Crypto asset: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{g}}Silly ones lkike [[Bitcoin]], [[onecoin]], and sensible ones like the [[unitary settlement coin]] — [[cryopto asset]]s are digital “assets”  — it is a loaded term — having no physical extension, and creating all kinds of metaphysical issues which dusty old lawyers are having to get their arms around.
{{a|devil|
[[File:BTC price chart.png|450px|thumb|center|A way of defeating the capricious price swings of fiat currencies, compared with those fiat currencies,yesterday.]]
}}Silly ones like [[Bitcoin]], [[onecoin]], and sensible ones like the [[unitary settlement coin]] — [[cryopto asset]]s are digital “assets”  — it is a loaded term — having no physical extension, and creating all kinds of metaphysical issues which dusty old lawyers are having to get their arms around.


I mean, are they a [[chose in possession]] or a [[chose in action]]?
I mean, are they a [[chose in possession]] or a [[chose in action]]?

Revision as of 08:39, 22 June 2021

A way of defeating the capricious price swings of fiat currencies, compared with those fiat currencies,yesterday.
In which the curmudgeonly old sod puts the world to rights.
Index — Click ᐅ to expand:
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

Silly ones like Bitcoin, onecoin, and sensible ones like the unitary settlement coincryopto assets are digital “assets” — it is a loaded term — having no physical extension, and creating all kinds of metaphysical issues which dusty old lawyers are having to get their arms around.

I mean, are they a chose in possession or a chose in action?

More here soon.

Crypto as an asset class

So we are agreed no-one trusts the governments — seen and unseen — anymore and the shadowy systems which beam coronavirus from 5G towers and

Crypto as a settlement system

  • This is distributed ledger technology, which is a handsome idea; sound; and certainly helps ameliorate a problem — namely how to transact safely when you don’t trust the motives or solvency of intermediaries — but this is rather like solving the problem of weeds in your garden by concreting it over. Trust is a feature, not a bug, of the financial system — not just the financial system, but society at all levels from family to the united nations: if you don’t have it, you are better investing in shotguns and tins of corned beef than crypto-assets on a blockchain. And if the community can’t safely reach a consensus about the bona fides of its central institutions, what sort of consensus is it going to reach on the value of cryptographic tokens which are not backed by anyone?

In times of peace and relative tranquility, the now “mature” bitcoin has demonstrated 700% price swings in a year. That is not a currency, and it’s a lousy commodity.

Better solution: refine your system to value and reinforce trust.

See also