Hacker News Reader

Comment by HebericNewt | Hacker News Reader

I can't imagine this ageing well.

It doesn't feel different. The evangelists will hurt and the whole crypto industry is set back, the cynics gloat and revel in the schadenfreude and claim for the 748th time that crypto is dead... Until 12 months later when we do it all over again.

It's not the biggest, it's not the first, it won't be the last, it's nowhere near the most catastrophic. At least let the dust settle before making such bold declarations. Any such declaration at this point is more hope than expectation.

View on HN

> The fall of Sam Bankman-Fried, and the more-than-likely fall of many more firms in the immediate future, has sapped much of that hope.

> Now it’s hard to imagine a near- or even a medium-term future where crypto has a fraction of the influence it did six months ago.

Is he really that wrong?

The short term future for crypto looks pretty bad, there's no denying it.

I'd say the medium term isn't looking that great either.

...because of FTX? No, because the medium term outlook for the whole economy is pretty bleak, and no amount of rubbing your fingers together and finding some more magical tokens is going to fix that.

I think this article won't age particularly badly. It's basically saying someone screwed up, and they did.

/shrug

The title itself suggests what reads like "the end of crypto". Investors tend to buy dips and, compared to stocks, it's harder to predict where's the bottom. People are buying BTC's "dip" every second.

And that's the political problem that crypto doesn't solve. In fact it doesn't even address it.

It's an everyone-for-themselves kind of project, in a massively connected and somewhat fragile physical and political ecosystem.

If you're one of the many with narcissistic tendencies who think more imaginary tokens make you a better person, and who resent the very idea of being massively connected - as opposed to a glorious sovereign individual of unlimited power and potential - it's definitely for you.

Which - coincidentally - is why it's surrounded by unsolved trust issues and scams.

But it's a terminal stage of capitalism world view, and on the way out. Not just because it's politically naive, unrealistic, and inherently unstable and untrustworthy, but also because ultimately it's physically unsustainable.

And that ultimately is going to become more and more obvious over the next couple of decades.

If Mt.Gox didn't kill crypto & BTC back in the early days, it's super unlikely FTX is going to kill crypto. What is also unlikely to change is HN general opinion on crypto :)

There were far fewer everyday people around the ecosystem when Mt. Gox imploded. The number of ‘normies’ that have told me stories of themselves or people they know losing money in crypto has spiked this year, and each big crash there is, the more people who will be burned. So I think it’s certainly possible that the booms will get much smaller as more people check out each bust and as the next big crypto scams blow up.

Let's add this one to the list. https://buybitcoinworldwide.com/bitcoin-is-dead/

Wow this is amazing, really goes to show how comical it all is.

I could PROBABLY tolerate all these, if the headlines were something like "Bitcoin reaches all time low and new level of people are discouraged. Retail investors should be extra diligent." but...

"You can <do some fucking stupid thing that I'm not going to do> now"

Feels like its written for someone with the intelligence of a child who doesn't think on their own and needs to be spoon fed what to do. I have no idea how people can stand journalism like this.

This goes along with "Why <really bad thing> is actually good." Makes me cringe to the depths of my soul that even a single solitary person would click something like that.

He writes for Coindesk and Decrypt, journalist are hard to take seriously when they're paid by both sides.

And I thought that journalists could only serve the readers. Apparently, there is a second side too.

What sides are represented here?

Isn't this what journalism should be about, though, to journal the news neutrally? I'd be more worried about a bias if someone only writes for one side of an issue, but now it's also bad if both sides can be happy with an author's work?

The big question now is whether VCs will pour billions of USD into pump things back up. The real economy isn’t awash with money seeking higher interest rates the way it was a year ago.

There are so many VCs that invested in blockchain startups. Now their source of money is dried up, I can't imagine they will be able to pump these startup valuations for long. At some point, they have to write it down. It will be the dot com crash for blockchain startups.

I think in terms of potential real-world contagion, FTX might indeed be in a league of its own among the crypto entities that have imploded so far. Add to that the fact that the crypto ecosystem was _already_ under a lot of stress from recent implosions and the generally bad economic mood, and I think we're gonna see some interesting fallout from this.

when we do it all over again.

I think that by itself undermines you all on its own. There are some unique aspects here— crypto had been getting a bit more mainstream credibility and it will take long to rebuild than it did to build, but, as you said, the cycle will only repeat, and every time the collapses get bigger. Totalling up the last few months is topping $2Trillion.

If something is going to change there needs to be a fundamental reassessment of both the tech and the philosophy driving things.

There's a limit though. All ponzi schemes eventually collapse because there's simply not enough people to scam again.

> It's not the biggest

What crypto blowup was larger? The dust hasnt settled on FTX yet, but it seems likely that at least $10B was lost.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com