Hacker News Reader

Comment by mw888 | Hacker News Reader

You don’t like the use case for crypto, you don’t accept the narratives it’s proponents put forward and you conveniently fail to mention the objective measure of value we can actually use to compare: market capitalization. I’m sure you would believe that Bitcoin only has the market cap it has because people are speculating on it, when in reality the reason it never dies is because with each wave of speculation there are new people who store wealth in it. A subtle but important difference, objectively measurable ignored by this argument you put forth I’ve now read 100 times.

Crypto is a lot like politics - people feel entitled to their opinion on it whether they possess sophistication, competence, open mindedness or not.

View on HN

Market capitalization is objective but isn’t a measure of value but specifically financial value.

Also, Bitcoin doesn’t have a market cap. It’s a currency. No one talks about the U.S. Dollar’s market cap because the whole idea is a nonsensical invention that Cryptocons have used to sell the idea that crypto currencies are investments while still calling themselves currencies to evade regulation.

The fact that the cryptocons have invented market cap as a measure for something they claim is currency is in itself a huge red flag.

Sure they talk about the market cap of the US Dollar.

It’s the M1, M2, and M3 money supply. The shadowstats website has done a phenomenal job tracking it over the years objectively. Check it out.

This comment is old but I'm commenting to respond and for future reference.

The adjacent concept is called "money supply" [0] which is, as far as I can tell, the equivalent of "market capitalization" but for currencies. Specifically, for US dollars, the "M2" money supply looks to be around $25 trillion [1].

I don't like that Bitcoin with the language used to describe stocks and bonds but whether Bitcoin enthusiasts use that language, it's certainly being adopted by the public, so we're kind of stuck with it.

Had you been more generous in your reading, you could have filled in "money supply" for Bitcoin, which currently stands at just under $400 billion (~19.2 million bitcoin @ ~$20k/btc). The generous conversion interpretation of the US dollar "market cap" (aka "money supply") is $25 trillion.

People can and do talk about the US dollars "market cap", they just call it something else ("money supply"). People also buy and sell currencies, very similarly to stocks, via foreign exchange markets.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply

[1] https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_m2_money_supply#:~:text=US....

Which of the mentioned use cases do you like? Financial speculation, evading capital controls, buying illegal drugs?

Which use cases that you like were not mentioned?

Why don’t you actually mention what the equivalent of Google in the crypto world is/could be?

The inability of cryptocons to speak in specifics is another major red flag.

speaking of "narratives" ...

"market cap" is a terrible metric. Inflated assets often have very high market caps.

Look at the recent wave of "market cap" reductions on other stocks of questionable value like Facebook.

Market cap is not a narrative, it’s the only objective measure so far in our dialogue.

> recent

That’s great you point out the importance of long term trends, I shouldn’t even have to articulate my point now.

But why not go deeper anyways? Market cap for Bitcoin is a proxy for hashrate, which is a measure of security. Steadily increasing floor across its entire lifespan.

Market cap is meaningless bullshit.

I mint a billion tokens, sell one to a friend for a buck, I suddenly have a billion dollar market cap.

you pitching that "market cap" proves bitcoins value is a narrative..

You can make the case that everything is a "proxy" for whatever you like.

"Facebooks market cap is a proxy for ... which is a measure of ..."

If market cap is critical, when bitcoin has a major "correction" and the market cap drastically falls, what does this indicate?

Just because something is the only objective measure doesn’t mean it’s a good measure.

The only objective measure of HN comments I have is the length of those comments.

Does that mean I should be basing how good a comment is only on how long it is?

Here's a great example of the "value" of market cap for you:

"Theranos Inc., a consumer healthcare technology startup, was once valued at $10 billion, and its leadership claimed it would revolutionize the blood-testing industry."

What is the "market cap" of this Ponzi scheme these days?

According to you, market cap is critical and a $10 billion market cap seems like a big number so??

Market cap for Theranos is a proxy for investor stupidity, which is a measure of gullibility.

Totally not what is takings place with the COIN markets.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com