Item — HN Reader

>Who is debating this? It seems pretty straightforward that creating new coins is inflationary.

It is enabling coins within a fixed supply of 21M - this is not the same as creating new coins with no upper bounds. It isn't my intention to debate terminology - as I said "whatever you call it, the point is..."

>Isn't anyone holding the currency incentivized to do the same? What does "at the top" matter?

Those with more wealth to lose are disproportionately incentivised to protect it, and those with more wealth are also disproportionately empowered to take action to protect it. I used the term "at the top" to allude to the original point about what geometric shape a reasonable person would be likely to use to pictorially represent such a scheme.

1 comments

The fixed coin supply is totally different from the inflationary pressure you are concerned about. There seems to be some kind of confusion here but I can't figure out what your are trying to say now.

>"Those with more wealth to lose are disproportionately incentivised to protect it"

I'd think a billionaire with $1 million worth of cryptocurrency would be less incentivized than someone with no other "wealth" but $10k worth of cryptocurrency. Also, the people with the most non-cryptocurrency wealth are going to be most empowered to take "protective" action. The "cryptocurrency wealth" is tied up in cryptocurrency... So I can't really follow this argument of yours either.

>"what geometric shape a reasonable person would be likely to use to pictorially represent such a scheme"

Yes, you seem to have started with the conclusion that you have problem with cryptocurrencies, and then are coming up with false arguments to call them a pyramid scheme.

> 'I'd think a billionaire with $1 million worth of cryptocurrency would be less incentivized than someone with no other "wealth" but $10k worth of cryptocurrency.'

Precisely. And in the context of this discussion, almost all crypto is held by people who have most of their wealth in crypto (e.g. 97% held by 4% of addresses) - using the percentages in your example, there aren't any crypto billionaires who have a trillion in cash. Linking this back to the original point, the are forced to keep most of their wealth in crypto because if they sold large amounts they would crash the market, hence one of the reasons for the need for new buyers so they can sell in a trickle.

> 'Also, the people with the most non-cryptocurrency wealth are going to be most empowered to take "protective" action. The "cryptocurrency wealth' is tied up in cryptocurrency...'

If you've a billion US$ worth of crypto, selling the odd million US$ worth to fund whatever you need to do in order to sustain the scheme (or "build the ecosystem" to use the euphemism) isn't a big issue. Not to mention that in many cases the people you are paying have been converted into "true believers" (perhaps even as a result of your own earlier efforts) and can therefore be paid in crypto.

>"almost all crypto is held by people who have most of their wealth in crypto (e.g. 97% held by 4% of addresses)"

Where are you getting this? Not only the numbers but your conclusion. This sounds like wild speculation.