I think people understand what this term means and are ok to take risks because, as I said, they don’t believe in crypto in the long run.
For example, the reason why I have not put more liquidity in PDC in UniSwap is because I believe in the project in the long run and I think that the price will rise many times above the current one. If I put liquidity and the price goes up x10000, it means that I will sell my coins much below this price.
Impermanent losses compared to HODLing:
1.25x price change = 0.6% loss
1.50x price change = 2.0% loss
1.75x price change = 3.8% loss
2x price change = 5.7% loss
3x price change = 13.4% loss
4x price change = 20.0% loss
5x price change = 25.5% loss
10000x price change = 99.99% loss
You are mixing up tenses. You may have bought crypto in the past, but you are hungry in the present, and the future doesn’t matter if you are very hungry NOW.
I know, friend. I make an attempt to a joke because what you’re talking about is an exception. The rule is that people with money want even more money right now. The mass of people in the crypto are not hungry or poor…
It is no coincidence that in crypto we are talking about Lamborghinis and not about patties…
Hey guys, seeing the recent Bittrex news got me a bit worried, and I feel it troubles some of you as well. There might be something I could do, but I’d like the communities opinion first:
I recently joined the NEXT.exchange team, after I offered my services due to a bad initial launch and some internal team issues. We recently re-launched our exchange, still with some minor bugs here and there. I could get MAID listed, but given our history of poor exchanges I wanted to wait a bit more before we solved all bugs. Now that I came to realize just how vulnerable we are we just the 1 exchange I’m starting to think pushing this listing forward might be a good idea.
The concept of passive income is flawed in general. I have heard of talk of 5% passive income on bitcoin, etc, which concerns me even more.
All investment carries risk. If someone is telling you they can guarantee they can give you back more than you can give them, they are lying to you. The bigger the number, the more alarm bells should be going off.
This isn’t a dig at you - the messenger - but it concerns me in general. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if these supposedly passive schemes are just new ways to push risk to the margins, ready for it to blow up when it can be pushed out no more. This time, there will be no thinly veiled ‘insurance’ scheme (which require state bailouts, etc) and the whole defi space will get sucked up its own arse hole, taking many a pleb’s life savings with it.
Anyways, I just wanted to interrupt the thread with this interlude. Carry on…
In a world where governments are printing money out of nowhere and distribute them to the people without work, it is entirely possible that there are consensus mechanisms for printing new money in a different way.
Bitcoin is such a consensus mechanism - people have agreed that new money will be printed after you prove that you have waste away energy - Proof of Waste. No one can guarantee that this new money bitcoin will be valuable and for 99% of humanity it is not valuable and therefore 99% of people do not have even 1 satoshi.
And so we have been living in a world of programmable money for 11 years now. People have come up with a new way to print money with new consensus rules. With them, if you follow the rules of consensus, you will always be able to print new money, because the payment is in the coin that is paid. Will this new coin be valuable?
No one can guarantee you, but honest DeFi projects like Hex, wrote on their front page that the price in fiat for Hex can go to zero. I think most people who bet money on DeFi products understand this and are willing to take risks. Some will win money, others will lose.
I have seen Bisq mentioned on here before, and have been reading more about it since the Altilly affair recently. Is there some reason why it isn’t exactly the solution we’re looking for here? I mean there could be, I’m not a trader, it seems ideal though, or at least I don’t get how it isn’t ideal for decentralisation-loving people… The more people on there the better it gets in terms of liquidity, anonymity, etc, it seems like a perfect match for Safe people? Please tell me what I’m missing someone.
“The difference between Bisq and other so-called decentralized exchanges is as stark as the difference between owning your own home and renting someone else’s”
Bisq claimed (in April 2020) that they’ve been hacked once, and because it’s peer-to-peer, only 7 users were exploited through the vulnerability, with ~250,000$ worth of funds being stolen.
I did a quick look around and can’t see any other hacks or anything. Pretty excellent record I would say? Anyway, I’ll leave it there, would be interested to hear what other community members think, what is the problem with Bisq, why aren’t we all over it?
You do not print value. Money for human beings has no biological value. They are a sorting mechanism. We don’t eat money. We don’t drink money. We do not live in money.
We use money to determine which member of our society will receive what without aggression. Printing money with new consensus mechanisms has value to our species because it allows us to move the money printer closer to the people. That’s why Bitcoin costs $ 30k. Because it’s closer to the people.
The Safe network will move the printer for new money even closer to the people, which will allow us to be even more efficient in sorting and rewarding the most productive people in society. And the best part is that there is no Waste. The product of this new sorting mechanism is freedom, anonymity and privacy
I’m not sure about your reasoning, but where I do agree, Safe Network Tokens should be more accessible during token distribution. Once upon a time, this was true for bitcoin too.
Why do you think this will be the case only at the time of the initial distribution? I think this will continue after it too. Or am I misinterpreting what you wrote?
Initial distribution will likely spread to enthusiasts first, then to more business oriented players later. Hard to avoid the latter fully.
My main point is that inflation is a means to an end for seeding the market. In general it isn’t a good thing though. Many folks won’t have the hardware or the connectivity to receive the benefit of inflation and will instead have their income and savings eroded away.
Bisq seems alright - like most decentralized exchanges it lacks liquidity. I used to run it, but for a couple of years now I’ve not been able to get it to install on my linux box - persistent error that I’ve reported, but nothing has come of it. I run Devuan (a variant of Debian) and I suspect it would work fine on more mainline distro’s.
If anyone here has personal experience with Bisq, I think we’d all be keen to learn about it.
Edit: just a random thought … what if Bisq was packaged up with the Safe Network? It’s open source (99% sure) … Maybe @maidsafe team could convert it to Rust, and build it into the Network itself … that would deal with liquidity possibly as many people would automatically have access to it. Seems like a win to me.
Crypto as a category can succeed while any given coin may not survive. There’s no contradiction here.
The price at which one sells is the price at which their thesis about the future of that coin no longer holds valid and, consequently, they have no more reason to hold on to it.
