Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register
This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I think it was on the Slate Money podcast that I heard a report that half of all Bitcoin transactions are fake: People selling to themselves in order to give the impression that the trade volume is greater than it is. In stocks and other securities this is illegal. But since crypto is unregulated there's nothing to stop malicious actors from manipulating the markets.

I would presume that if it's happening with Bitcoin, it's probably happening with all of them.
Slate Money sounds like they're parroting a several months old Forbes article, which basically said half of reported volume could be fake for a handful of reasons. Assuming this is true, there's still plenty of liquidity in Bitcoin, so I am not personally worried based on the on-chain reports I review monthly.
 
Slate Money sounds like they're parroting a several months old Forbes article, which basically said half of reported volume could be fake for a handful of reasons. Assuming this is true, there's still plenty of liquidity in Bitcoin, so I am not personally worried based on the on-chain reports I review monthly.


A lot more than half was shown to be fake a couple years ago-



Bitwise Asset Management reported to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission that 95% of trading volume in Bitcoin (BTC) was fake.

The Blockchain Transparency Institute has been investigating fake volume in crypto markets since 2018. Its April 2019 report suggested that 17 of the 25 largest exchanges listed on CoinMarketCap had more than 99% fake volume. The most recent report from September 2019 showed “wash trading rates at high levels from 96.9% up to 99.7%.”

Now, that was from a couple years ago... surely this is fixed now right?




Well, it's "only" a bit over 50% overall now (though some exchanges it's still 95%)

So...that's.... better I guess.... but still pretty fraudy
 
  • Informative
Reactions: JRP3
It's really just one more category of shady dealings that go on with crypto due to its unregulated nature. There's a certain sort of conspiracy theorist who believes that governments regulate money for nefarious purposes and that the ideal currency is unregulated. But regulation is what keeps a (well-regulated) currency more or less stable and protects consumers from fraud and manipulation by malicious actors.
 
I think it was on the Slate Money podcast that I heard a report that half of all Bitcoin transactions are fake: People selling to themselves in order to give the impression that the trade volume is greater than it is. In stocks and other securities this is illegal. But since crypto is unregulated there's nothing to stop malicious actors from manipulating the markets.

I would presume that if it's happening with Bitcoin, it's probably happening with all of them.

Every transaction on the blockchain costs you a transaction fee, it would be stupid for investors to move money around and lose a transaction fee every time. This notion is just more speculation from writers who know less than nothing about crypto.
 
Every transaction on the blockchain costs you a transaction fee, it would be stupid for investors to move money around and lose a transaction fee every time. This notion is just more speculation from writers who know less than nothing about crypto.

It would be stupid if there were no payoff in it. It's called wash trading, and before it was outlawed it was done in the stock market as a means of manipulating prices. And people did it even though there were transaction fees there too. But in crypto there's no regulation, so all the scams that crooks would like to do in legitimate markets (and used to do, and sometimes still do if they think they can get away with it) they can do with impunity in crypto.

Crypto is like a Las Vegas casino where muggers are given free access and impunity. You might get rich if you get lucky at the tables and manage to avoid the muggers. But it's a very high-risk proposition. And like a casino, crypto serves no legitimate purpose but to take a lot of money from a lot of people and give it to a few people. And it's become the currency of choice for criminal activity from drugs to identity theft to human trafficking because criminals are willing to accept the enormous volatility, which makes it useless as a real currency, in return for the ease of exchange and the relative secrecy.
 
I understand you have many reasons which are important to you about why crypto is a bad thing. I'm not going to argue, but I will state that yours is not the only valid opinion. I have a few of my own that differ. There are various pieces and parts of the crypto landscape that can and will be very useful.

The Apollo space program's guidance computer did not result in a consumer computer product. But the research to produce its electronics gave us the 1970s revolution of LED displays, inexpensive integrated circuits, and microprocessors, which went on to introduce the information age, a period of economic growth that continues to this day.

Sometimes the benefits of expensive, unproven inventions are things no one thought of and no one expected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dm28997
It's true that my opinion is not the only valid one. It's just my opinion. Not everyone is obligated to share it. It's perfectly valid to feel that an opportunity for high-risk speculation is worth giving criminals an easy way to engage in trafficking in drugs or human beings, or to profit from ransomware or identity theft, or merely to avoid paying taxes. It's perfectly valid (but factually wrong) to believe that fossil fuels have no effect on the climate so the energy cost of crypto is not affecting society. And it's perfectly valid to believe that the mathematics of blockchain will lead to such enormous benefits to humanity that crypto justifies all the above external costs to society.

All those opinions are perfectly valid, but I do not share them and I will continue to offer my arguments against them.
 
If there are a few people out there with crypto who want to spend it, Google will accept it. Of course, the price in crypto will depend on the instantaneous price of that crypto in dollars. If you are a crypto millionaire it makes sense to pay for your goods and services in crypto. But if you buy crypto to spend on goods or services, you'll lose, because merchants will want to end up with dollars, and there's a cost to buying and selling crypto. And you can bet your bootie that merchants are not going to pay for those transactions.

And of course crypto kept in Coinbase is not insured. It's not even particularly safe.
 
It's true that my opinion is not the only valid one. It's just my opinion. Not everyone is obligated to share it. It's perfectly valid to feel that an opportunity for high-risk speculation is worth giving criminals an easy way to engage in trafficking in drugs or human beings, or to profit from ransomware or identity theft, or merely to avoid paying taxes. It's perfectly valid (but factually wrong) to believe that fossil fuels have no effect on the climate so the energy cost of crypto is not affecting society. And it's perfectly valid to believe that the mathematics of blockchain will lead to such enormous benefits to humanity that crypto justifies all the above external costs to society.

All those opinions are perfectly valid, but I do not share them and I will continue to offer my arguments against them.

Those are not my opinions, nor are they most people's, and to imply that anyone who sees benefits to crypto must therefore believe in these opinions is factually wrong and personally insulting.
 
The vast majority of crypto transactions are speculation: Hoping somebody else will be willing to pay more later. (The "bigger fool" theory.) The next largest class of crypto transactions is illegal commerce, from drugs to ransomeware (which really only got big when crypto made collecting ransoms easy) to human trafficking. A minuscule part is legitimate commerce, where someone who either bought it as a speculation, or bought it in a misguided belief that it would actually be useful, spends it at one of the tiny number of merchants who accept it and immediately convert it back into real money.

It is useless as currency because its value is wildly unstable, and it offers no protection for consumers in cases of fraud. It produces nothing of actual value. Money is useful because in an industrial economy barter doesn't work. We need a medium of exchange. But for the medium of exchange to be useful it has to have a relatively stable value and it has to offer some protections against fraud, neither of which crypto does. Even so-called stable coins end up going bust because they're not actually backed by anything. US. dollars are backed by the government. Stable coins are backed by fly-by-night businesses operated out of somebody' garage.

The argument that because the Apollo program resulted in spin-off applications in electronics, blockchain will lead to something useful enough to overcome all the above, is, basically, the "They laughed at Fulton" fallacy. Every crackpot inventor points to Fulton as an argument that his own worthless invention is truly genius.
 
The vast majority of crypto transactions are speculation: Hoping somebody else will be willing to pay more later. (The "bigger fool" theory.) The next largest class of crypto transactions is illegal commerce, from drugs to ransomeware (which really only got big when crypto made collecting ransoms easy) to human trafficking. A minuscule part is legitimate commerce, where someone who either bought it as a speculation, or bought it in a misguided belief that it would actually be useful, spends it at one of the tiny number of merchants who accept it and immediately convert it back into real money.

It is useless as currency because its value is wildly unstable, and it offers no protection for consumers in cases of fraud. It produces nothing of actual value. Money is useful because in an industrial economy barter doesn't work. We need a medium of exchange. But for the medium of exchange to be useful it has to have a relatively stable value and it has to offer some protections against fraud, neither of which crypto does. Even so-called stable coins end up going bust because they're not actually backed by anything. US. dollars are backed by the government. Stable coins are backed by fly-by-night businesses operated out of somebody' garage.

I do not subscribe to your opinions here. Additionally, you present a few items as factual that are not.

I believe you would benefit from a much closer examination of the currency systems that you believe are highly stable (as an example, the US Dollar). In my opinion, those currency systems are not nearly as stable as you think they are.
 
I do not subscribe to your opinions here. Additionally, you present a few items as factual that are not.

I believe you would benefit from a much closer examination of the currency systems that you believe are highly stable (as an example, the US Dollar). In my opinion, those currency systems are not nearly as stable as you think they are.

dollar.jpg
 
I do not subscribe to your opinions here. Additionally, you present a few items as factual that are not.

I believe you would benefit from a much closer examination of the currency systems that you believe are highly stable (as an example, the US Dollar). In my opinion, those currency systems are not nearly as stable as you think they are.

The U.S. dollar (and other "hard" currencies) are relatively stable, with a generally low but steady rate of inflation . Some inflation is necessary because without it there would be no investment. Economists are not good enough to hold the rate at precisely the ideal (usually considered to be 2% annually) but compared to crypto (see Knightshade's chart of BTC above) the dollar and other "hard" currencies are very reliable. Governments are not able to control the value of their money as well as they'd like, and high inflation is a real issue. Crypto makes no effort whatsoever to control the value of its coins, except for so-called "stable coins," which, as noted, are subject to collapse, and which at best are tied to the dollar, which you don't consider stable. So by either measure they are a bad choice.

Further, banks provide protection in cases of fraud. There have been a few fraudulent charges to my credit card over the years. My bank investigated and then returned my money to me. With crypto I'd have been screwed.

I stand by my statements of the facts. Cryptocurrencies have no legitimate use unless you consider gambling, in the hopes of winning by somebody else's loss and getting something for nothing to be "legitimate." The only way you can make money from crypto is for somebody else to pay you more for your coins than you paid for them. This is in contrast to investment in a company that creates value by making stuff.
 
There is a truism that states:

Scientists don't know everything.
Pseudoscientists don't know anything.

Pseudoscientists peddle their nonsense by, among other things, ridiculing science and scientists. They portray scientists (falsely!!!) as claiming to know everything, before spouting their own nonsense and (usually) trying to sell fraudulent inventions and crackpot theories.

It occurs to me that something similar can be said about economics:

Economists don't know everything.
Pseudoeconomists don't know anything.

People who think that a totally unregulated currency is a good idea are pseudoeconomists. They peddle their own nonsense by, among other things, ridiculing economists. They portray economists (falsely!!!) as claiming to be able to manage an economy perfectly, before asserting that the solution is to do away with economists and adopt the nonsense of an unregulated currency. Pre-social-media these people advocated the gold standard. Now they advocate and try to sell crypto currency.
 
This is a great website for people interested in crypto.
There’s a lot of innovation taking place. Interesting story about what happened to mango markets. Someone was able to pump mango’s native token, because it’s not very liquid, then buy $100+ million of other crypto using the mango as collateral.
This is the best part though:
“In true DeFi style, the attacker has used their freshly acquired responsibility tokens to suggest a solution to the mess that they themselves created.

Their proposal suggests that Mango pay the hacker a bounty of ~$65M, and that they do not pursue any criminal investigation.

No prizes for guessing which way the hacker voted on the proposal…”
 
  • Love
Reactions: AlanSubie4Life