To be fair, I think a lot of the promises that the crypto-scene has been making for the past 6 or 7 years (specifically when smart contracts started to be a thing) have not materialised. Sure, people have gotten rich, but they haven't gotten rich in any other way than because they bought in early and everyone wants in as well. And all this money that has poured in has been, in turn, been used in massive advertisement campaigns to prop up the sector even more.
There is value in being able to "own" your money, I do think. But... the real value of that is when your money can be then used in the real world; traded for a government-issued currency. So that muddles things a bit because government-issued money has regulations in place that are in fact quite valuable for society. Governments are already working on digital currency that will offer most of the benefits that MOST people really want out of a "crypto": low fees, fast transfers, being able to have a wallet in your phone. Other than that, the value that people see in crypto is literally "well i pay 50 dollars now and tomorrow i have 500". That is not sustainable.
To me the biggest argument against crypto is the fact that, if it succeeds in what people want, some of us right now might be rich in 50 years whereas everyone being born in 50 years will already have "missed out". In an economic system? That's horrible. That's already what has happened to many of us with stocks and houses and other assets.
Yeah, I don't know. I still see some other benefits to smart contracts... the idea of distributed ledgers and being able to operate on them does sound good in theory but I'm not sure we really do need such degree of immutability. Any technology that truly decentralizes power is not something that you will ever see on a superbowl commercial.
What kind of criticism is this, it works exactly the same in the stock market. Jeff Bezos doesn't have billions on some bank account either, and if he tried to liquidate his stocks he'd get pennies on the dollar.
The market cap has some relationship (not 1:1 but strongly correlated) to what you’d have to pay to get all that stuff. And if you’d had that stuff you’d be rich. Because those things, together, are intensely valuable and capable of producing cash flow.
By contrast if you bought up 100% of a specific cryptocurrency you’d have nothing. Like absolutely nothing at all.
This is literal. Do a thought experiment and decide what would happen if somehow you suddenly took possession of every single Bitcoin in existence and nobody else could get one without you giving it to them. What, exactly, do you think would happen then?
Meme stocks are quite interesting in that they are essentially like blockchain-driven asset bubbles, but without the blockchain. This has many advantages! It’s quite easy to trade stocks.
Nobody “invests” in literal dollars because they aren’t a productive investment either.
He's right about a lot of stuff, but it doesn't add up to the level of confidence he has that this technology is useless forever.