Oof. Sacks' claim that taxpayers "lost out on over $17 billion of value" reveals a concerning mindset. This is the classic thinking of someone with a gambling problem. Any financial advisor would tell you that labeling FOMO as concrete "losses" is fallacious. By this logic, we've all "lost" billions by not buying winning lottery tickets. And this is the crypto and AI czar. Not very comforting.
The New York Times' March 3rd piece "Trump Faces Blowback Over Plans for Crypto Reserve" shows that many people are concerned. The backlash is coming from all directions—even Republicans question spending on volatile assets instead of debt reduction. As conservative investor Joe Lonsdale aptly put it: "It's wrong to tax me for crypto bro schemes."
The conflicts of interest are glaring. Trump profited from $Trump memecoins before taking office, and now creates policies benefiting those assets.
And as mentioned by Sharon, most alarming is the national security risk. Foreign entities could buy large token positions as leverage over US policy decisions—threatening to sell and crash prices or buying more to curry favor. Or maybe “could” is the wrong word… why wouldn’t they?
This appears to be what $130 million in crypto industry campaign contributions buys. The proposed Senate bill would direct the government to purchase one million Bitcoins—approximately $92.6 billion of taxpayer money into speculative assets.
Thank you Sharon for writing what must have been an incredibly difficult article to explain everything so succinctly. I cannot pretend to understand everything written here, but it definitely helped to make sense of it. I wonder, and maybe this is a future topic, how does this fit in with American history, in terms of politicians being able to set the rules that directly enrich themselves for assets they own? It is kind of the definition of corruption, isn't it? But I won’t pretend that it’s the first time it has happened.
I had the exact same thought about the quote from Sacks. And the exact same fear. I don’t like thinking that our government is attempting to solve current economic woes with speculative investment.
We bought bitcoin and Ether in 2012/2013. It has been an excellent investment and, while it goes up and down in the short term, it has gone steadily up in the long term. Bought around $300, now worth 80/90K. It was a bit complicated to buy/sell but has gotten much easier using exchanges. You can even do a recurring buy on PayPal, if you just want to try. No minimum purchase.
Regarding value, the dollar has value because of reputation. It's not backed by gold since the 70's. It has value because the world believes America is a good bet and stable. But as countries move away from the dollar, it's value will go down. Something that Trump actually wants, a devalued dollar. Not sure why. I'm not a financial person. Just a grandma that needed a solid investment for small amount of money and it paid off. That said, memecoins are like day trading on the stock market. Not a good idea. Thank Sharon for starting the conversation! Educator extraordinaire!
I remember hearing about Bitcoin on a Radiolab podcast around 2010 and *knew* this would be huge. I had 2 babies at the time and could barely function during the day - knew I wouldn't be able to figure out how to get/invest in Bitcoin...but back then it was worth around $20, I think. Man, do I wish I would have pulled through on my sleep deprivation....!
The biggest benefit to cryptography is the ability to send money from one person to another without involving a bank or third party corporation. A lot of protestors in Iran had accounts frozen, for example, and crypto was a way for people here to send money to people there without going through a bank or wire transfer service, which would have blocked the transfer.
People have found it to be a fantastic way to send money quickly without those third parties. People's who live here but need to send money to family abroad without it taking weeks or being stolen by corrupt governments or corporations. That is the biggest benefit to the average person right now. There are other benefits but it gets very technical very quickly.
Sure, but the post office isn't regulating the cash in the mail, nor is the internet provider regulating what you do online (both within certain parameters, of course. Mailing anthrax and sharing child pornography are both regulated actions.) Mailing cash is one way to do it, but it can be (and is often) easily stolen. Sending a check by mail is safer but it takes a while and the check is regulated by both the issuing bank and the receiving bank. Venmo/paypal/cash app is faster but those are backed by either a bank account or a credit card, both of which can be turned off or blocked by those third party institutions. Know what I mean?
Allison, thank you. That all makes sense at this time. At least unless/until the Post office is privatized or coerced as other agencies have been. And unless/until internet providers exert influence since net neutrality is now under attack.
Did I miss the answer how the money is physically transferred?
I apologize if I missed it, and thank you again for your patience.
Great question. So, when you send money in non-crypto methods, money isn't actually moving from one place to another, right? Let's say you zelle someone $50. You authorize your bank to "remove" that money from your account, but all they're doing is changing a number that says what your account is worth, they're not physically taking a $50 bill from your account. Neither is the recipient's account getting a $50 bill from their bank when you send the money. Their bank is agreeing with your bank that the $50 transaction is legitimate, and they are both updating their ledgers appropriately.
The same is true for crypto, except instead of two banks doing the agreeing, it's thousands (millions?) of computers all working together to agree that the transaction is legitimate. It's decentralized, so no one computer can say "no" without being overruled by the other computers. The individual sender has a ledger, and the individual recipient has a ledger, and both of those update once the computers do their math problem and agree that the transaction is legitimate. It all happens very quickly, usually within minutes.
In order to get the money translated from crypto to say, US Dollars, you need to use an exchange. US Exchanges are very much like banks, because of our country's regulations and laws. But other countries have decentralized exchanges, where you can translate the crypto from one type to another type in the same kind of way that you send crypto to a person. Computers do math problems to agree that the transaction is legitimate, and no one authority can say no.
Many people keep their crypto in the same form that they receive it though, and use it as an investment, or keep it on their ledger so that it's like a crypto "bank" account. The challenge is keeping it safe, because it's kept digitally and not insured up to a certain amount like an actual FDIC bank. People have elaborate security measures to keep their ledgers secure.
The Bulwark did a great podcast on crypto - by and large, it really seems like the newest, highest tech pyramid scheme, the more you learn about it. I feel like people are like 'I don't get it' because they think it should make sense but ultimately, it seems it does not. It reminds me of the mortgage / derivative crisis of 2008 - everyone was like 'these are really complicated financial products that have made a lot of money so I go with it" and (very, very few) other people were like "that doesn't make any sense" and, well, we all know who was correct in the end.
If you don't already own the powerful computers and the energy required to power them, you will never own Bitcoin except by paying real money for them. That is, you cannot function in an economy that is based on Bitcoin unless you're already rich. Meanwhile, people who are already rich have Bitcoin and people who are not rich are giving them real money for it. That sure sounds like a way to consolidate all money in the hands of the rich while guaranteeing that no one else can get rich. Also, it sounds like the Trump family committed insider trading. I'm sure it's not the first time, but they're not even being sneaky about it now.
Yes, I have a very real problem with the conflicts of interest Trump and his family have as investors and creators of cryptocurrency. The claim to be against corruption while blatantly committing acts any reasonable auditor would report.
Bitcoin can be split up to fractions of bitcoin, like how a dollar can be split into pennies, except soooooo many more decimal points. You don't have to be rich to own bitcoin. You need to be savvy enough not to buy it when it's at its peak value (much like a stock in that regard) and know when to hold or sell it so you aren't losing money on it. But you can buy $20 worth of Bitcoin, then hold it long term or sell it when the value goes up. Lots of people do that. You're not paying the government for Bitcoin if you do that. There's no way for the government to own all 21 million Bitcoin. You're transferring 20 US dollars (for example) into $20 worth of Bitcoin. That value may go up or down, depending on what other Bitcoin owners are doing (buying or selling).
Definitely agree about the insider trading though. And there are no regulations against their particular moves because memecoins are not regulated the same as the stock market.
I will admit I haven't really thought about crypto. It just always seemed very speculative. I'm just over here trying to save for retirement and haven't felt like I could gamble like that, even if it was a big payoff. If it's going to be around, it should be regulated and legislated. I don't think the government should be gambling with taxpayer money if they move to purchase it, especially when we're gutting everything else. I worry about the conflicts of interest. It always seemed like another way for the wealthy to be involved in something the majority of Americans have no access to.
The irnoic part is that crypto is way more accessible than an IRA (can't use it until a certain age) or stocks, where you have to wait for the market to open or close to make transactions. It's very accessible to anyone with access to the internet. Its more accessible than a bank, where you can be considered "unbankable."
It’s very easy for me to have a knee jerk reaction to just discredit crypto altogether and be done with it. I don’t understand it, we don’t need it, we have the US dollar, etc. however, if people are set to have it stay around then I think the best course is to begin embracing it in order to legislate and regulate it to keep it under control and to prevent possible corruption tactics as mentioned in the article. (Like legalizing marijuana— if you want to cut down on illegal drug trade, make it legal and legislate/ tax it.)
Another thought I have is that people have been vocal about the harm AI causes by using these warehouses of servers and the water usage to keep them cool — it seems that bitcoins use just as much if not possibly more ? Energy to mine and transfer ? Is that not an environmental factor we need to be considering as well?
As others have mentioned I just don’t understand the need for it. Much like NFTS. If we are all wanting to explore alternative currency then my vote is to bring back the beanie baby currency of the 90s. 🧸
I agree with so much in your comment. I am especially concerned about the amount of energy required for AI and Bitcoin mining, both. It makes me wonder how we will keep up with the demand. Are regular citizens going to be fighting with corporations for energy resources in the near future? What does this mean for efforts to fight climate change?
The idea that we're selling off Mother Earth in order to make computers solve complicated problems to "create" a pretend currency makes me feel like the whole world has gone insane.
Yes. And it’s also interesting because i feel like there’s a conflict of rationale ? People don’t like cashless / online banking because of security risks of it getting hacked, but then also want to back crypto… a 100% online/computer generated code ? How is that any more secure or stable ??
I’m not a computer whiz and very clearly don’t understand crypto that well, so maybe I’m missing something but the math ain’t mathin’ to me!
But again it only has as much value as people are willing to give it. My beanie baby comment was made in jest clearly but it’s the same thing. Those little toys held real value at the time and people made thousands upon thousands of dollars by selling and trading them. We look back now and think that was insane. They’re stuffed toys for goodness sake.
For anyone reading, there is a movie about the beanie baby craze called The Beanie Bubble and it’s a very good look at the phenomenon.
I read Yuval Noah Harari's book Sapiens years ago, and my mind was blown by just grappling with the fact that humans have just made up all the rules and systems around us. Sure, crypto is fake, but so is the dollar, and gold, and anything else we artificially imbue with value. Beanie babies included! Haha. I just can't understand why we would choose the environmentally-dangerous cryptocurrency when we could imbue something far more sustainable with value.
Hahaha...beanie baby currency...I love it. I just recently gave my 7 year old niece all of my beanie babies I still had stashed in the top of my childhood closet and she was in HEAVEN.
I see several interrelated issues: validity of crypto, trump using presidency to grift crypto and the huge environmental impact of crypto. The environmental impact of crypto and AI make them a pretty big negative to me.
As a Dem and also a crypto holder, it's been frustrating over the last few years to see how decentralized currencies have been treated by the government. Biden's SEC made a point of going after businesses dealing in crypto, and forced several to close down with law suits, arrests, and unclear regulations that they refused to clarify. They made it much harder for individuals to create and work in the digital space, and the crypto community at large fell hard to the right because of that. They were excited to see Trump win because of his promises to kill the lawsuits (which he did) and be more crypto friendly (which he is). It's a real bummer, because it could have been an easy way to move the needle if they had supported this new industry instead.
The speculative, secretive, and unregulated nature of crypto makes it an excellent vehicle for illegal activities. I have always felt "the ick" when reading about it and trying to understand it. Money laundering, human trafficking, *ahem* hidden gifts from foreign governments are all made easier by using crypto markets. It is around to stay, but light needs to be shed on how it is working behind the scenes. Supporting the US economy up on crypto is like making Bernie Madoff Secretary of the Treasury. We are already in enough of a financial boondoggle with Elon and his chainsaw. This feel like more "flooding the zone with crap" to distract from other, more important things going on. Like the economy tanking.
In essence, Trump is treating the U.S. Treasury as his personal investment account. He's using the power of his office to make/change policy that enriches himself, and his friends--at taxpayer expense. On the broader spectrum, consider that DOGE has yet to cut staff or cancel any contracts directly associated with Musk (e.g. Starlink and SpaceX). Like many who have commented here on the micro-topic of using the Treasury to purchase/manage a stockpile of cryptocurrency...I really don't have enough knowledge to say yay or nay. However, on the surface, it does appear that the impact would devalue the U.S. dollar, which would be inflationary. Although, my greatest concern does come in the form of national security due to Trump's personal involvement. There's a reason that the children of our presidents are assigned secret service protection(s). Consider the scenario of a foreign adversary kidnapping a president's child--and the leverage that would wield. Now consider how much Donald Trump *loves* money. If crypto is a good investment for U.S. taxpayers--it should not occur until legislation explicitly forbids--without exception--any elected official from personally investing in such.
First of all, I'm not sure why this space is taken up with a primer on crypto while democracy and our way of life are in jeopardy all over, unless it's just another stark reminder of how the Trump family is again using the government to enrich itself; except this time the actual enrichment mechanism is something that nefarious actors could easily use to influence the President. Makes Hunter's Burisma deal look quite quaint in comparison. Secondly, how in the world can you have a piece on crypto and its possible wider acceptance, without going more in depth into its use by criminals? And I'm not referring to just the Trump family specifically here. An array of illicit actors, including transnational organized crime groups and countless individuals, are increasingly leveraging crypto in commission of crimes such as terrorism, drug trafficking, gambling, intellectual property theft, money laundering, human and wildlife trafficking, and violent crime, not to mention, ransomware scams, pig butchering, credit card and banking fraud and other cybercrime. Using crypto enables them to evade identification by law enforcement and avoid asset seizures if they are caught. The majority of this activity is in Asia and Latin America, where regulations are more lax and governments actually try to profit from such activity. But I'm sure it will explode worldwide once Trump and his crypto bros get what they want here in the U.S., with the government actually taking an active role and with the effort to weaken or remove most regulations around crypto. Ah, Citizens United. Thank you yet again for providing greedy billionaires with the opportunity to purchase the government they want to make themselves even richer.
How about sitting the comment section out occasionally? How about letting Sharon take up her space with what she wants? How about remembering that you are not the only person here and that others may benefit from her articles even if you don't?
This article by one of my favorite writers delves a bit into your opening question on why we're talking about crypto as the world falls apart - it's all very connected. https://www.pocketobservatory.org/mad-meg-fury-road/
I also learned so much from this one on Tangle, specifically what the right and left are saying and more about how the crypto reserve can easily lead to corruption:
I feel like my late 89 year old grandmother trying to learn how to use a smart phone when I read about digital currency.
I just don’t understand it.
OMG, same! And I feel I am a reasonably intelligent person, but this...nope, don't get it.
Same!
Oof. Sacks' claim that taxpayers "lost out on over $17 billion of value" reveals a concerning mindset. This is the classic thinking of someone with a gambling problem. Any financial advisor would tell you that labeling FOMO as concrete "losses" is fallacious. By this logic, we've all "lost" billions by not buying winning lottery tickets. And this is the crypto and AI czar. Not very comforting.
The New York Times' March 3rd piece "Trump Faces Blowback Over Plans for Crypto Reserve" shows that many people are concerned. The backlash is coming from all directions—even Republicans question spending on volatile assets instead of debt reduction. As conservative investor Joe Lonsdale aptly put it: "It's wrong to tax me for crypto bro schemes."
The conflicts of interest are glaring. Trump profited from $Trump memecoins before taking office, and now creates policies benefiting those assets.
And as mentioned by Sharon, most alarming is the national security risk. Foreign entities could buy large token positions as leverage over US policy decisions—threatening to sell and crash prices or buying more to curry favor. Or maybe “could” is the wrong word… why wouldn’t they?
This appears to be what $130 million in crypto industry campaign contributions buys. The proposed Senate bill would direct the government to purchase one million Bitcoins—approximately $92.6 billion of taxpayer money into speculative assets.
Thank you Sharon for writing what must have been an incredibly difficult article to explain everything so succinctly. I cannot pretend to understand everything written here, but it definitely helped to make sense of it. I wonder, and maybe this is a future topic, how does this fit in with American history, in terms of politicians being able to set the rules that directly enrich themselves for assets they own? It is kind of the definition of corruption, isn't it? But I won’t pretend that it’s the first time it has happened.
I had the exact same thought about the quote from Sacks. And the exact same fear. I don’t like thinking that our government is attempting to solve current economic woes with speculative investment.
We bought bitcoin and Ether in 2012/2013. It has been an excellent investment and, while it goes up and down in the short term, it has gone steadily up in the long term. Bought around $300, now worth 80/90K. It was a bit complicated to buy/sell but has gotten much easier using exchanges. You can even do a recurring buy on PayPal, if you just want to try. No minimum purchase.
Regarding value, the dollar has value because of reputation. It's not backed by gold since the 70's. It has value because the world believes America is a good bet and stable. But as countries move away from the dollar, it's value will go down. Something that Trump actually wants, a devalued dollar. Not sure why. I'm not a financial person. Just a grandma that needed a solid investment for small amount of money and it paid off. That said, memecoins are like day trading on the stock market. Not a good idea. Thank Sharon for starting the conversation! Educator extraordinaire!
I remember hearing about Bitcoin on a Radiolab podcast around 2010 and *knew* this would be huge. I had 2 babies at the time and could barely function during the day - knew I wouldn't be able to figure out how to get/invest in Bitcoin...but back then it was worth around $20, I think. Man, do I wish I would have pulled through on my sleep deprivation....!
Seriously, can we talk about the environmental impact?
Literally everything in this article screams negative.
What am I missing that is positive?
If there’s something positive, please compare and contrast the positive with the negative.
It’s not that I don’t understand it (thanks to Sharon,) it’s that I don’t understand the benefit to the common good.
I feel like we're loosing the battle with the environment and everyone (gestures wildly) doesn't seem to care. It's so alarming. WIRED came out with an article (in 2018!!) about this exact thing: https://www.wired.com/story/bitcoin-will-burn-planet-down-how-fast/
So, then the question is: are you willing to transfer funds more securely at the expense of the environment?
The biggest benefit to cryptography is the ability to send money from one person to another without involving a bank or third party corporation. A lot of protestors in Iran had accounts frozen, for example, and crypto was a way for people here to send money to people there without going through a bank or wire transfer service, which would have blocked the transfer.
People have found it to be a fantastic way to send money quickly without those third parties. People's who live here but need to send money to family abroad without it taking weeks or being stolen by corrupt governments or corporations. That is the biggest benefit to the average person right now. There are other benefits but it gets very technical very quickly.
Thank you, Allison. I appreciate that info, and understand your point. But how is the money transferred? Is there not a third party involved?
If I mail it, a (perhaps more than one) postal system is a third party.
If I send it through the internet, an internet provider is a third party.
Thank you for your patience explaining the details.
Sure, but the post office isn't regulating the cash in the mail, nor is the internet provider regulating what you do online (both within certain parameters, of course. Mailing anthrax and sharing child pornography are both regulated actions.) Mailing cash is one way to do it, but it can be (and is often) easily stolen. Sending a check by mail is safer but it takes a while and the check is regulated by both the issuing bank and the receiving bank. Venmo/paypal/cash app is faster but those are backed by either a bank account or a credit card, both of which can be turned off or blocked by those third party institutions. Know what I mean?
Allison, thank you. That all makes sense at this time. At least unless/until the Post office is privatized or coerced as other agencies have been. And unless/until internet providers exert influence since net neutrality is now under attack.
Did I miss the answer how the money is physically transferred?
I apologize if I missed it, and thank you again for your patience.
Great question. So, when you send money in non-crypto methods, money isn't actually moving from one place to another, right? Let's say you zelle someone $50. You authorize your bank to "remove" that money from your account, but all they're doing is changing a number that says what your account is worth, they're not physically taking a $50 bill from your account. Neither is the recipient's account getting a $50 bill from their bank when you send the money. Their bank is agreeing with your bank that the $50 transaction is legitimate, and they are both updating their ledgers appropriately.
The same is true for crypto, except instead of two banks doing the agreeing, it's thousands (millions?) of computers all working together to agree that the transaction is legitimate. It's decentralized, so no one computer can say "no" without being overruled by the other computers. The individual sender has a ledger, and the individual recipient has a ledger, and both of those update once the computers do their math problem and agree that the transaction is legitimate. It all happens very quickly, usually within minutes.
In order to get the money translated from crypto to say, US Dollars, you need to use an exchange. US Exchanges are very much like banks, because of our country's regulations and laws. But other countries have decentralized exchanges, where you can translate the crypto from one type to another type in the same kind of way that you send crypto to a person. Computers do math problems to agree that the transaction is legitimate, and no one authority can say no.
Many people keep their crypto in the same form that they receive it though, and use it as an investment, or keep it on their ledger so that it's like a crypto "bank" account. The challenge is keeping it safe, because it's kept digitally and not insured up to a certain amount like an actual FDIC bank. People have elaborate security measures to keep their ledgers secure.
Allison, thank you so much! That’s exactly what I needed to know.
this was so helpful to read through, thank you!
Crypto currency, not cryptography
The Bulwark did a great podcast on crypto - by and large, it really seems like the newest, highest tech pyramid scheme, the more you learn about it. I feel like people are like 'I don't get it' because they think it should make sense but ultimately, it seems it does not. It reminds me of the mortgage / derivative crisis of 2008 - everyone was like 'these are really complicated financial products that have made a lot of money so I go with it" and (very, very few) other people were like "that doesn't make any sense" and, well, we all know who was correct in the end.
If you don't already own the powerful computers and the energy required to power them, you will never own Bitcoin except by paying real money for them. That is, you cannot function in an economy that is based on Bitcoin unless you're already rich. Meanwhile, people who are already rich have Bitcoin and people who are not rich are giving them real money for it. That sure sounds like a way to consolidate all money in the hands of the rich while guaranteeing that no one else can get rich. Also, it sounds like the Trump family committed insider trading. I'm sure it's not the first time, but they're not even being sneaky about it now.
Yes, I have a very real problem with the conflicts of interest Trump and his family have as investors and creators of cryptocurrency. The claim to be against corruption while blatantly committing acts any reasonable auditor would report.
Bitcoin can be split up to fractions of bitcoin, like how a dollar can be split into pennies, except soooooo many more decimal points. You don't have to be rich to own bitcoin. You need to be savvy enough not to buy it when it's at its peak value (much like a stock in that regard) and know when to hold or sell it so you aren't losing money on it. But you can buy $20 worth of Bitcoin, then hold it long term or sell it when the value goes up. Lots of people do that. You're not paying the government for Bitcoin if you do that. There's no way for the government to own all 21 million Bitcoin. You're transferring 20 US dollars (for example) into $20 worth of Bitcoin. That value may go up or down, depending on what other Bitcoin owners are doing (buying or selling).
Definitely agree about the insider trading though. And there are no regulations against their particular moves because memecoins are not regulated the same as the stock market.
“Crypto has gone from a joke to a serious financial tool.”
Reminds me of the first time someone told me Donald Trump was running for President, and I literally laughed out loud.
I will admit I haven't really thought about crypto. It just always seemed very speculative. I'm just over here trying to save for retirement and haven't felt like I could gamble like that, even if it was a big payoff. If it's going to be around, it should be regulated and legislated. I don't think the government should be gambling with taxpayer money if they move to purchase it, especially when we're gutting everything else. I worry about the conflicts of interest. It always seemed like another way for the wealthy to be involved in something the majority of Americans have no access to.
The irnoic part is that crypto is way more accessible than an IRA (can't use it until a certain age) or stocks, where you have to wait for the market to open or close to make transactions. It's very accessible to anyone with access to the internet. Its more accessible than a bank, where you can be considered "unbankable."
I also find it ironic that I misspelled ironic.
It’s very easy for me to have a knee jerk reaction to just discredit crypto altogether and be done with it. I don’t understand it, we don’t need it, we have the US dollar, etc. however, if people are set to have it stay around then I think the best course is to begin embracing it in order to legislate and regulate it to keep it under control and to prevent possible corruption tactics as mentioned in the article. (Like legalizing marijuana— if you want to cut down on illegal drug trade, make it legal and legislate/ tax it.)
Another thought I have is that people have been vocal about the harm AI causes by using these warehouses of servers and the water usage to keep them cool — it seems that bitcoins use just as much if not possibly more ? Energy to mine and transfer ? Is that not an environmental factor we need to be considering as well?
As others have mentioned I just don’t understand the need for it. Much like NFTS. If we are all wanting to explore alternative currency then my vote is to bring back the beanie baby currency of the 90s. 🧸
I agree with so much in your comment. I am especially concerned about the amount of energy required for AI and Bitcoin mining, both. It makes me wonder how we will keep up with the demand. Are regular citizens going to be fighting with corporations for energy resources in the near future? What does this mean for efforts to fight climate change?
The idea that we're selling off Mother Earth in order to make computers solve complicated problems to "create" a pretend currency makes me feel like the whole world has gone insane.
Yes. And it’s also interesting because i feel like there’s a conflict of rationale ? People don’t like cashless / online banking because of security risks of it getting hacked, but then also want to back crypto… a 100% online/computer generated code ? How is that any more secure or stable ??
I’m not a computer whiz and very clearly don’t understand crypto that well, so maybe I’m missing something but the math ain’t mathin’ to me!
But again it only has as much value as people are willing to give it. My beanie baby comment was made in jest clearly but it’s the same thing. Those little toys held real value at the time and people made thousands upon thousands of dollars by selling and trading them. We look back now and think that was insane. They’re stuffed toys for goodness sake.
For anyone reading, there is a movie about the beanie baby craze called The Beanie Bubble and it’s a very good look at the phenomenon.
I read Yuval Noah Harari's book Sapiens years ago, and my mind was blown by just grappling with the fact that humans have just made up all the rules and systems around us. Sure, crypto is fake, but so is the dollar, and gold, and anything else we artificially imbue with value. Beanie babies included! Haha. I just can't understand why we would choose the environmentally-dangerous cryptocurrency when we could imbue something far more sustainable with value.
Yes. It’s a slippery slope to nihilism if I think about it too much. 🤪
Beanie Babies, baseball cards and Star Wars figurines. Oh, and Precious Moments. LOL
Hahaha...beanie baby currency...I love it. I just recently gave my 7 year old niece all of my beanie babies I still had stashed in the top of my childhood closet and she was in HEAVEN.
I see several interrelated issues: validity of crypto, trump using presidency to grift crypto and the huge environmental impact of crypto. The environmental impact of crypto and AI make them a pretty big negative to me.
Agree!
As a Dem and also a crypto holder, it's been frustrating over the last few years to see how decentralized currencies have been treated by the government. Biden's SEC made a point of going after businesses dealing in crypto, and forced several to close down with law suits, arrests, and unclear regulations that they refused to clarify. They made it much harder for individuals to create and work in the digital space, and the crypto community at large fell hard to the right because of that. They were excited to see Trump win because of his promises to kill the lawsuits (which he did) and be more crypto friendly (which he is). It's a real bummer, because it could have been an easy way to move the needle if they had supported this new industry instead.
The speculative, secretive, and unregulated nature of crypto makes it an excellent vehicle for illegal activities. I have always felt "the ick" when reading about it and trying to understand it. Money laundering, human trafficking, *ahem* hidden gifts from foreign governments are all made easier by using crypto markets. It is around to stay, but light needs to be shed on how it is working behind the scenes. Supporting the US economy up on crypto is like making Bernie Madoff Secretary of the Treasury. We are already in enough of a financial boondoggle with Elon and his chainsaw. This feel like more "flooding the zone with crap" to distract from other, more important things going on. Like the economy tanking.
In essence, Trump is treating the U.S. Treasury as his personal investment account. He's using the power of his office to make/change policy that enriches himself, and his friends--at taxpayer expense. On the broader spectrum, consider that DOGE has yet to cut staff or cancel any contracts directly associated with Musk (e.g. Starlink and SpaceX). Like many who have commented here on the micro-topic of using the Treasury to purchase/manage a stockpile of cryptocurrency...I really don't have enough knowledge to say yay or nay. However, on the surface, it does appear that the impact would devalue the U.S. dollar, which would be inflationary. Although, my greatest concern does come in the form of national security due to Trump's personal involvement. There's a reason that the children of our presidents are assigned secret service protection(s). Consider the scenario of a foreign adversary kidnapping a president's child--and the leverage that would wield. Now consider how much Donald Trump *loves* money. If crypto is a good investment for U.S. taxpayers--it should not occur until legislation explicitly forbids--without exception--any elected official from personally investing in such.
First of all, I'm not sure why this space is taken up with a primer on crypto while democracy and our way of life are in jeopardy all over, unless it's just another stark reminder of how the Trump family is again using the government to enrich itself; except this time the actual enrichment mechanism is something that nefarious actors could easily use to influence the President. Makes Hunter's Burisma deal look quite quaint in comparison. Secondly, how in the world can you have a piece on crypto and its possible wider acceptance, without going more in depth into its use by criminals? And I'm not referring to just the Trump family specifically here. An array of illicit actors, including transnational organized crime groups and countless individuals, are increasingly leveraging crypto in commission of crimes such as terrorism, drug trafficking, gambling, intellectual property theft, money laundering, human and wildlife trafficking, and violent crime, not to mention, ransomware scams, pig butchering, credit card and banking fraud and other cybercrime. Using crypto enables them to evade identification by law enforcement and avoid asset seizures if they are caught. The majority of this activity is in Asia and Latin America, where regulations are more lax and governments actually try to profit from such activity. But I'm sure it will explode worldwide once Trump and his crypto bros get what they want here in the U.S., with the government actually taking an active role and with the effort to weaken or remove most regulations around crypto. Ah, Citizens United. Thank you yet again for providing greedy billionaires with the opportunity to purchase the government they want to make themselves even richer.
How about sitting the comment section out occasionally? How about letting Sharon take up her space with what she wants? How about remembering that you are not the only person here and that others may benefit from her articles even if you don't?
Take a breath, girl. We all have free speech; you, me and Sharon.
This article by one of my favorite writers delves a bit into your opening question on why we're talking about crypto as the world falls apart - it's all very connected. https://www.pocketobservatory.org/mad-meg-fury-road/
Mad Meg does paint a bleak picture of the future. I hope it doesn't come to pass.
Thanks for this article Sharon!
I also learned so much from this one on Tangle, specifically what the right and left are saying and more about how the crypto reserve can easily lead to corruption:
https://www.readtangle.com/trumps-federal-cryptocurrency-reserve/
Thanks for writing so clearly about complicated issues. You have done it again!