[gadnuk]

I am not an out and out billionaire hater, but there are many that have legit impacted peoples' lives in a positive way or have provided jobs in the millions. Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Meta, Tesla, Reliance, etc. The amount of wealth they have might not be justified, but comparing them to this crooked list of billionaires is doing disservice to the products that they have put out in society.

But I just can't empathize with the loss of billions of the crypto billionaires, all of them seem to be founders of trading apps. The whole space operates like an MLM. Get in early, shill relentlessly and just turn the other way to the numerous scams in the space.

An example (Binance in this case): https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/fintech-...

It's been over 12 years and the space is still trying to find an answer to a problem that either does not exist or is niche. For Bitcoin:

Failed as a currency

Failed as a store of value

Failed as an investment hedge

Failed as energy or whatever mumbo jumbo some billionaires like Michael Saylor spew out

I for one won't miss it even if it magically vanishes tomorrow

Speaking of which, at least now some Nvidia graphics cards are becoming available very close to MSRP :)

[yieldcrv]

Companies and founders are different, we are talking about the individuals and their ability to have done anything differently. All of the founders of the companies you listed had a choice to avoid doing an action seen as exploitative action their company is also known for. This is exclusive from the positive way that different people's lives were impacted.

Amazon, really? Just CTRL+F the frontpage of HN any day. Today they are sicking police on employees to bust unions.

Microsoft, Google, Meta, Telsa, and ... who?

Is this the argument you really want to have? One of arbitrary relative impact? The one where I point out how Standard Oil employed 100,000 people directly too?

Interesting way of compartmentalizing based on what you chose to respect.

The way to have this argument is to determine if anybody else can collect this much money today starting these businesses - whether as competitors or in the absence of those companies existence. As an example, take Google and Meta: You can't trade the same number of user's data and broker it, legally, because major economic unions prohibit this or have greatly increased the financial liability for doing so. Your overhead costs are higher before convincing Private Equity to package you up and dump your shares on the public market. Find the same for other founders/companies you chose to weigh positively based on unrelated actions.

[Red_Leaves_Flyy]

The companies you listed are only different from the billionaires listed above in branding. These companies corporate social castes are awful institutions and the sooner they are dismantled the better. The damage they’ve done to society is incalculable and if you want to justify the ends by the means you must calculate the damages.

[aaaaaaaaata]

That's more likely to be because ETH is going POS, nothing to do with Bitcoin.

It hasn't failed as any of those things until the price doesn't swing back up to a new high like it has each and every time someone has said what you said.

[antifa]

> billionaire hater

This phrasing seems like a thought terminating cliché intended to prematurely dismiss the plethora of well thought out criticisms of the current state of economic inequality and the wide variety of possible solutions.