WingRiders Governance Token
You should look at Wally Wallet (Android Play) and Otoplo Wallet (multi-platform). The full node wallet is meant to be very stable; its not intended to have the latest and greatest features. There are reasons to "stabilize" and not invest too much into the full node wallet. It is inextricably bound to the full node; but people are unlikely to have full nodes in their back pocket. In other words, its not going to be your daily spending choice. WRT the Nexa Explorer, we've been maintaining that for years now, first on BCH then Nexa. Maybe it is time to give it a facelift; but at the same time I think that leveraging existing code so we don't have to redo it all should be seen as a strength, not a weakness. An entirely new explorer, or an explorer facelift, is unlikely to significantly advance adoption; its a useful tool, but its not going viral.
It is a flaw in the system that inhibits mass adoption. Trad fi is so friggin simple with so many safeguards. Your tradfi examples are horrible. Those arent real user use cases that any normal human runs into. WRT to the box of rocks, there are safeguards in place to get refunds. Most CCs you can dispute the charge EASILY.
Because 1) Bitcoin don't care. And 2) Coinbase actually runs a reasonable operation, has repeatedly asked for guidance as to what the SEC wants from them and gets nothing in return, so everyone knows the SEC is just making political talking points and that none of this will likely matter WRT bitcoin in the end. Even Coinbase stock barely dropped on the news. Nobody is surprised, and nobody thinks the SEC is doing anything but jerk themselves off.
I think that’s a fairly safe bet. I could see it hitting that and crabbing around that price with a quick pump up to $6-7 before another bear comes around. I think it depends on BTC leading the way and breaking $100k. That said I’m no expert and also I’m betting more on some of the native tokens. MIN, WRT, WMT, MELD to name a few.
Btc and eth since they are the two blue chips. Beyond that matic has a lot of hype. Long term Ada is a good hold. If you go that route make sure to move it to an Ada wallet and stake to a pool. The staking is non-custodial and will get you a solid 3-5% apy depending on the stake pool you delegate to. Building off that there are some native Cardano tokens will a lot of potential. MIN, WMT, SOCIETY, GREENS, HOSKY(Ada’s shitcoin), WRT to name a few. Disclaimer: Am a hopeless Cardano/ada degen
Funny you ask me about Cardano DEX's, because I investigated some of them SundaeSwap, MuesliSwap, Wingriders and Minswap. I ended investing a small on about on Min and WRT. The cons of SS in my opinion are the development, they had the first movers advantage and didn't use it, they were slow adding Stable coins and derivatives and simply their team didn't inspire lots of confidence. I am pretty sure, they will keep going and be relevant as the name, design and marketing is amazing. The product is good and Has a easy and nice user experience. Still I think is not the best contender in DEX's battle.
it would make it more volatile, because if your taxed the same whether you hold for a day or a year, there is no incentive to hold long term. WRT wash trades, they are not illegal, they just change your cost basis and make it much more complicated to calculate accurately.
The SEC announcement WRT: Stablecoins and their further regulations on exchanges is making people (especially the exchanges which have been engaging in fraud) dump their stablecoins and buy bitcoins with them. While the ostensible "value" of these stablecoins has not depegged, the relationship in value between stablecoins and real dollars has always been very tenuous for most of them. Because the value of these stablecoins is well below $1 in real life, they are selling them to buy bitcoin before they officially depeg according to the markets. Because the value of bitcoins, despite being denominated in "USD" ostensibly, is really mostly in stablecoin fake USD, people being willing to dump their stablecoins for more BTC makes it look like BTC is going up massively in price, when in reality it is because the stablecoins have silently depegged in the background and so the value that Bitcoin is really denominated in is actually dropping. The exchanges will maintain the illusion that stablecoins are actually worth $1 USD as long as possible because they're an essential part of the scam they're running, where they have been using fraudulently issued stablecoins to buy crypto to manipulate its price.
I keep going back to governments because that's who defines what a currency is, i.e legal tender. People do not. You are not able to walk into your grocery store and demand they accept your bitcoin as a form of payment. It could be that you know of a store that does accept it, but those are two very different things. WRT the Fed, you could argue they got handed a pretty raw deal in 2008, and that raw deal was largely Congresses doing. I think back then QE was the right decision, having ATM's just suddenly stop working is more than just a body blow to the average consumer. Keeping it going this long? Eh I get why. But long term it's not great. Again the average person would have to take the hit here and politically that's not a shit sandwich anyone wants to eat so we keep kicking the can down the road. That's fine, we will eventually see a correction, we've already partially seen one last year. Monetary policy is complicated on its best days, it's not like balancing your checkbook and I in no way see how something like crypto or bitcoin help here. No modern government is going to give up control of its currency, the power to inflate and deflate your way out of trouble is a good one it should retain. Cause the alternative is pretty shitty.
I mean, on the one hand, eliminating physical cash has some significant advantages WRT preventing counterfeiting, tax fraud, and various other financial crimes. On the other hand, it makes you very vulnerable to service outages, which do happen, so I'm not sure it's all that likely that we'll switch over to digital tokens overall.
> simple transposition like swap word in position 1 with the word in position x. Easy to remember and impossible practically speaking to decode Hard for a human to remember and easy for a computer to decode. I wonder why people have such poor intuition WRT security.
You’re moving the goalposts. OP was not a commentary on the value of the ergo ecosystem in general. It was a claim that it was preferable over the alternatives specifically to miners. And that is clearly untrue, just based on the current results of the ‘poll’ alone. But ignoring the poll (as should have been done in the first place,) i can tell you as a long term miner, profitability is not a ‘key KPI’. It is ‘THE KPI’. And the only DD that matters WRT mining is a trip to WTM, possibly altering the provided data for your acceptable operating conditions
Issue #1 is a non-issue at least WRT PoS, it would be just as much of an issue even if ETH were still PoW post merge. I don't know what the solution to overreliance on stablecoins in general is though, I do see that as one of the risks of smart chains right now. Issue #2 I don't know how it will play out but I don't see it as an insurmountable problem in the long run. Personally I put the odds of something going quite badly in the merge at 30%, I think the general sentiment is a bit optimistic.
> What is this a signal of? Money is signal of value decisions made by individuals. It allows coordination or the disposition of things we consider to have value. > That is, what do think the "real price" of a good means across time? Assuming we normalize prices to make a reliable measurement, we can analyze economic conditions via price signals. > "real price" The price is the price. To compare past and present prices however, requires some form of normalization, because the units of price are changing. > you can use BTC to buy plenty of goods and services. There is very much economic activity primarily denominated in sats yet. In fact nearly none. For now, most prices are still in local fiat, and bitcoin isnt involved in most transactions. > What makes the USD-derived price the "real" real price compared to the BTC-derived one? Use for price signalling in the economy. Bitcoin may one day displace fiat, but it hasnt done so yet, so its not relevant to most economic activity. There is an impact of btc: the price of gold, silver, index funds, etc - those are the networks where long term wealth preservation utility can be taken from, and to a large extent one where fiat units dont play a large role, since by design it has very poor long term value. By analyzing the relative prices of those commodities WRT to their demand as a vehicle for wealth preservation might be the only place where bitcoin prices can be used meaningfully. And since the dollar itself doesnt play in that market, and because most peoples buying power is in fact tied to a dollar rated income or salary, then it makes natural sense that the dollar value is more informative as to the volume of bitcoin trading; since it is largely bought as a long term wealth preservation product.
Some good definitions on here. WRT the question in the screenshot - why distinguish bitcoin from crypto - bitcoin is the OG cryptocurrency and it's the only one that has all the elements to be future money. All other cryptocurrencies are built to provide some functionality - to play games, host contracts, etc - and their coins are intended for use on their chains in exchange for that functionality. Many of them have an initial grant of their coins to developers, venture capitalists, etc. Most of them promote ownership of their coins as an investment, like an equity stake in their project. Some don't even have a project associated with them, i.e. memecoins. However, a large percentage have only promoted themselves in order to pump the price up so the initial stakeholders could dump their coins at a massive profit. Most of them are not a valid investment, although a handful are legitimate projects that will ensure and their coins will be valuable for use on their chain. The equity feature, functionality, and pump-and-dump aspects of non-bitcoin cryptocurrencies are among the reasons that people don't lump bitcoin in with the rest. Also, they don't want the scams and huge losses associated with crypto to muddy the perception of bitcoin.
Everything has value based on what other people are willing to pay for it. Currently, people are still willing to pay for crypto, so things like BTC have “value” in that sense. However, there are legitimate questions about the underpinning viability of each independent of their value solely in terms of transactions. What uses might something have to continue to carry value forward? Gold has been considered valuable for centuries primarily because it was/is seen as a status symbol as a precious metal. But even if it loses that, it does still have some value in terms of its use *as* a metal (thin layers of gold are often used for connectors on electronic parts because it is more inert, ductile, and malleable than copper, for example). Bitcoin has..theoretical uses as an alternate currency. I say theoretical because it’s not been utilized to the same extent as fiat currency. And there are still concerns about the “value” of something that intends to exist simultaneously as an investment vehicle (which is speculative and volatile by nature) and a fungible currency (which requires something to be stable in terms of value in order for users to feel comfortable transacting at a large scale). I remain incredibly skeptical that both can be true at the same time WRT Bitcoin. What’s more, if they can’t both can’t be true simultaneously, then it essentially kills the idea for both. Consider, if everyone viewed Bitcoin as a speculative investment vehicle and no longer viewed it as a currency to be utilized in every day transactions (entirely reasonable, given the above conversation); we now have a situation where people are investing in Bitcoin, but the primary function it was created for that people were investing in - an alternative currency - is no longer viable. So what are you investing in at that point? What is the “value” of something that can no longer serve its original purpose? I remain open to the idea that perhaps I am incorrect and it can function as both simultaneously, but I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument for how it would simultaneously serve two seemingly diametrically opposed purposes.