While the conclusion that "Doge pumping is a scam" is very likely correct, the sentiment that an adversary can't give an unbiased opinion is also correct. I'd value the opinion of an expert with no skin in the game more.
Alternatively, Kashkari's comments could be given more weight if he were willing to short Doge over a long-ish (~2 year) timeframe. Then he would stand to lose money if Doge held its value for longer than that timeframe (which would indicate that it has more value than he's stating that it has).
It's all about the fact that there's a not insignificant number of people who won't regard his comments at all due to his position. In fact will assume that he's being intentionally harmful due to his position.
Also, how do we measure "skin in the game" with crypto.
Is holding Doge skin in the game? What about crypto in general? What about currency? If the most fantastic promises of crypto come to pass, it'll replace fiat currency. So the success of crypto kind of comes at the expense of fiat. So by holding fiat, we could consider that skin in the game on some level.
>So by holding fiat, we could consider that skin in the game on some level.
Also yes. However, the leader of the fed is, for all intents and purposes, king fiat. There is no person with more interest in maintaining the current system than someone in charge of the fed.
> There is no person with more interest in maintaining the current system than someone in charge of the fed.
Sure there is; Fed Chair is a job, not an investment, and its a job taken by people who are politically well connected and likely to get other jobs, should they want them, based on those connections.
There lots of people who have proportionately more to lose from problems in fiat than the fed chair.