed quite a bit longer, at least since the Egyptians.

Having to deliver 15 sacks of grain you harvested is effectively income tax. It existed quite a bit longer, at least since the Egyptians. — Benkei

The Egyptian tax collector would measure the farmer's land and compute taxes based on that information. He would not ask the farmer if he somehow made some more money in other ways and try to get half of that too.

I find the practice of demanding people to fill out a tax return form to be particularly detestable. Why on earth would I give that kind of information to someone else?

Seriously, I don't want to live in a country where the ruling mafia asks me how much money I have made last year and then demands that I give them half.

The Egyptian tax collector would measure the farmer's land and compute taxes based on that information. He would not ask the farmer if he somehow made some more money in other ways and try to get half of that too. — Tarskian

Yes, they were very equitable back then until they weren't and the farmers starved. Maybe read a history book or something. But in any case, you're not refusing the point that income tax has existed for millenia.

I find the practice of demanding people to fill out a tax return form to be particularly detestable. Why on earth would I give that kind of information to someone else? — Tarskian

Back in the day when people weren't paying lawyers and accountants tons of money to avoid paying taxes, tax forms weren't really a thing. Something to do with the inherent greed of many who do want government services like the enforcement of contracts, basic utilities ans safety but don't want to pay for it. If only the system wasn't so shit that the government needed this information to be able to tax people.

Seriously, I don't want to live in a country where the ruling mafia asks me how much money I have made last year and then demands that I give them half. — Tarskian

Good luck in those failed states when you get sick.

But in any case, you're not refusing the point that income tax has existed for millenia. — Benkei

The Egyptian tax on a farmer's harvest is not the same as modern personal income tax. The farmer did not have to give any information to facilitate the collection of that tax.

Good luck in those failed states when you get sick. — Benkei

Dubai, for example, does not have personal income tax. Why would it be a "failed state"?

Furthermore, I haven't lived in the West since 2005. I have never had to deal with personal income tax ever since.

The West is only an attractive place for people who want to live off welfare benefits. That is the only kind of immigrant that the West attracts. Anybody with any serious level of money is better off elsewhere.



The skid row image above is the future of the West. I'd rather spend my days at the beach in Thailand, Vietnam, and other fantastic locations in SE Asia, in the company of beautiful locals:



Seriously, the West is a despicable environment.

The Egyptian tax on a farmer's harvest is not the same as modern personal income tax. The farmer did not have to give any information to facilitate the collection of that tax. — Tarskian

You're a funny man and obviously have no idea how taxes worked in Egypt. Look it up, because you're miles off. Farmers had to give information about their harvest and livestock.

The three countries you mention have huge issues with modern slavery or human trafficking and are not favoured destination because immigrants travel for handouts but because they tend to flee for safety and economic opportunity. The economic immigrant abusing social benefits is just a racist canard.

Also, nice false analogy showing a picture of poverty and a rich bitch on the beach.

You're a funny man and obviously have no idea how taxes worked in Egypt. — Benkei

We were talking about the taxes at the time of the Pharaohs. They were necessarily simple.

The three countries you mention have huge issues with modern slavery or human trafficking — Benkei

"huge issues", "modern slavery", "human trafficking" ... blah blah ... woke bullshit.

Every country has its problems. That is not a reason to import any of the hated woke nonsense from the West. Seriously, these people don't need this kind of word salads. They are not victims. They do not need your help. They are absolutely fine and there is nothing that they can learn from your propaganda.

I love SE Asia and I hate the West.
That is why I live in SE Asia.
I'd rather die than ever going back.

Also, nice false analogy showing a picture of poverty and a rich bitch on the beach. — Benkei

The locals are generally not rich (though some are) but they are definitely beautiful.

For example, personal income taxation was introduced only in 1913 — Tarskian

In the US, I assume. But for example in @Benkei's country it was introduced earlier. Yet first income tax was introduced in Ancient Egypt and in China and England had it's introduction in 1188 ( each layperson in England and Wales be taxed one tenth of their personal income and moveable property), so the idea isn't actually so new.

Bitcoin is now already legal tender in El Salvador. We are also rapidly making geopolitical progress with the Russian Federation — Tarskian

Thanks for the correction, I forgot El Salvador.

Getting the Russian Federation on our side is a significant breakthrough because now the system is also backed by an arsenal of thousands of nuclear weapons. The next step, is getting China onboard in matters of cryptocurrency. That will be hard, but I suspect that Russia will sooner or later manage to convince them. — Tarskian

:roll: Somehow I would refer to these two countries as being examples of liberalism and respecting the free market.

In this new multipolar world order, it is the cryptocurrencies, especially Bitcoin, that will eventually reign supreme. — Tarskian

Hmm. But who owns the bitcoins? I think the people from the West. A lot more people (as I) prefer gold in the role of preserving value, something far more older than fiat currencies.

Hyperbitcoinization is why Bitcoin maximalists do not care much about the exchange rate or about measuring its value in dollars or in euros, as we seek to destroy the dollar and the euro — Tarskian

The death of the sovereign states is in my view highly exaggerated and basically false. And they (sovereign states) do love their central banks, just as Russia and China do. So perhaps you taking over the World along the other people holding the 19+ million Bitcoins is a bit of an exaggeration too.

In fact when the fiat system collapses, it won't be such a catastrophic event that society collapses. Not at all! It something similar to let's so the COVID pandemic. Something before can be describe as really scare, yet something that in the end just ....sucks.

How many actually think of the last time the US dollar defaulted as a default? I was just a baby, so I don't remember it. But many will argue that the US dollar has never defaulted. Oh no, Nixon just disregarded the useless ancient relic of a metal.

We were talking about the taxes at the time of the Pharaohs. They were necessarily simple. — Tarskian

So am I.

Somehow I would refer to these two countries as being examples of liberalism and respecting the free market. — ssu

I cannot comment on "liberalism" because that term has no precise definition.

But who owns the bitcoins? I think the people from the West. — ssu

The people who mine them or somehow buy them. It is the same question as "who owns all the gold?". Same answer.

The death of the sovereign states is in my view highly exaggerated and basically false. — ssu

I do not believe in the death of the sovereign states. I only believe in the death of the dollar (and the euro). That is the ultimate goal of hyperbitcoinization. We want to destroy that shit. I do not even believe in the death of all fiat currencies. I don't care about that because they do not represent an oppressive system of sanctions, confiscations, expropriations, and financial censorship. The dollar system has to die because we are seeking to kill it.

And they (sovereign states) do love their central banks, just as Russia and China do. — ssu

Yes, for all I care, let them keep their Ruble and Yuan, if they so desire. They do not try to dominate the world with their local paper fiat scrip.

In fact when the fiat system collapses, it won't be such a catastrophic event that society collapses. — ssu

Agreed. The fiat system has already collapsed in Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Lebanon, Argentina,Turkey, and countless other countries. It is a temporary annoyance, but anybody with half a brain has figured out how to deal with it.

How many actually think of the last time the US dollar defaulted as a default? — ssu

The dollar cannot "default". How can the dollar even "default"? If they do not have enough dollars, the Fed simply prints some more. The dollar can only hyper-inflate, i.e. become worthless. That is what we want to achieve. That shit has to go, now already.

The people who mine them or somehow buy them. It is the same question as "who owns all the gold?". Same answer. — Tarskian

You ought to think about this a bit more:

Global central banks own about 17 percent of all the gold ever mined, with reserves topping 36,699 metric tons (MT) as of year-end 2023. They acquired the vast majority in the last 14 years after becoming net buyers of the metal in 2010.

The dollar cannot "default". How can the dollar even "default"? If they do not have enough dollars, the Fed simply prints some more. The dollar can only hyper-inflate, i.e. become worthless. That is what we want to achieve. That shit has to go, now already. — Tarskian

You can hold on to the technical fig leaves, but hyperinflation is similar to default, even if the government "respects" it's obligations. And let's remember: if it happens immediately, it's hyperinflation and people understand it. Yet if it just takes a little bit more time, everything is just fine and people don't worry about it.


And why talk about the possibility of hyperinflation as an achievement? You think the US will be better afterwards? And in the end there's many ways the US can do this. The most obvious is just to continue as normal and hope the market's won't revolt.

And why talk about the possibility of hyperinflation as an achievement? You think the US will be better afterwards? And in the end there's many ways the US can do this. — ssu

You see, I do not want KYC (Know Your Customer), because it allows the ruling mafia to target bank accounts based on nationality and other criteria. It allows them to single you out.

KYC is what allows them to expropriate your account balance, prevent incoming and outgoing payments, prevent you to open bank accounts, and wholesale attack you through financial censorship. I want an end to the financial bullying.

The US (and EU) force other countries to implement KYC:

https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/the-fatf/what-we-do.html

Identifying high-risk jurisdictions

The FATF holds countries to account that do not comply with the FATF Standards. If a country repeatedly fails to implement FATF Standards then it can be named a Jurisdiction under Increased Monitoring or a High Risk Jurisdiction. These are often externally referred to as “the grey and black lists”.

If these countries do not implement KYC or not sufficiently, through the FATF, the USA (and EU) starts bullying them by restricting their access to the global financial network. This system needs to be destroyed. We must kill it because the bullying has to stop.

That is why the complete destruction and wholesale eradication of the fiat bankstering system is a global necessity.

The USA will be better afterwards because it will no longer be able to bully other countries. Seriously, no more KYC. This page gives an overview of cryptocurrency-related services that resolutely reject KYC:

https://kycnot.me

https://kycnot.me/about

why kycnot.me?

Cryptocurrencies were created to revolutionize the way we pay for goods and services, aiming to eliminate reliance on centralized entities such as banks and governments that control our economy.

Exchanges that enforce KYC (Know Your Customer) operate similarly to traditional banks.

With KYCNOT.ME, I hope to provide people with trustworthy alternatives for buying, exchanging, trading, and using cryptocurrencies without having to disclose their identity, thus preserving the right to privacy.

The truth is that KYC is a direct attack on our privacy and puts us in disadvantage against the governments. True criminals don't care about KYC policies. True criminals know perfectly how to avoid such policies. In fact, they normally use the FIAT system and don't even need to use cryptocurrencies.

KYC only affects small individuals like you and me. It is an annoying procedure that forces us to hand our personal information to a third party in order to buy, use or unlock our funds. We should start boycotting companies that enforce such practices. We should start using cryptocurrencies as they were intended to be used: without barriers.

I do not want to disclose any personal information that will help the ruling mafia to single me out and bully me. KYC needs to be destroyed completely. That is why the fiat banks must die, now already.