The Great Crypto Scam
- Thread starter lwlee
- Start date
I do understand
you're exhibiting cope and on tilt... Anyway.... Happy New Year!
It's ok, within reason.
I'm also laughing at millennials who bought miners all the way back to 2020 like an idiot when I mentioned exactly what would happen after the Merge. No one believed me.
Guess what? The Merge happened, and now miners & their gullible investors are broke, suddenly they believe.
Funny how quick that happened!And then all the other gullible idiots who aped into FTT, Solana, and SafeMoon... None of them understood what a MOAT was. Apparently, MOATs don't matter anymore, just like earnings weren't a thing anymore with Nasdaq stocks.
You know who I am laughing at the most though? The bears who foolishly missed buying BTC for a dollar, or Ethereum for $20... But now continue to preach their one-decade-soon-I'll-be-right prophecy on blue-chip cryptos going to zero.
This guy must have made a fortune shorting crypto recently...YOU POOR BLIND B*STARD!!
I GIVE YOU A LIST OF THE INDUSTRY LEADERS WHO TURNED OUT TO BE PONZI SCAMMERS AND YOU CHOOSE TO CLOSE YOUR EYES AND EARS!! THOSE CRYPTO BROS OWNED YOUR HOPES AND ASPIRATIONS!!! THEN THEY CRUSHED YOU!
Shorting crypto is one of the highest risks I can think of. The only person who has pulled this off successfully that I know of, was Alameda after they shorted Terra and then hit them with massive orders to purposely de-peg it and force the death-spiral.
But even then, notice how quickly Alameda blew up after attempting the same move with shorts on Tether?
Had that attempt been successful, things would have been far worse than just a few billion dollars in the hole. Either way, seems everyone hates SBF forever now for good reason.... except maybe O'Leary, but he's an Irishman you know. I guess that means something... I don't know what.
But even then, notice how quickly Alameda blew up after attempting the same move with shorts on Tether?
Had that attempt been successful, things would have been far worse than just a few billion dollars in the hole. Either way, seems everyone hates SBF forever now for good reason.... except maybe O'Leary, but he's an Irishman you know. I guess that means something... I don't know what.
I think O'Leary acknowledges his genius in general mainly.
Most businessmen with some failures under their belt,see only the person and not the most recent bust.
Flew too close to the sun is apt for SBF.Far too close! hahaha
Did you buy Tesla at $5 or Facebook at $30? You fool.... You don't need a ponzi when there are stocks available.
Also the number of people who bought back then AND held through 5 meltdowns and 3-4 exchange collapses are probably less than 20.* So get the fuck out of here with your stupid reasoning...
* Most likely none of those 20 cashed out close to the top meaning that they lost 2/3rd of their holdings in a year
Last edited:
To explain staking and IOUs, like BETH: (or Ponzi 101)
"So imagine there's this bank that offers interest on savings accounts that scales a lot depending on how much is in the account. A fund manager might have the brilliant idea that if they can get a whole bunch of people to pool hundreds of millions of dollars into one savings account, then everyone can share the returns on the best rate possible. They take a small cut in management fees, but they're managing so much they're still making tons of money. It's a win/win.
However, this bank, while legitimate, has a problem. Their vault door is stuck, and it's going to take months if not years to get it open so savings depositors can get their money out from there. In the meantime they're just sliding dollars under the vault door and keeping track of who deposited what, but it's all one way. Still, interest is getting paid out, and people trust that things will be fine eventually once they get the door open and people can withdraw their deposits.
In the meantime, the fund manager is handing out "vaultbucks" IOUs for everyone who sends him funds to stick in the savings account, which he's willing to convert back to dollars at 96 cents per vaultbuck. One vaultbuck entitles you to one dollar in the vault from the fund manager once it's open, but it's not open now, so the inconvenience of holding vaultbucks means it's worth a little less that the dollar amount it represents. Still, you can cash out now if you want. If you held long enough you're getting more than 4% so you're still making money, and if you keep holding until the vault door opens, that 4% fee disappears entirely so you're making even more money. Things are great.
Except... where is that fund manger getting the dollars to cash people out? Every cent he receives is going into the vault, and every cent in interest is being held in a client's name. He shouldn't have any dollars, yet people are withdrawing while the vault door is closed. How does that even work?
Don't worry about it, the fund manager says. In fact, this whole "bank savings" thing is so great, I'm going to start up my own savings business where I'll pay you 8% interest on any vaultbucks you keep with me. You can still cash it all out for dollars at any time. This makes total sense and we'll all be rich.
Now there are some big caveats. Ethereum isn't dollars, and the Ethereum blockchain isn't a bank, but for the purposes of this metaphor it works, because Binance can't print new ETH. They can only print new IOUs. Yet they're already handing out ETH, just like that fund manager is handing out dollars he can't print out of thin air. Where is that coming from?"
-----------------
"Here's another way to think about this: Binance has created a stablecoin called BETH.
BETH is fully (if, um, we give Binance the benefit of the doubt here) backed by ETH that is locked in staking contracts until the Ethereum High Council gets off the fence and rolls out the Shanghai update.
Until that time, there is a risk to Binance.
That risk is a classic bank run. Binance presumably manages some quantity of liquid, unstaked ETH of their own to support operations. Every time someone decides to redeem BETH stablecoin for liquid ETH, Binance's pool of liquid ETH shrinks. If it shrinks down to zero, Binance has to do one of: a) Buy ETH on the open market, b) "loan" itself ETH by dipping into customer deposits, to be paid back at some later point of course, or c) suspend BETH redemptions. This risk presumably goes away when the High Council decides to allow Binance to d) unstake underlying ETH 32 at a time (or whatever minimum the High Council deems right and proper).
Option b up there, you'll note, spreads Binance's risk to their customers. It's not the only risk they face-- they also have to worry that Binance will start playing fast and loose with the backing, issuing more BETH than they've staked ETH. This is not bad because it is "fractional reserve," it is bad because it is "more leverage," and leverage is your enemy when your asset declines. This fundamental risk will not go away when the Ethereum High Council gets off its arse and pushes out withdrawal code; Binance is likely to keep BETH around after Shanghai, if only because controlling a stablecoin is quite useful for anyone looking to skim a bit more off the floor of the cryptoland casino."
"So imagine there's this bank that offers interest on savings accounts that scales a lot depending on how much is in the account. A fund manager might have the brilliant idea that if they can get a whole bunch of people to pool hundreds of millions of dollars into one savings account, then everyone can share the returns on the best rate possible. They take a small cut in management fees, but they're managing so much they're still making tons of money. It's a win/win.
However, this bank, while legitimate, has a problem. Their vault door is stuck, and it's going to take months if not years to get it open so savings depositors can get their money out from there. In the meantime they're just sliding dollars under the vault door and keeping track of who deposited what, but it's all one way. Still, interest is getting paid out, and people trust that things will be fine eventually once they get the door open and people can withdraw their deposits.
In the meantime, the fund manager is handing out "vaultbucks" IOUs for everyone who sends him funds to stick in the savings account, which he's willing to convert back to dollars at 96 cents per vaultbuck. One vaultbuck entitles you to one dollar in the vault from the fund manager once it's open, but it's not open now, so the inconvenience of holding vaultbucks means it's worth a little less that the dollar amount it represents. Still, you can cash out now if you want. If you held long enough you're getting more than 4% so you're still making money, and if you keep holding until the vault door opens, that 4% fee disappears entirely so you're making even more money. Things are great.
Except... where is that fund manger getting the dollars to cash people out? Every cent he receives is going into the vault, and every cent in interest is being held in a client's name. He shouldn't have any dollars, yet people are withdrawing while the vault door is closed. How does that even work?
Don't worry about it, the fund manager says. In fact, this whole "bank savings" thing is so great, I'm going to start up my own savings business where I'll pay you 8% interest on any vaultbucks you keep with me. You can still cash it all out for dollars at any time. This makes total sense and we'll all be rich.
Now there are some big caveats. Ethereum isn't dollars, and the Ethereum blockchain isn't a bank, but for the purposes of this metaphor it works, because Binance can't print new ETH. They can only print new IOUs. Yet they're already handing out ETH, just like that fund manager is handing out dollars he can't print out of thin air. Where is that coming from?"
-----------------
"Here's another way to think about this: Binance has created a stablecoin called BETH.
BETH is fully (if, um, we give Binance the benefit of the doubt here) backed by ETH that is locked in staking contracts until the Ethereum High Council gets off the fence and rolls out the Shanghai update.
Until that time, there is a risk to Binance.
That risk is a classic bank run. Binance presumably manages some quantity of liquid, unstaked ETH of their own to support operations. Every time someone decides to redeem BETH stablecoin for liquid ETH, Binance's pool of liquid ETH shrinks. If it shrinks down to zero, Binance has to do one of: a) Buy ETH on the open market, b) "loan" itself ETH by dipping into customer deposits, to be paid back at some later point of course, or c) suspend BETH redemptions. This risk presumably goes away when the High Council decides to allow Binance to d) unstake underlying ETH 32 at a time (or whatever minimum the High Council deems right and proper).
Option b up there, you'll note, spreads Binance's risk to their customers. It's not the only risk they face-- they also have to worry that Binance will start playing fast and loose with the backing, issuing more BETH than they've staked ETH. This is not bad because it is "fractional reserve," it is bad because it is "more leverage," and leverage is your enemy when your asset declines. This fundamental risk will not go away when the Ethereum High Council gets off its arse and pushes out withdrawal code; Binance is likely to keep BETH around after Shanghai, if only because controlling a stablecoin is quite useful for anyone looking to skim a bit more off the floor of the cryptoland casino."
Last edited:
Late...you had 2016 and you had 2020 to make generational wealth
Did you make generational wealth?
Let me guess... NO, just like 99% of all crypto diehards.
We have one example on ET that we could follow in realtime and full transparancy. He lost in one year 75% of his money. So he surely did not catch the generational wealth. He was closer to giving it away.
Well, he lost less money then the crypto hodlers last year. That's for sure.