It seems like this is just some research group noodling on advanced rocket concepts, not whether they are practical or not. Any increase in SPEED to destination results in an EQUAL need to decelerate at the destination. Deceleration can occur through gravity assisted capture or aerobraking, but none of the more complex strategies for getting rid of velocity at the destination is really used because they're very inaccurate compared to a capture burn.

That's why I'll always be skeptical of these sort of promises of extreme performance being beneficial. There are very few cases where a doubling of velocity in space travel is important. You can always exchange speed for time.

exploring the anecdote, I have 5 kids, so yeah -- no European vacations here!! Only saving so they can have some access to opportunity I didn't have.

I have not kept more than 2 months worth of cash in my bank for 15 years. I find it hard to believe many people keep significant amounts of cash in banks anymore. Are there even balances that could outflow to stablecoins? Who keeps piles of cash in a bank while you could hold stocks, mutual funds, bitcoin etc. Stablecoins aren't a threat at all, unless a new kind of bank appears that replaces trad banks in utility by using a stable coin.

tokenized securities are not comparable to mortgage backed securities.

what regulatory vehicle do they hope to use? Coinbase and Robinhood can by stocks, and then sell tokens of them under whatever shrink wrapped license agreement they want.

This is only a risk to the markets if there is a violation of holding the underlying security. Regulators should do what they can to avoid another FTX situation, where FTX sold Bitcoin but held none, and their position, which was effectively short bitcoin, blew up in their face, which is what bitcoin does when entities try to manipulate it.

My greatest fear is the stock exchanges resistance to tokenization is their realizeation is that their utility may be nearing an end. The leap between actual security and a token of a secuity that is digitally tradable is within grasp once these tokenized markets gather momentum. Regulation for anti-competitive reasons is ill advised.

further reinforcing how detached and out of the loop company leadership is, Shawn fails to recognize that "wage slavery", which he has aligned with workers being not included in the profitable outcome of their efforts, has been the norm for a very, very long time. I might even say the dominant force for as long as I can remember. Shawn doesn't seem to know his industry or the people who work in it very well, or his speakings are betraying a more likely scenario; he is reminiscing for the days when he could get people to work 80 hour weeks under a mere PROMISE of a profit sharing benefit while the new model would emphasize work life balance.

the reality is this shift isn't just like, market based, its generational. he's going to find it harder and harder to exploit workers like he did in the past.

newly minted MBA's complaining about their education not being focused on a fad should make them unhirable, since they're not valuing the the unchanging principles, accounting practices and laws of how to run a business they're there to learn. if they think they should just show up and AI everything and fake people out about company valuations so they can IPO, they should just be kicked out of the program.

why should circle have the monopoly on stable coins?

good foundations, but what happens at scale? how trustworthy are the custodians of stable coins to maintain solvency? if you create a stable coin, and back it with treasuries, which the idea is they are completely safe, right? but what if treasuries become not safe.

just as bank notes were the first abstraction from gold, it seems like this is an abstraction from fiat. bank notes issued against gold had similar governance issues; who verified the gold deposits and that banks couldnt just print more certificates than they could redeem instantly?

i would be desperately concerned about allowing this practice. but it seems like its the direction we're going, which if you game it out long enough it will eventually just explode.

it'll have value, but it will be reduced to and approach the cost of the electricity

with agent based purchasing, it will increase active competition for all resources. everything will go up in price because of it, wrapped in a tool that is supposed to help you find the least expensive option. what a grift.

every 10 minutes bitcoin produces around $300,000 in economic value. if it weren't, the price of bitcoin would adjust appropriately.

a freshly mined bitcoin is actually worth more than the spot price of bitcoin

i appreciate your engagement. i checked the links provided and they are more self-referential "research". there's no real study behind any of these "analysis" beyond what i would call napkin math of taking a series of estimates to emerge with a cost to mine bitcoin.

for example, very simplistically, you can take guess at the cost to mine using the mining rate of a typical miner and multiply that by the cost of electricity, and then obfuscate that behind some more hogwash, but that simplistic analysis is grossly inaccurate because it assumes that all miner's are using the same electricity rate. for example, bitcoin thrives on cheap electricity. cheap electricity comes from lost or stranded sources and contributes to the hashrate.

there are also power sharing agreements in place where bitcoin miners operate as a consumer of last resort and turn themselves off when the grid demands them to.

in the end, what im saying is the original article has no citation and there is no good study that concludes with any accuracy whatsoever what the cost to mine a bitcoin really is. you can guess at it, but you'll never know. the only insight that could be close to accurate would be based on whatever disclosures a publicly traded company made in their required filings.

I don't think this article was really worth posting.

The article doesn't even provide citations for the cost factors cited, and it basically boils down to "I've known it all along!" but the author doesn't really understand what they're writing about. It's PCGamer, an article by a games author, dissing on bitcoin using no outside citation for the cost factors.

i did a quick google search hoping to find some sort of source for the figures invented and couldn't find it. "German bitcoin $200,000" only google search result is this article.