Slashdot Mirror
A Cryptocurrency Based On a Dog Meme Is Now Worth Over $1 Billion (vice.com)
Earlier today, the market capitlization of dogecoin, a cryptocurrency based on a meme about a Shiba Inu dog, passed the $1 billion mark for the first time. VICE News reports: Dogecoin was created back in the early days of the cryptocurrency craze. Launched in December 2013 as somewhat of a joke, the meme-inspired coin was dubbed "the internet currency" and designed to promote a sense of community and generosity rather than simply looking to make money. It gained fame during 2014 when it was used to send the Jamaican bobsled team to the Winter Olympics in Sochi and it even sponsored a Nascar team. The currency has been in relative stasis since, and despite no software updates being released in over two years, the cryptocurrency has risen more than 400 percent in the last month -- though one dogecoin is still worth just over 1 cent.
Even Jackson Palmer, one of the founders of the coin, expressed concern about the hyperinflation of dogecoin. "It says a lot about the state of the cryptocurrency space in general that a currency with a dog on it which hasn't released a software update in over 2 years has a $1 billion+ market cap," Jackson told Coindesk.
Even Jackson Palmer, one of the founders of the coin, expressed concern about the hyperinflation of dogecoin. "It says a lot about the state of the cryptocurrency space in general that a currency with a dog on it which hasn't released a software update in over 2 years has a $1 billion+ market cap," Jackson told Coindesk.
1) it's a decentralized database 2) no banker telling you what you can do with your money + no counterparty risk. lookup up fiat money and the central banking scam.
Maybe you should take a look at wage increases vs. inflation for the past 70 years or so.
In the current system, it 'appears' as if your wage is going up, but it is in fact shrinking.
But in a system built on lies... who wants to hear the truth?
You are actually wrong. It is not shrinking. Over the long run it in increasing very slightly. Over the last few decades it has mostly been stagnant. Any (slight) decrease is only in the shorter term. When we are talking about mortgage affordability we are generally talking about 30 year spans.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/se...
But you completely miss the point of my post. Yes inflation adjusted income only changes slightly over time (which is to be expected...cost of all good adjusts to what people are making, otherwise we'd all be living in mansions and driving ferraris). But look at that graphs above and notice the slope of that nominal income line. Now realize that the slope of your nominal mortgage payment over 30 years is zero. Your mortgage payment stays the same every year, while your income grows and grows. Even if that larger income doesn't give you more buying power, it makes your large mortgage debt easier and easier to afford every year.
Now try switching to a deflationary currency. To do that, you just flip the graph upside down. Your real (inflation adjusted) income/buying power stays more or less flat over time, but your nominal income would be sloping down. Buy your mortgage payment would stay flat, and every year get just a little more difficult to afford.
Commodities are physical goods or services that are largely fungible.
So crypto-currencies have everything in your definition except being physical. And the physical part serves no purpose.
(ie, they have no instrinsic value).
The intrinsic value is the ability to exchange value. They have exactly as much intrinsic value as physical currencies.
If you had a negative rate nobody would lend you the money in the first place. I mean really, you come into my bank, and tell me you want to borrow $1,000 at a -2% interest rate so that, in a year, you can pay me back $980? What kind of moron do you take me for?
That's part of the problem with deflationary economies right there; even without a negative rate, people are unlikely to lend you money.
If an economy is inflationary, at 2% that means my $1,000 sitting under my mattress will be worth $980 next year. So if I don't want to lose that $20 it makes sense for me to lend it to you, at say a 3% interest rate, so that I will retain the value of my money and even make a small profit.
With a 2% deflationary economy, on the other hand, the $1,000 sitting under my mattress will be worth $1,020 next year. I don't need to lend it to you, and take the chance that you won't pay me back; I can just leave it sitting there and it will still be worth more the next year. I would have to be a total moron to risk having you run off with it AND also give you a "negative rate" which guarantees that you pay me back less than you borrowed.