[spiralx]

This is basically asking "Is investment the same as monetary policy?" to which the answer is obviously no, they're different concepts entirely, and the overlap of crypto investors and the FED and retail banking sector is minute at best.

Anyway, crypto being a zero-sum system (ignoring network costs for simplicity) means the $2T crypto loss would be a $2T crypto gain elsewhere, so no value has changed in the end, there are still the same number of coins out there after all even if the owners of some have changed.

And the $2T figure is based on the nonsense "market cap" metric that has almost no relationship to the actual amount of real world currency that was spent on the crypto it refers to. The BTC "market cap" of $335bn today assumes each one of the 19.3 million BTC mined so far is worth $17.2k, but that doesn't mean each coin was purchased for $17.2k of USD or mined at that cost, after all there were nearly 4 million coins mined by the time BTC had a USD value at all, and another 7 million coins were mined before BTC hit $100, and so the real money spent is far less than £335bn.

[hgsgm]

> the $2T crypto loss would be a $2T crypto gain elsewhere,

> And the $2T figure is based on the nonsense "market cap" metric that has almost no relationship to the actual amount of real world currency

It's impossible for both these statements to be true.

[spiralx]

> the "$2T" crypto loss would be a "$2T" crypto gain elsewhere

Is that better? Not sure why that was confusing you though, what about this?

> the crypto losses are crypto gains elsewhere