[jimkleiber]

Can't you also have a situation where value is a lost and there is a net loss in wealth?

I think it's mostly about how predictable the risk is. In a casino, the odds are stated and known. In stocks, (in the US) companies are supposed to file statements with the SEC to honestly report the risks to their best extent. With crypto, no one seems to have to report any risk evaluation.

I guess the other difference is that in casinos, the bet typically goes to zero faster than with stocks and sometimes crypto, as it seems rare that those will zero out, so people may not lose 100% of a bet but sure can lose 99%.

But I agree with OP, that it mostly depends on whether someone likes it whether they see it as gambling, less so in actual definitions of what gambling is.

[tharne]

> Can't you also have a situation where value is a lost and there is a net loss in wealth?

For sure. If you had invested in Japanese stock market at its peak in 1989, you'd still be down more than 30 years later.

[djbebs]

That's not the same thing as value being destroyed.

Indeed, Japanese companies have on the whole been profitable throughout that time and have passed on some of those profits to their owners, so value has been created.

The stock market bubble bursting didn't destroy value, it simply revealed that some investors overpaid

[jimkleiber]

If a company pays no dividends and its stock goes to zero, it's a complete loss. Not sure if there's any value created. If a company takes investment money and never sells a product and then runs out of money, I suppose you could argue maybe value is created for others in the spending of that investor money, but that argument may apply for casinos as well.

But maybe I'm missing the point you're trying to make.