And actually some of our supposedly failed financial institutions have been around for hundreds of years. Hundreds! Through wars, famines, local depressions, global recessions, revolutions and witch hunts and holocausts. Because they are not rooted in desperately hoping you didn't get in too late. They are rooted in actual economic activity derived from making stuff and doing stuff! And some luck.
But you are also describing every stock on the market. There is a fixed supply of shares unless there is an agreement to issue more, and the person who buys at the top will likely be left holding the bag.
There are a few banks 400 years old, some very big global players around 300 years old, and lots of big players 100/150/200 years old. If these are the failures that crypto is going to displace then so far I prefer the failures.
Its value is in its unique combination of properties and in its network. If Bitcoin did not have the properties that it does, or if it did not have the network that it does, it would be worthless.
stocks are in real entities making real products or offering real services that people and companies and governments want to buy. You can assess them on the basis of actual real world demand/profitability/assets/decisions/positions. I'll repeat: "making real products or offering real services that people and companies and governments want to buy." Now, where does cryptocurrency differ? I can't answer own rhetorical question as am laughing too hard.
You mean like the Bank of England?
Did you forget that I already provided you two examples of this?
I think we know how MMT works out. Like most fairy tales applied to the real world.
Founded in 1694. Barclays actually predates it by a few years.
I don't think you did. You proposed that paying people to code more cryptocurrencies or related tools/facilities demonstrated that cryptocurrency is as rooted in regular economic activity as normal currency. I laughed. I laugh once more. Thank you. More credible example please:
Yes, but can you remind me when the Bank of England went bust? Or how about the Sveriges riksbank? I think they may have existed for a little longer than 13 years and are trusted enough that their bonds are rather good. Excuse me, when I said "rather good" that was English understatement.
You can laugh all you want but all it shows is that you don't understand software development. Investing in something like Polkadot or Solana (the two examples that I gave yet there are many others) is no different than investing in a software company. These people are doing exactly what you said: building something that others use and find value in.
So have regular merchant banks/consumer banks and savings banks. And they deal with real money for normal people who are on a wage or a salary. And they deal with businesses from the tiniest to the global. They are not infallible but also they are regulated and are usually not idiots If you don't like them you can go elsewhere. And those older ones have retained the confidence of people and businesses and governments for centuries. Centuries. Think about that. People use them precisely because they are not a wild gamble. And we invest in real businesses because we can see their track record or maybe we are brave and will risk something. But it is all rooted in real economic activity. Making stuff! Doing stuff!
