[notahacker]

Crypto doesn't claim to be a telecoms network, it claims to be an asset. If you double the number of people owning stocks, or bond or oil, it doesn't make the stock, bond or oil four times as valuable as before. It simply updates the market value of stock, bond or oil to whatever the new users paid for it - which might even be less than before (whilst the use value of collecting the dividends or coupon payments or burning the oil to individual end users doesn't tend to change much in response to more people using it at all)

And even if we grant a Metcalfe exponential relationship between crypto prices and crypto participants, you're still running into the basic Ponzi scheme problem that if all your value comes from the price appreciation predicated on the number of HODLers growing, it'll hit that ceiling eventually. Which means it isn't a particularly great store of value, compared with something like a stock that generates future income regardless of whether new people enter the stock market or not

[hackingforfun]

Aren't social media networks like Facebook/Meta and Twitter valued higher as an increasing number of users join the network? Or new startups trying to get more users? Do you consider those ponzi schemes? Also, I'm just wondering, do you like tech stocks? And do you think high P/E ratios would be possible if new investors weren't buying those stocks?

Also, if there's not enough Bitcoin ever going to be created for everyone alive even now to own just one (21 million max supply cap), and assuming the interest in it only increases over time, how would a ceiling ever be hit?

[notahacker]

> Anyway aren't social media networks like Facebook/Meta and Twitter valued higher as an increasing number of users join the network? Or new startups trying to get more users? Do you consider those ponzi schemes?

Facebook/Meta and Twitter getting more MAUs means that they sell more ads. Zuck would still be rich if nobody was willing or able to buy FB at all.

But if their only product was FB and TWTR stock, the only thing that stock did was allow you to hold, give or sell it, and the only argument for buying it was an entirely recursive argument that it was a store of value because people will value more in future because more of them will want to buy it because its a store of value and an appeal to Metcalfe's law for the valuation because stock markets are a bit like telecoms networks then yes, they would definitely be Ponzi schemes.

Question makes more sense flipped on his head: if you think everything that looks a little bit like a telecoms network in terms of having lots of participants obeys Metcalfe's law, then why aren't actual Ponzi schemes actually extremely valuable to participate in?

[hackingforfun]

> Question makes more sense flipped on his head: if you think everything that looks a little bit like a telecoms network in terms of having lots of participants obeys Metcalfe's law, then why aren't actual Ponzi schemes actually extremely valuable to participate in?

Yeah, good point there. I think the thing with a Ponzi scheme, the way I see it, is that I can't transfer a share of that Ponzi scheme across the world, 24/7. I could only hold it, and if it is a Ponzi scheme, it would eventually collapse. I do see value in the monetary transfer aspect to crypto as well, so that's part of it, and I personally don't think crypto will collapse, at least not Bitcoin, Ethereum, and probably several of the other major ones. The rest, I have no idea, and maybe some of those other altcoins could be considered Ponzi schemes. Definitely some of the altcoins are pump and dump schemes, if not Ponzis, and definitely some altcoins will collapse. I just don't think applying Ponzi scheme to the entire crypto ecosystem is fair.

Also, sorry, I edited the comment you responded to, so it changed a bit. I do wonder what you think about the ceiling I mentioned, in regards to that there's only 21 million Bitcoin ever going to be created, and that's not enough for everyone in the world to have even one full Bitcoin. If interest grows, and population continues to grow, then how would a ceiling ever be hit? I don't see that as a Ponzi scheme, I see that as interest in a scarce asset, that you can't make more of, while we are in an inflationary period, with governments printing money all around the world. Just wondering if you have any thoughts on that.

The way I'm thinking about it is that some people may want to hold Bitcoin forever, and just loan it out, to put it to use, while also having a deflationary asset in their portfolio.

[notahacker]

Shares in Ponzis are often easily transferable, as are penny stocks pumped by email spam and all the tokens and altcoins you mention that were created in obvious bad faith. Many of them have considerably fewer than 21 million in circulation too, and none of them claim to be worth as much as a Bitcoin. It doesn't make them good investments.

"If interest grows" is the big if and "price go up" is a very, very bad reason for interest in one particular coin to continue growing indefinitely when faced with all the alternative ways for people to park their money, from technically superior coins to investments they can actually live in (some available for less than a cryptographic string!) or stuff that pays actual dividends and gives you legal claim to actual real world assets. And for all the FUD cryptoenthusiasts like to spread about government money printing, it's the "fiat" world that has all the mechanisms that link money supply growth with market demand and real world activity, ability to shrink the money supply if its growing too fast, and the crypto world where basically the entire supply of coins has been printed in a few years by a small number of people trying to get rich and those coins will continue to exist for as long as the blockchain is maintained whether people want to buy them or not.