[aje403]

I think when he said " real-world value created through actual investments " - the underlying idea behind an investment is that you provide capital to someone who is trying to build a business that will hypothetically provide jobs and value to society. Putting money into something and taking more money out is a bastardization of the term in that interpretation. That is simply not the case here - this has simply been a mass wealth re-distribution event. People are basically printing and trading pokemon cards at this point.

[AznHisoka]

Providing capital to someone only occurs in the IPO stage.

The stock market is a secondary market with people trading stocks, not providing capital.

[aje403]

Several different points and comparisons here.

Providing capital to someone does not only occur in the IPO stage. I'm not even sure how to go about refuting that statement; that's... not how finance works anywhere on the planet.

People do trade stocks with the expectation of stocks rising or falling in varying periods. People also hold stocks for long terms and then sell them afterwards. Just like cryptocurrencies!

However - it's just not the same. A share in a company has evolved and subjected to regulation for hundreds of years. An IPO is a highly regulated legal process involving investment banks and many lawyers (and that is how it should be - so that we don't have con artists running ICOs). It is sold by a company that generally provides jobs and services to society. It represents an actual piece of ownership in that company - if you have enough shares, you impact how that company is run. There are many other points I could make differentiating the two comparisons entirely.

[AznHisoka]

First, let's ignore cryptos because I'm talking about IPO's only (albeit the thread is about cryptos)

"Providing capital to someone does not only occur in the IPO stage. I'm not even sure how to go about refuting that statement; that's... not how finance works anywhere on the planet."

First, I provided that statement in the context of the parent comment. In the equities market, providing capital occurs only in IPOs, not in the secondary market. When you buy Apple stock, you typically are exchanging money with another person who is selling it. You are not providing capital to Apple.

Second, you could've gone about refuting my statement by providing a counter-example. It's that easy. Otherwise you're simply just trying to put me down, and make me look like an idiot, without explaining why.

[aje403]

...What do IPOs have to do with parent argument?

Yes, Apple is not receiving any money if there is a share transaction between two investors (duh?). However, providing capital to public companies or does not only occur in IPOs (edit: even if we restrict that with the clause: in an "equities market").

You're right, I could have provided a counter argument. However, at the same time, you should not make such an absurd, unqualified assertion that other people who lack knowledge and are reading these forums may read and assume to be true.

[AznHisoka]

anything that a person says that he believes to be right (even if mistaken and honestly ignorant) sounds absurd to the person who knows more.

so why not provide an actual counterexample that actually adds value? You still have a chance.