Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by cletus 1666 days ago
Crypto is increasingly looking like a Ponzi scheme to me. I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion on HN but it's no less true.

The fact is that blockchain solves a problem for almost nobody. The primary use seems to be to avoid real or threatened government intervention. These uses are largely illegal, by definition (eg bypassing capital controls in China). Now you can argue the morality of such laws but that's irrelevant.

Cyrptos have wildly failed as a "currency". Even so-called "stablecoins" just peg themselves directly or indirectly to fiat currencies so they're really just adding another point-of-failure. We should be calling them "cryptoassets" not "cryptocurrencies".

As for escaping government seizures and the like, try telling that to Ross Ulbricht [1]. This year, China started to crack down on crypto mining [2].

The "security" of crypto is a myth. They can and have forked and have well-known weaknesses (eg 51% attack). I can't help but think of this [3] wrt security.

Proof-of-work wastes a ton of energy for basically nothing and, just like China, countries will increasingly clamp down on this, especially as voters increasingly face rising energy costs.

Proof-of-stake is basically a fantasy of how we'll solve PoW problems with a lot of hand-waving. It having not happened yet is pretty good evidence of this being a fantasy.

All it really takes is for action by the US and/or EU to say something like "financial institutions who trade in cryptos lose access to the banking system" and the market implodes. Sure the government can't stop you adding more transactions to the blockchain but for what? If no one can take your "currency" what value does it have?

Weirdly, crypto has seen the resurgence of gold bugs who have long held an irrational hatred for fiat currencies, completely with false claims in some cases (eg the US dollar was never 100% backed by gold, ever).

Things like reversible transactions and the ability to print money are actually a feature not a negative as they're often portrayed.

And even if you get past all this, you want users to securely manage a wallet when failure to do so means they could be irreversibly be robbed of their balance?

Governments are slow to react and they tend to only react to things that become viewed as a threat. Crypto is so niche it's not a threat. But that doesn't mean the US government couldn't fatally wound the crypto market tomorrow if it chose to.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Ulbricht

[2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/24/business/china-cryptocurr....

[3]: https://xkcd.com/538/

7 comments

This is really a popular opinion on HN. It is kind of self evident too.

Defi, NFT, Crypto all have Ponzi features. The people who win are early investors and the ones who lose are those who are late to the game. So, we invent "new" schemes like NFT, Defi etc.

There is no product. Nobody uses Defi to "borrow". 99.999% of the people want to put their crypto in and magically get some crazy XY.ABC% APR on their crypto. Everything runs on greater fool theory.

When the bear market hits there will be a lot of bag holders wondering why the hell they paid $10k on a monkey pic with sunglasses and a cigar.

During the euphoria phase people act like they are misunderstood geniuses and people who rightly call this a ponzi scam are those who don't get "it"!

>Nobody uses Defi to "borrow".

I mostly "use" crypto to keep USDC in DeFi sites like Aave for ~3-10% APY and some on Gemini for a FDIC insured 8% APY. This money primarily gets lent out for other people margin trading, but you don't really need to take on any of that risk for yourself.

The rest of your post is a very standard HN response to crypto, to the point where I'm not even sure if you wrote it or copied it.

I just want to respond to this:

>Proof-of-stake is basically a fantasy of how we'll solve PoW problems with a lot of hand-waving. It having not happened yet is pretty good evidence of this being a fantasy.

PoS is bog standard for new chains. Every "up and coming" chain is essentially a clone of Ethereum with some scalability improvements and proof-of-stake for consensus. See: Harmony, Luna, Avalanche, &c

Unpopular? What you've written is a summary of the orthodoxy on HN.
When people say it’s an “unpopular opinion” it’s really a dog whistle for supporters to come out and agree.
>Proof-of-stake is basically a fantasy [...] hand-waving. It having not happened yet is pretty good evidence of this being a fantasy.

This couldn't be further from reality. Blackcoin (2014), Peercoin, Decred, etc...

Eth 2.0 is running, right now, with billions in value. The whole of Eth is planned to move to 100% PoS quarter 1 of 2022.

> The whole of Eth is planned to move to 100% PoS Quarter 1 of 2022

I have heard this so so many times. ETH moving to PoS fully in X months. I'll believe it when it happens.

And I'm glad they plan on making it happen cause there way too many things harming the environment already. A major cryptocurrency reducing their environmental impact is welcomed.

If you follow the Ethereum core developers on Twitter you can track the progress. Current status is (1) people have locked ~$30-40B worth of Ethereum into the proof of stake chain, money which can't be retrieved until the merge (2) the Ethereum team has a merged testnet running on which all the different client developer teams are participating. They're just hunting for edge case bugs now, too much money at stake to have anything go wrong with the merge.
This is a part of crypto I do not fully grasp. How much power do the developers vs the miners have over the direction of the project?

What happens if the devs go crazy and decide to eg. Ban transactions smaller than $1M worth of coins in code.

Someone made the point the other day that miners might not fancy this PoS change because they’re heavily invested in equipment.

The miners have the actual power, but want to avoid a situation where they are directly fighting against Buterin and the developers, because that would cause a crisis and tank the value of ETH and hence their income going forward. A hard fork in this situation (developers update protocol with POS, miners keep using existing version) would start with the miners having the biggest chain by far, but the new POS chain would be followed by a large part of non-miners immediately, and grow from there over time, eventually becoming the largest chain.

So miners have to make a cost-benefit analysis as to how much control they can exercise while not causing a hard fork as well as what the consequences of causing a hard fork would be. Likely right now they're using accrued coins to prime their stake in PoS rather than directly working against it - delay helps them here.

Miners already put up a fuss over some of preparatory changes for PoS and definitely don't like having to give up mining. They're free to run a parallel Ethereum chain of their own (which has already happened, most prominently with Ethereum Classic - $ETC). Everyone will have parallel balances on both chains from the point of departure. The cultural weight is with the developers however and all of the popular apps will use the proof of stake chain instead of whatever forks emerge from grumpy miners.
But doesn’t this power dynamic - the fact that there is a miners committee somehow talking to a devs committee -beat the purpose of decentralization (no single decision-maker)?

Won’t this become politicized eventually and we’ll end up with a Central Bank-like structure? Imagine some elected dev going on CNBC to tell us they need to mint more coins.

Miners have some power in PoW chains. If a chain wants to move to PoS, miners have zero power. Ethereum's "The Merge" plan is a great example. EIP-1559 was meant to reduce miners' profits, and miners was not happy about the prospect. They've attempted to organize to demonstrate that they also have something to say in the discussion. Buterin has come out with a blogpost detailing how the chain can move to PoS way sooner than initially planned. Plan involves ways of making sure that miners can't do nothing to prevent the transition.
This is no different from PHP, Python, C++, Linux, etc.

There are many checks and balances to all successful open-source projects.

And when that fails you can always fork it.

Avalanche is using the Avalanche consensus ( https://docs.avax.network/learn/platform-overview/avalanche-... ) and is decentrally processing a huge volume of transactions in a scalable and fast fashion.

The more than 1000 validator nodes require a proof of stake.

Another thing is the more people will use crypto the more they will actually want it to be regulated. The more money there is more guarantees will holders want. And it will slowly turn into the same currencies we now have - centralized, regulated, traceable, stable. What an irony for crypto fans
Not unpopular. Programmers who can understand the underlying technology and look beyond the lofty ideological BS of blockchain will immediately know, this will not work in real world scenarios.

I tried to find any company who was using blockchain in any meaningful way. I couldn't find any. All I could find was promotional pieces mentioning what COULD BE DONE with blockchain or a trial that some big name company was CONSIDERING. No updates on the results of those trials or if anyone actually carried out the trial.

Proof-of-worrk blockchain is such a terrible, wasteful and bad concept that anyone who has ever worked with any database would know it's not even close o being useful.

How is fiat money not a ponzi scheme?