Slashdot Mirror


As Value of Cryptocurrencies Falls, a Lot of New and Risk-Taking Investors Are Suffering Immensely (nytimes.com)

After the latest round of big price drops, many cryptocurrencies have given back all of the enormous gains they experienced last winter. The value of all outstanding digital tokens has fallen by about $600 billion, or 75 percent, since the peak in January, according to data from the website coinmarketcap.com. The New York Times: The virtual currency markets have been through booms and busts before -- and recovered to boom again. But this bust could have a more lasting impact on the technology's adoption because of the sheer number of ordinary people who invested in digital tokens over the last year, and who are likely to associate cryptocurrencies with financial ruin for a very long time. [...] By many metrics, more people put money into virtual currencies last fall and winter than in all of the preceding nine or so years. Coinbase, the largest cryptocurrency brokerage in the United States, doubled its number of customers between October and March. The start-up Square began allowing the users of its mobile app, Square Cash, to buy Bitcoin last November.

[...] Kim Hyon-jeong, a 45-year-old teacher and mother of one who lives on the outskirts of Seoul, said she put about 100 million won, or $90,000, into cryptocurrencies last fall. She drew on savings, an insurance policy and a $25,000 loan. Her investments are now down about 90 percent. "I thought that cryptocurrencies would be the one and only breakthrough for ordinary hardworking people like us," she said. "I thought my family and I could escape hardship and live more comfortably, but it turned out to be the other way around."

[...] In the United States, Charles Herman, a 29-year-old small-business owner in Charleston, S.C., became obsessed with virtual currencies in September. He said he now felt that he had wasted 10 months of his life trying to play the markets. While he is essentially back to the $4,000 he put in, he has soured on the revolutionary promises that virtual currency fanatics made for the technology last year and has resumed investing his money in real estate. "I guess I thought we were 'sticking it to the man' when I got on board," Mr. Herman said. "But I think 'the man' had already caught on, and had an exit strategy."

62 of 559 comments (clear)

  1. It's just a get rich quick scheme by magzteel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Those two anecdotes are stories of people hoping to magically get rich quick. The outcome is unsurprising.

    1. Re:It's just a get rich quick scheme by bkmoore · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In the words of Warren Buffett, it's called "the greater fool business model" and it's the belief that a greater fool will come along and pay you more than you paid.

    2. Re: It's just a get rich quick scheme by Thundercat007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It really was, especially with articles that were headlined "we have no idea why it's going up" and "people are mortgaging their homes to get into the act" and "75% of coins are held by like 5 people". Once those articles hit the street, the ponzie scheme was complete. They sold, dumped their coins and walked away probably billionaires

    3. Re:It's just a get rich quick scheme by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      In fewer words:

      Duh.

    4. Re:It's just a get rich quick scheme by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I want to know where the hundreds of people who used to post here about how Bitcoin had no limits, that every last Bitcoin would soon be worth a million bucks went to. They've been embarrassingly silent lately.

      Come back! We want to say "told you so!".

      Seriously, where are they now?

      --
      No sig today...
    5. Re: It's just a get rich quick scheme by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They didn't walk away, exactly. They're still out there, mining, and manipulating the prices to suck in the remaining fools.

      --
      No sig today...
    6. Re:It's just a get rich quick scheme by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Funny

      They are still here, now posting about Tesla stock.

    7. Re: It's just a get rich quick scheme by shaitand · · Score: 2

      Which has nothing to do with the merit or value of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency and everything to do with investors and suckers.

      Those who opposed bitcoin from the start ignored this and instead declared that early investors making money automatically translated into a Ponzi scheme. They are good with Zuckerberg making insane money for his early Facebook investment but somehow it isn't okay for the bitcoin guys to do it because venture capital firms didn't get a piece?

    8. Re:It's just a get rich quick scheme by EvilSS · · Score: 2

      And if the first one invested in the fall of 2017, then it would have worked had she sold at the peak in January. But she bought into the hype and instead of being rational about it she held on and now it's gone.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    9. Re: It's just a get rich quick scheme by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Blockchain isn't an improved version of a hash chain at all. It IS a hash chain. If you want to be generous, it adds some conventions so that a bunch of people can all agree on who gets to write the next node on the chain.

      If you set up a public git account and came up with a system to assign a one time use password to a random registered accounts that they could use to make the next commit, you'd have a blockchain.

    10. Re:It's just a get rich quick scheme by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2

      I am sure they will reappear next time the price goes up a little to tell us all how as 16 year olds they were buying ferraris and dating supermodels.

      That was before they invested in bitcoin. Now they're sacking at Walmart.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    11. Re:It's just a get rich quick scheme by msauve · · Score: 2

      "Hindsight is always 20:20"

      Technically, I think it's 20:-20,

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  2. The headline is missing three words by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It should begin with:

    Surprising Exactly Nobody...

    Well, OK, surprising the poor suckers who bought into this high-tech reinvention of the classic pump-and-dump I guess, but no-one else.

    1. Re:The headline is missing three words by Maestro485 · · Score: 2

      Wait, are you seriously saying Bitcoin is basically the same as the US dollar?

      That's kinda batshit. I'm not sure what angle you're going for with the Federal Reserve comments either.

    2. Re:The headline is missing three words by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How is bitcoin different to gold?

      Gold has a much longer history as a store of value, so it may have a much longer future as well.

      Historically, gold has been a poor investment. A century ago, gold was worth $20 per ounce, which was enough to buy a nice tailored suit. Today, gold is worth $1200 per ounce, which is enough to buy a nice tailored suit. Correcting for inflation, the ROI has been roughly 0%.

    3. Re:The headline is missing three words by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ponzi scheme.

      Bitcoin may be a bad investment, and likely it is, but it is NOT a Ponzi Scheme. If you think it is, you don't understand Bitcoin, you don't understand Ponzi Schemes, or both.

      There are many profound differences, but one obvious difference is that Ponzi Schemes are inherently fraudulent. Bitcoin is not. Investors know exactly what they are buying. All the information is on the table.

      In the Pantheon of con men, no one is on a higher pedestal than Carlo Pietro Giovanni Guglielmo Tebaldo Ponzi. He has no equal among swindlers. Satoshi Nakamoto isn't even in the same class.

    4. Re:The headline is missing three words by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      There's a definite limit to how much gold is on Earth, and it's surprisingly small:

      https://www.bbc.com/news/magaz...

      --
      No sig today...
    5. Re:The headline is missing three words by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A Ponzi scheme is one where returns for early investors are paid out by later investors.

      That is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for a Ponzi Scheme. Ponzi schemes masquerade as legitimate investments, generating dividends. They are frauds. Bitcoin does NOT do this. There are no dividends and EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT. If you own a stake in a Ponzi scheme, you make money from the dividends, and you have no incentive to sell your stake. With Bitcoin, you can ONLY make money by selling to a "greater fool" at a higher price, and EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT.

      Ponzi schemes have a single authority. Bitcoin does not.
      Ponzi schemes are fraudulent, with hidden information. Bitcoin is not, it is transparent.
      Ponzi schemes pay dividends. Bitcoin does not.
      Ponzi schemes do not rely on "greater fools". Bitcoin does.
      Ponzi schemes go up in value, and then suddenly collapse to zero once the truth comes out. Bitcoin is declining slowly, and no "truth" is being hidden.

    6. Re:The headline is missing three words by turbidostato · · Score: 2

      "Gold has a much longer history as a store of value [...] Historically, gold has been a poor investment"

      Which is only good, as that's exactly what we want good money to do: store and represent value, but not creating value on itself.

    7. Re:The headline is missing three words by Mjlner · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How is bitcoin different to gold?

      Gold has a much longer history as a store of value, so it may have a much longer future as well.

      AND gold is actually usable for stuff other than as a currency. People like and buy gold jewelry. Gold also has industrial applications, so there will be a market for it. You will always find a buyer. The usability of bitcoin other than as a currency? Hmm... I just can't think of anything.

      Historically, gold has been a poor investment. A century ago, gold was worth $20 per ounce, which was enough to buy a nice tailored suit. Today, gold is worth $1200 per ounce, which is enough to buy a nice tailored suit. Correcting for inflation, the ROI has been roughly 0%.

      I would not call that a poor investment. I call that a stable saving strategy. Will it make you rich quick? No, but it won't make you poor either.

      --
      Lemon curry???
    8. Re: The headline is missing three words by peragrin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Except I can buy things with a dollar, ruble or euro.

      I can't buy stuff with 99.99% of crypto currency . Companies stopped accepting it, as the value flycated to much,and transaction times took days.

      Banks,credit cards process hundreds of million of transactions a day. Bitcoin could barely do 3 orders of magnitude less.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    9. Re:The headline is missing three words by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, the Federal Reserve is not privately owned. And it's also totally different from a planned economy. Duh.

    10. Re: The headline is missing three words by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You haven't solved the problem of money supply, management of which is what central banks specifically do. The cryptocurrency experience proves that just holding the money supply constant is not a solution, because since the stock of goods that money exchanges for increases with time, a fixed money supply just turns your currency into a hoarded investment, no longer useful as money.

      The value of every fiat currency depends on how well its central bank keeps the money supply in track with the stock of fungible assets in the national economy. Producing slightly too much currency every year, as our Federal Reserve does, is a better approach than any of the cryptocurrencies out there.

    11. Re:The headline is missing three words by Cyberax · · Score: 5, Informative

      Are you sure?

      Yup. The US Federal Reserve System is a stand-alone government entity, like the National Park Service or the IRS. What trips some people is the fact that the Fed uses multiple private banks to perform its duties instead of a single government bank like in most of other countries. This is no different from Pentagon using Boeing or Lockheed to build its planes.

    12. Re:The headline is missing three words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Some observers mistakenly consider the Federal Reserve to be a private entity because the Reserve Banks are organized similarly to private corporations."

      https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm

      That took literally less than 30 seconds to check.

    13. Re:The headline is missing three words by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's a definite limit to how much gold is on Earth, and it's surprisingly small:

      https://www.bbc.com/news/magaz...

      The key is "mineable" gold. There may be only 175 thousand tons that are extractable from land, but there is an estimated 20 million tons in seawater; it's the cost to extract it that makes it uneconomical. If a way could be found to extract it cheaply, gold would follow the same path as aluminum.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    14. Re:The headline is missing three words by MrKaos · · Score: 3, Informative

      Are you sure?

      Yup. The US Federal Reserve System is a stand-alone government entity, like the National Park Service or the IRS.

      I can see where you're confused. I checked the Federal Reserve Act. The Government part is the Board of Governors, the rest is corporate. Otherwise you wouldn't have a "Chairman of the Board". Nor would you have Section under the Federal Reserve Act for appointing a board. I was only trying to point out it was privately owned, which it clearly is, not that it was privately controlled - which it looks like it is according to the act.

      What trips some people is the fact that the Fed uses multiple private banks to perform its duties instead of a single government bank like in most of other countries.

      Well that's the privately owned part I was talking about. The thing that *really* trips me up is Section 4, Part 4 of the Federal Reserve Act

      refers to its organization as a corporation:

      4. General corporate powers

      Upon the filing of such certificate with the Comptroller of the Currency as aforesaid, the said Federal reserve bank shall become a body corporate and as such, and in the name designated in such organization certificate, shall have power--

      First. To adopt and use a corporate seal.

      Second. To have succession after the approval of this Act until dissolved by Act of Congress or until forfeiture of franchise for violation of law.

      Third. To make contracts

      Fourth. To sue and be sued, complain and defend, in any court of law or equity.

      Fifth. To appoint by its board of directors a president, vice presidents, and such officers and employees as are not otherwise provided for in this Act, to define their duties, require bonds for them and fix the penalty thereof, and to dismiss at pleasure such officers or employees.

      It goes on with directors and so on then Section 24 talks about how to qualify shareholders. If it wasn't privately owned, which is true otherwise Section 24 would not exist however I wasn't trying to claim it was a corporation, which now I've had a look at the Act, it clearly is arranged that way, a Chartered Corporation (I think).

      Btw - I already pointed out the List of federal reserve shareholders (The private owners) to Mr AC in case you were interested.

      This is no different from Pentagon using Boeing or Lockheed to build its planes.

      So the government uses the banks to set its monetary policy for the taxpayer. hmmmm, I'm not sure that's such a good idea.

      Perhaps it is time to question your assumptions?

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    15. Re:The headline is missing three words by bws111 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Whole lotta crazy there. The 'board' is a federal agency, appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate.

      Any net income (profit) the banks earn goes directly to the US Treasury, not the 'shareholder' banks.

      There is no such thing as 'the 12 shareholders'. Every bank that is part of the federal reserve system is a shareholder - there are approx 3000 of them.

      I have no idea what you think is in that link you sent that supports your position in any way. Is this one of those things where if you take the third letter of every word it spells out a secret message or something?

    16. Re:The headline is missing three words by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 2

      The reason Free Silver was a thing back in the 19th century was the economy was growing so fast that debtors were getting crushed by deflation. If the economic production of the US increases by 50% while the supply of gold only increases by 10%, then money-is-gold squeezes economic growth.

      There is no particular reason to expect gold to be mined at the "correct" amount in any given decade. Obviously it does not have to precisely match economic growth, but it would be useful if there were any reason to believe these things were tied together on a timescale shorter than centuries.

    17. Re: The headline is missing three words by bws111 · · Score: 2

      You are making a serious mistake. You are confusing a technology with a particular product that uses that technology. Cryptocurrency (blockchain) is the technology, Bitcoin is a product that uses the technology.

      While there may be very good reasons to think that in 10, 20, or 30 years cryptocurrency will be in widespread use, there is ZERO reason to believe that Bitcoin will be the particular cryptocurrency in widespread use.

      'We' have not decided that BTC has any value. 'We' may have decided that cryptocurrency has some value. Big difference.

      How many car manufacturers at the turn of the 20th century survived long enough to see the widespread adoption of cars? How many internet companies at the start of the internet boom survived? How many PC companies at the start of the PC era survived to see widespead adoption?

  3. But wait! by msauve · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Have you heard about investing in tulip bulbs?

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:But wait! by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      Hah. Forget tulips. I heard that someone had a bridge in Genoa.

      Better hurry. There was a big price drop and the bridge is half off. It won't last long.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  4. High potential returns means high risk by misnohmer · · Score: 2

    Whether stock market or a casino, gambling is taking high risks so nobody should be surprised if they lose their shirt. If you buy into something that returns significantly more than what you can borrow money at, of course it's high risk (or else the bank lending you money would buy those same investments instead of lending you money).

  5. Stupidity is supposed to be painful by asackett · · Score: 5, Informative

    I kinda hate jumping onto the bandwagon, but investing in anything on the basis of "someone dumber than me will buy it for more than I paid" always leads to the greatest number of people learning the hard way that they're the dumber someones.

    Tuition can be wickedly expensive in the school of hard knocks.

    --

    Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.

    1. Re: Stupidity is supposed to be painful by houghi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are aware that is how the stockmarkets work, right? And I do mean the stock market, not shares themselves.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re: Stupidity is supposed to be painful by swillden · · Score: 4, Informative

      but investing in anything on the basis of "someone dumber than me will buy it for more than I paid" always leads to the greatest number of people learning the hard way that they're the dumber someones.

      You are aware that is how the stockmarkets work, right?

      No, it is not.

      When you invest in stocks, you're buying a share of a (hopefully) productive company which is making and selling stuff, contributing to the economy and thereby generating profits for you. Some of those companies distribute your share of those profits in the form of dividends, others plow the profits into growth or stock repurchase plans, increasing the value of the shares you hold. Either way, you're buying a chunk of an enterprise you expect to be productive and therefore give you a positive return.

      Sure, stock markets have ups and downs, sometimes running values above their realistic levels, and then correcting back downward, but over time and over a broad enough portfolio of stocks, you can absolutely expect positive returns on your investment. Not because you can sell to people dumber than you, but because you're buying pieces of real, productive enterprises that generate real value.

      Cryptocurrencies are not the same. To the extent that cryptocurrencies are currencies, they're like "investing" in any other currency -- speculating on the relative strengths of different segments of the overall economy, which are wildly unpredictable and provide no engine of long-term predictable gains like that of healthy companies. Trading in "real" currencies takes two forms: arbitrage which attempts to profit from short-term changes and serves to provide liquidity for currency exchanges while smoothing out spurious differences, and hedging, which helps to limit the effects of currency swings on companies that trade in multiple currencies. No on "invests" in currencies by buying and holding (well, other than central banks, which do it for reasons other than generating profits), because there's no reason to believe that will work.

      The reason people have "invested" in cryptocurrencies is because they have not been behaving like currencies. But there's also no real growth engine behind them beyond pure speculation: buying on the basis that "someone dumber than me will buy it for more than I paid". There was one reason to expect the continual increase in cryptocurrency values: the fact that most of them (especially BTC) have a hard upper limit on the number of coins that can be created. But the problem with that "hard upper limit" is that there is no limit on the number of cryptocurrencies that can be created. Not only that, but they don't actually work well as currencies, for numerous reasons.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  6. No, but look at the benefits by Trogre · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's not all bad.

    All these crypto-miners have fostered better GPUs, and have driven demand for more generating capacity in the power grid. And now that it's over, the rest of us can use these for useful purposes.

    So thank you, early adopters. Sorry that the inevitable happened to your wasted energy.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:No, but look at the benefits by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      and have driven demand for more generating capacity in the power grid.

      Yes by consuming the same energy as the industry, commercial and residential activities of a nation with 18million people at a time where emisisons and energy waste is considered critical, all the while bolstering the startup of decommissioned dirty power while the world is being screwed.

      This planet is fucked. I just hope Elon builds the rocket in time.

  7. Ordinary, hard working? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "I thought that cryptocurrencies would be the one and only breakthrough for ordinary hardworking people like us,"

    And yet you were throwing debt at what was essentially a "get rich quick" scheme? That's not ordinary nor hardworking, that's just idiocy.

    1. Re:Ordinary, hard working? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      With maybe the difference that gold, platinum, silver and the rest of the non-ferrous metals actually do have a value due to them actually having some useful application.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Ordinary, hard working? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, know what you're doing instead of jumping a bandwagon you don't even remotely understand the mechanics behind.

      I want to get rich like a CEO, so I go and create a business without knowing the first thing about running one. Then, after the inevitable crash, I come crying why I can't use the markets to my advantage like Musk and Bezos and that the bad ruling class wants to keep me down and it totally isn't my fault.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Ordinary, hard working? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      You're still punching down. How is it that people like you went from practically worshipping the working class to outright despising them? What happened? For the workers, remember?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  8. I am curious... by PseudoThink · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How does the currently bearish press resemble (or not) that after the previous Bitcoin bubble, or the one before that? Also, to those who enjoy citing tulip mania, how many bubbles did tulip mania go through before it crashed, and what as the approximate peak market cap of each bubble?

    1. Re:I am curious... by smi.james.th · · Score: 2

      Some analyses of the size of the bubble have been performed:

      https://www.moneyweb.co.za/news-fast-news/bitcoin-the-biggest-bubble-in-history-is-popping/

      I'm not aware of any comparisons of the nature of the press surrounding it though. That is quite an interesting question.

      --
      One thing I know, and that is that I am ignorant...
  9. Bitcoin has real problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Transaction times and transaction fees are awful and not at all competitive with credit (let alone cash), and there is no clear way to address either problem. In fact, it looks like both problems will only get worse as bitcoin becomes more popular. Until both problems are solved, bitcoin is worthless as a currency because it can't be used like other currencies can.

    1. Re: Bitcoin has real problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      This just is not true at all. You can send without a fee, in which case your transaction will never be processed. Therefore actually, you can't. Here in NZ, I can transfer between banks essentially instantly and it costs nothing. I'm not sure how Bitcoin is cheaper or faster.

    2. Re: Bitcoin has real problems. by gweihir · · Score: 2

      Interbank-transfers are actually massively cheaper than bitcoin transfers and have assured low execution times. For example, a SEPA transfer of unlimited (!) volume costs around 25 cent for the end-customer.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  10. I have seen too many of those patterns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    in the last 47 years of my life. It always comes down to this. once the mass media hype starts and ordinary people are dragged into the next financial get rich quick scheme in the masses, it is better to get out if you are into something.
    The pattern is usually that you get lots of press reports, that you should invest, that this thing is a totally new economy which works differently, that you are stupid if you do not invest. Once those reports crawl up, you can expect a crash between the next three months and a year.
    I have seen this with the dot bomb bust, with the housing bubble etc... and the patterns 1929 were exactly the same, when Kennedy went out of the stock market 1928 because he got stock advices from people working on the street.
    Also the bomb cycle always is the same, it starts to go down, the financial press and others are screaming hold... then it recovers slightly everyone is yelling it just was a hickup and then it goes down again everyone screams you have to hold and then over and over again with a few upwards pumps along the road. The people screaming hold, usually are the ones connected to the big investors selling big time to get out while everyone thinks they can recover.

  11. Woot! Cheap GPUs again by Ranger · · Score: 2

    Well, more reasonable prices anyway. I built my first PC from scratch last year, rather assembled. When I shopped for graphics cards I could not find what I wanted at a decent price thanks to the cryptocurrency miners. I ended up after much searching online buying a decent next lower tier graphics card at a good price. The card wasn't what I wanted but good enough.

    At the rate the miners were going they were actually putting out as much carbon dioxide as a small country, not good. Let's hope for our sakes that crypto currencies won't created another bubble for our wallet's sake and our environment's.

    --
    "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
  12. bubble by matushorvath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Whenever taxi drivers start giving you investment tips, it's a bubble.

  13. "The Man" was selling in February by ayesnymous · · Score: 2

    Coincidentally that was when Wall Street approved and began Bitcoin futures trading.

  14. Re:My heart by VMaN · · Score: 2

    ooooh, is this one of those facebooky "please ask me about what I'm referring to"?

  15. I was right. by devslash0 · · Score: 2

    I owned a considerable amount of bitcoins which I had mined a few years before. When the price jumped to $19 000 in December 2017, I judged that this speculative madness couldn't continue any longer and decided to turn my BTC into cash. Turns out I was right.

  16. It's not immesurable by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unless you're shorting, the maximum you can lose is your initial investment. Which makes investing a dirt-simple risk proposition, since you automatically know before you invest your money exactly what's the maximum you could lose (all of it). So the amount these people have lost and are suffering is precisely measurable, and was precisely measurable before they ever invested.

    If you borrow money to invest (loans or leveraging), or short stocks (where the maximum gain is the value of the stock, while the maximum loss is potentially infinite - the inverse of buying stock) without understanding the risks involved, it's your own fault.

    I've bailed out friends and family members with loans - basically invested in them. But it's never affected me financially if they don't pay me back because I made each loan assuming they wouldn't pay me back and I would take a 100% loss. If they do end up paying me back, that's a bonus.

    1. Re:It's not immesurable by AvitarX · · Score: 2

      If you lend someone $250 and they start avoiding you to pay you back, it was money well spent.

      My grandfather used to say that.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  17. This just in by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    People joining pyramid game late are taking heavy losses while those at the top cash out.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  18. I got out at the top by captbollocks · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What really scared me was the number of people that were throwing big money in at the top. Some of these people were very smart people and they basically dropped $30-50k.

    They don't talk about Bitcoin so much anymore, and I don't ask.

    1. Re:I got out at the top by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 3, Interesting


      FOMO'ing and buying the top is something that happens in all markets. It is false to say this is because bitcoin is a scam and all that usual FUD.

      The problem is not crypto. It's people. The same trading errors they make in FX or stocks are repeated in crypto.

      Trading is not hard logically. It is challenging emotionally. Most people are afraid to buy when the price is low "what if it goes to 0??" and they then fear they won't "make a killing" as the price increases. With money on the line they fail to make good decisions based on compelling risk/reward calculations.

      They can be really smart but if they never traded before, never had skin in the game then they're just noobs. Noobs do noob things and when there's money on the line they lose it.

      Why people cannot bring themselves to paper trade for a year or so is beyond me. You do not need to lose money. Write $100k on a piece of paper. Risk no more than $2k loss on any one trade. Write your trades down, calculate fees. Write entries & exits. See if over a period of 1 year you can keep your $100k - most people cannot.

      What makes people think they can just sink $50k into something at random, no really knowing what it is they are buying, if the market is trending and expect to make large gains in a short period of time is simply beyond me.

      Trading is about taking other people's money. It's not nice and it's not fair. No one forced anyone to play the game.

      To address your post directly; it's not scary, it's one of the signs it's time to cash out and this ALWAYS happens when a market turns parabolic. That steep rising curve that looks like a sheer cliff drop...too many people that don't know what they are doing buy there.

      They will talk about bitcoin soon enough...when the next bull cycle starts.

      --
      A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
  19. Re: Interestingly, taxation shifted stocks to GFT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Greater Fool has been in practice long before the stock market and has been part of the stock market from its very beginning. It's your idiotic "it's the government's fault" thinking that leads to so many making the most basic investment mistakes like the two noted (all eggs in one basket).

    Just to set the record straight, taxes in the US are geared toward long term investing and savings for retirement. It would be nice if it was also geared toward saving for higher education & primary residence ownership, but those parts have been all messed up for a while thanks to both parties.

  20. Re:The bird may have flown... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No. People selling at 20k is smart. Greed is people buying at 20k.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  21. Risk not understood. by stooo · · Score: 2

    Risk-Taking Investors take risks. News at 11.

    --
    aaaaaaa
  22. Re: Interestingly, taxation shifted stocks to GFT by jonesy16 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, short term capital gains and unqualified dividends are taxed at ordinary income rates. Long term capital gains (stocks held longer than 1 year) and qualified dividends (stocks held for more than 60 days in a 121 day window around the dividend distribution) are taxed at preferential rates, as low as 0% depending on your income bracket but at 15% for a good portion of the population.

    https://finance.yahoo.com/news...