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."

24 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 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...
    4. 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...
    5. Re:It's just a get rich quick scheme by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Funny

      They are still here, now posting about Tesla stock.

    6. 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.

  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 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%.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. 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?

  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
  4. 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 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.
  5. 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.

  6. 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?

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.
  11. 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...