[woodruffw]

Sure. Let me rephrase: being taken seriously requires you to explain &c. This is a public forum; nobody particularly likes it when someone says "this is so" and doesn't offer an intelligible explanation.

With enough incentives (including a large pool of greater fools), you can convince otherwise reasonable parties to use your scheme. But that doesn't make it a financial scheme; that makes it a financialized scam.

[betwixthewires]

I take it seriously. You don't.

That's the thing about this stuff: it's voluntary. That's the point the above commenters are trying to make. We don't need a consensus of you all to do what we want, and if you don't want to be involved, don't.

[woodruffw]

I take it seriously enough; I have a civic interest in harm reduction in this area.

“Voluntary” cuts it when you’re talking amongst yourselves, but again: this is a public forum, not one specially for your interests. I get to voice common sense objections; that’s the point of this place.

[betwixthewires]

Sure you get a voice. We can have a discussion.

But the point being made above is that we need someone's respect, someone's consensus, someone's approval to do what we are doing. And to that I say if you don't like what we are doing don't get involved.

[woodruffw]

> We can have a discussion.

That's all this has ever been!

> And to that I say if you don't like what we are doing don't get involved.

This, of course, only holds as far as cryptocurrencies remain a non-risk to most "main street" investors. But they're creeping towards that group (as the next biggest free pool of capital), and I have a civic interest in those people not losing their shirts.

No man is an island, &c.