Jamie Dimon Slams Crypto Tokens as 'Decentralized Ponzi Schemes' (bloomberg.com) 112
Jamie Dimon didn't mince words when a US lawmaker mentioned the executive's history of criticizing cryptocurrencies. From a report: "I'm a major skeptic on crypto tokens, which you call currency, like Bitcoin," the JPMorgan Chase chief executive officer said in congressional testimony Wednesday. "They are decentralized Ponzi schemes." Stablecoins -- digital assets tied to the value of the US dollar or other currencies -- wouldn't be problematic with the proper regulation, and JPMorgan is active in blockchain, Dimon said. The comments represent the latest criticism leveled against digital currencies by Dimon, who once called Bitcoin "a fraud" before eventually saying he regretted the comments.
Jamie Dimon says a lot of things (Score:3, Insightful)
This is also the same guy who says that everyone is more productive when they aren't working from home. Take everything he says with a HUGE grain of salt. I'm not talking pretzel-sized salt grains... I'm talking road salt sized salt grains.
Re:Jamie Dimon says a lot of things (Score:5, Insightful)
When he is speaking in his area of expertise that is different matter than speaking on remote work effectiveness (which might vary by industry anyway)
Toxic investments such as bitcoin fail all the tests of money including being a very poor store of value.
Re: (Score:3)
When he is speaking in his area of expertise that is different matter than speaking on remote work effectiveness
Jamie Dimon is a psychology major with an MBA, turned into a management career. He doesn't know about details. His goal in front of congress is to say whatever will give his bank more money.
That is, he might be right, or he might be wrong, but there is no reason to assume he is right based on his credentials, or his position.
Re: (Score:1)
The entire reason for anyone who buys into a cryptocurrency is to try to sell it off to a greater fool and cash out into real money. Definitionally, cryptocurrencies can only maintain as long as there's a next layer of greater fools.
That's also, not coincidentally, exactly how a pyramid/ponzi setup works. [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The entire reason for anyone who buys into a cryptocurrency is to try to sell it off to a greater fool and cash out into real money.
That's not the entire reason.
Re: (Score:1)
It literally is, and any crypto-enthusiast you allow to talk for more than 5 minutes will admit it when they start ranting about "how much money you [the mark/sucker] could be making" if you just... take on the role of Greater Fool and buy crypto from them.
A crypto sales pitch is indistinguishable from the sales pitch of a ponzi seller.
Re: (Score:2)
You are saying that there is no other reason to buy a cryptocurrency. Do you realize all anyone has to do to prove you wrong is find a single reason?
Re: (Score:3)
Your vision is too narrow. Not everyone who buys crypto hopes that the value goes up so that they can cash out. No sir. Some people buy crypto so that they can buy drugs.
Re: (Score:2)
I buy tea, firewood, settle lunch tabs, pr0n and other things with BTC. Some people send aid to people in Ukraine, China and other places. The greeks and others used BTC when their national currencies because less stable.
Re: (Score:2)
We go through this every round [youtube.com] of the cycle, too. Those who know what a pyramid/ponzi looks like can see crypto for what it is. [washingtonpost.com]
But the Bitcoin pushers, those who are invested in, are hoping to sell off to a greater-fool so that they don't lose their shirts. So they HAVE to run and start screaming "nuh uh no it isn't"; they have to protect THEIR level of the pyramid and hope that there are still enough people to fill the next level of the pyramid so that they can cash out safely.
Lather, rinse repeat. Or
Re: (Score:2)
He got fired from Consumer Credit for nepotism. That is exactly what I expect from a Harvard MBA.
Harvard MBAs don't need to know stuff. They find someone who knows what to do, and pay them an efficient wage to do it. They are in charge.
Re: (Score:2)
Just being billionaire businessman would suggest success to most people.
We're not talking about success, we're talking about expertise. They aren't the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
To the workers of the world!
Re: (Score:2)
LOL he has both based on what? Support your ideas with facts, troll. You have no idea how Harvard works.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Over time it tends to be true though. All the people who want to work from home are going to rabble rabble rabble me saying it but it's turning out to be true.
Overtime a significant amount of people start slipping in distractions or other activities into work. For people who aren't very productive anyway maybe it's no different from home or an office. Naturally they'll want to work from home as their activities that aren't productive aren't under as much scrutiny and they can easily do something more fun wi
Re: (Score:1)
I work 8 hours per day.
So I use 10 hours of my life but get paid for 8 hours.
I think using 8 hours and getting paid for 8 hours is a fairer deal.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not saying there isn't advantages so please don't take it that way. You're right, commuting an extended time does suck and it's nice to get rid of that.
I commute anywhere from an hour to two hours per day myself depending on traffic.
One statement doesn't cover everyone, statistically that's what I have seen, but it doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. I shouldn't have to say it but don't worry some people ARE more special than others and don't do the same thing.
It as I said does really depend on the jo
Re: (Score:2)
"However for the people who live 15 minutes away from work, is it the same? Probably not."
They still have to waste 30-60min getting ready. When working from home most of can just roll out of bed and toss on a robe.
"For people who aren't very productive anyway maybe it's no different from home or an office. Naturally they'll want to work from home as their activities that aren't productive aren't under as much scrutiny and they can easily do something more fun with that unproductive time."
This is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:1)
Is that really backed in science? Every report I've seen reports temporary gains in productivity for remote workers as they like it and want to keep it, but everything I've seen is it's like crush stage of a romance and six months down the road, that's when it starts to suffer.
So it sounds to me like you fit the bill of the type of people advocating for it while ignoring the obvious information that's against it. That's a common theme these days. People are making choices based on mental heath issues becaus
Re: (Score:3)
Those two things are completely, utterly, and irreconcilably disconnected.
Huh (Score:3)
For once Jamie Dimon and I agree on something.
Danger to crypto is unknown regulations / tax (Score:3, Insightful)
One reason why I am totally out of crypto at the moment, despite liking the basic concept, is I still feel like the regulatory structure around all crypto is really up in the air, and we have no idea how a majority of governments will impose regulations around the whole crypto space. It's probably not downright bans, but it could be anything from massively high capital gains tax to discourage use, to extremely onerous personal info gathering requirements from any large exchange.
Until the majority majority of government digital currencies launch around the world, we cannot be sure about how territorial various governments will be around people using digital currency that is not the official government form... until we know, I don't think we have any idea of what value crypto will settle at.
China basically banned crypto there and people still use it so maybe it would survive a full-on assault from most other governments as well. But I don't think it would have the same broad investor appeal it still has even today.
Re: (Score:2)
One reason why I am totally out of crypto at the moment
What's the other reason? You lost a bunch of money like we all said you would?
The other thing (Score:1)
What's the other reason? You lost a bunch of money like we all said you would?
A) I was never into crypto beyond a few K, but also in and out at the wrong times to either make - or lose - substantial amounts of money. Mad around 5-8% in the end (which, IRS agents, I carefully put every single transaction in detail for each tax year). Pretty sad considering I was mining crypto right near the start, but because I was not using dedicated hardware I got only 0.1 BTC from the effort over a year or so. If I wou
Re: (Score:2)
This is a very reasonable perspective and a reasonable approach. I advocate BTC and crypto in general because of the technology, ideology and potential for the world.
While BTC is deflationary and will ultimately end up at a higher speculative price eventually WHEN is a very dicey question and I don't recommend short term speculation on BTC or anything else.
Re: (Score:1)
I also agree it will probably reach a higher price eventually, we'll see how long that takes! I have no feeling at all for the timeframe on that.
Re: (Score:1)
But it is a ponzi scheme (Score:5, Insightful)
I stayed away from it from the start, it immediately looked like a Ponzi scheme.
Sure some people made money, but they only make money by the people below them buying the item, and they only make money by convincing the people below them to give them money for it, and so on.
It's literally has zero value unless you convince people to give you money for it. If you sit at the top, hold 100 bitcoin, but make extras and 'sell' it to people, each person who buys into makes the value of your bitcoin worth more.
It's the actual defining feature of a ponzi scheme, except it's not a physical product, it's digital, with some control mechanisms to affect availability, that's it.
Re: (Score:3)
Money has no value unless the government and its central bank can convince people that it has value. And the value is only maintained as long as a steady flow of people are attracted to try to obtain it and use it to transact.
Re:But it is a ponzi scheme (Score:5, Insightful)
You are entirely incorrect about money. Money in and of itself has no value, except as a medium of exchange. It makes it easier to exchange 40 hours of work a week for a hamburger tonight. As a medium of exchange, it isn't the government or central bank that gives it value. It is in fact that both parties, a buyer and a seller, trust that it will retain value within some modicum of acceptable appreciation so it can be used as a medium of exchange. The value is in the trust both a buyer and a seller have in money that when the seller receives the money, they can turn around and buy something else that they want. It's a trust mechanism. You do not need a government or a central bank to provide that trust, all they do is shore up the areas where that trust could be exploited or abused by controlling money supply or prosecuting those who commit fraud, which only add confidence but is not the source of the trust.
Crypto-tokens, to use Diamond's term, is NOT money. Currency is a terrible term for it, because it's not currency. At best it's a commodity, because it can only be used as a medium of exchange in a very limited number of things, most of which are illegal. More importantly though, the very fact that people can "invest" in it means it's not a currency; no seller or buyer will ever be able to understand what they're receiving in exchange for Bitcoin because ti changes value to fast; people are speculating on it so it's an investment. The only thing is it's a terrible commodity, because at least soy beans or pork bellies or copper have an end use that is measurable and therefore you can make some educated guesses as to the demand and need for the commodity. But cryptocurrency has no end use, so you have no way to understand the price.
Re: (Score:2)
exchange 40 hours of work a week for a hamburger tonight,/quote>
If this is what it takes in your currency, your central bank is printing too much of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on timing.
I suggested my workplace should take advantage of their 15yr lease terms with the datacenter they were located in (included electricity/cooling/plenty of rackspace and connectivity) to mine bitcoin and use it for an option to pay spiffs/employee incentives. If they'd done so it would have cost a few thousand up front for equipment and every $6 of spiff paid would be worth about $18k today.
Re: (Score:1)
money is a medium of exchange but it is also a store of value and a unit of account. If it stops being all of those 3 things at once then it is no longer good.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Very importantly, all the government does is provide a predictable sense of inflation"
For those of us here in the US where we are experiencing rampant inflation and recession this is something of a poor joke at the moment.
Re: (Score:2)
Typical money is government fiat that loses value due to inflation over time. It is a terrible store of value.
Re: (Score:2)
You explained why it is a terrible store of value, that is because it is a government issued currency. Real money is market money, for example gold.
Re: (Score:2)
Or BTC ;)
Re: (Score:1)
BTC is not money I would trust.
Re: (Score:2)
For myself it depends on the use case and what you mean by trust. Derivatives, leverage, and paper trading have done serious damage to the market much like they have with gold.
Re: (Score:2)
no, it is not that, I do not trust an electronic coin of any kind that is not backed by anything real.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because something isn't physical doesn't mean it isn't real. Gold isn't backed by pitiful industrial demand for gold, gold has historically existed for it's innate properties as a currency. It is rare, difficult to transport in quantity (important for the wealthy as it complicates bulk theft without detection), can't be created on demand, and relatively easy to verify it is authentic.
Utility as a medium for exchange is itself an innate market need just as surely as utility busting up concrete provides
Re: (Score:2)
"BTC cannot even prevent inflation, it can be duplicated any number of times under different names at no extra cost."
That doesn't create BTC and therefore doesn't create inflation. Anyone can go printed their own dollars under different names as well but it won't inflate the real currency supply. People fork the linux kernel thousands of times a day and I don't see Linux Torvalds sweating it.
They are all missing something important... some compelling reason for a fork or knockoff beyond someone being upset
Re: (Score:2)
new cryptos just take people from existing ones, few new people actually enter the crypto market, the same people are switching between cryptos hoping that the new ones will give them more return if the relative price takes off, they are all hoping to get rich, speculation is the only reason people get into cryptos, nothing else. They are all hoping that the greater fools will buy the cryptos off of them for more dollars than they paid.
Transaction speed is worse than horrendous, it is avsolutely horrendous
Re: (Score:2)
"Transaction speed is worse than horrendous, it is avsolutely horrendous. An hour or so to run a transaction. The overall ability of BTC network only to run 7-10 transactions per second is useless."
False. This was solved long ago but then I've already pointed that and you keep repeating it. Perhaps you are a bot.
"new cryptos just take people from existing ones, few new people actually enter the crypto market, the same people are switching between cryptos hoping that the new ones will give them more return i
Re: (Score:3)
"At best it's a commodity, because it can only be used as a medium of exchange in a very limited number of things, most of which are illegal."
Really, name 10 things for which you can't, as an innate technical property, use cryptocurrency as a medium of exchange. I'll start by naming 10 legal things for which I've actually used BTC.
Firewood ... The list can keep going but I'm
Jewelry
Gas
Settling a lunch tab
'wiring' money
usenet access
web hosting
pr0n
tea
a new AC system for my home
groceries
adult products purchases
Re: (Score:2)
P.S. The shop I buy my tea from decided to stop accepting BTC at one point because everyone told him it was a ridiculously inflated bubble and would crash to nothing. The market was roughly $28/BTC at that point.
I buy large orders relative to my consumption but he had no problem accepting BTC on the next purchase. I'm sure he is no more concerned about speculative sheeple depressing the price to $18k than I am. I also doubt he still has the BTC. Sure people hold it... you go on with your life and then open
Re: (Score:1)
Actually money started off directly against gold. You could go the government / bank and exchange gold for the currency and vice versa, so it used to be backed entirely by gold, which in itself had material value.
More recently if I recall banks stopped backing currencies by gold, so you're more correct on the most recent changes, but it gained it's stability and status by backed by gold.
So no, by my definition common currency is not a ponzi scheme. In addition, the government gets rich anyway, by taxes, it'
Re: (Score:2)
Boom and bust cycles with rare-metal backing were WORSE than with managed currencies. Inter-country dumping, and all it took was one Gold strike somewhere to deflate the currency.
Gold Recessions lasted amazingly long times. [vox.com] "We should return to the Gold Standard" is something that scam artists sell to economically illiterate rubes.
Re: (Score:2)
It's based on the fact that people seem to lust after malleable shiny stuff that is relatively scarce.
Kind of like magpies.
So money based on exchange for the irrationally maintained exhorbitant value of gold is no more real (no less socially maintained value) than a successful (because persistently popular) cryptocurrency. They are both just memes. Their basis for
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Actually gold is use for many electronic devices for conductivity, so it doesn't have an ouu shiny and rare cultural value alone. It has material worth for items and products people want.
However the main point was trade backed by an item with a material value. Doesn't have to be gold. Food, you need food, it has value, so you'll trade for it. Lumbar? Need that, has a value, you'll trade for it.
Cryptocurrency? If no one gives you OTHER currency for it, it has no value on it's own. If no one gave you money fo
Re: (Score:2)
Again, it is only the scarcity (low rate of discovery of conch shells, for example) and a social agreement to use them as a token of value, that gives them a value. That leads to agreements to trade them for actually useful things, like food, or labour.
The scarcity of conch shells is little different than the scarcity of bitcoins, if considered with an appropriate level of abstraction.
Re: (Score:2)
"The government only gains money by taxing it from you. For everyone else originally as I said, it was backed by a material value"
That isn't how money works in the modern world. The government gains money by taxation OR by printing it. It can then deposit that money into the central bank and leverage it to borrow a multiple of 'phantom money' at a very low interest rate (far lower than real world inflation) and spend it all as currency into the economy. That currency is backed by nothing except the pressure
Re: (Score:2)
Right... so to summarize, you admit all modern currency in popular use fits your definition of a Ponzi scheme.
Re: (Score:2)
Also a number of things I pointed out about how our money works aren't at all common sense.
There is a bogus 'fact check' out there right now claiming that it is false that the federal reserve creates money and supports that claim by pointing out only the U.S. Treasury can print money... as if most money in circulation is physical currency. The federal reserve has no need to request funds from the treasury department to issue a loan, it just creates a ledger entry and when it does so, it creates money and ba
Re: (Score:2)
The government regulation is actually what makes the difference. The Central Bank works very hard to make sure that money retains its value. That is literally one half of its dual mandate: minimize inflation and maximize employment. There is no such control in the world of cryptocurrency. It rises and falls at the whim of the news cycle, no one props it up when it falls.
I can see why you'd think that there is no difference, and that cryptocurrency is a real currency. But cryptocurrency explicitly tries to a
Re: (Score:2)
They kind of apply an algorithm for that, don't they... if Inflation up, then interest rates up etc.
Kind of like an algorithmic stablecoin. hmmm.
Re: (Score:2)
Algorithmic stablecoins haven't been so stable recently. https://www.forbes.com/advisor... [forbes.com] And that's where it matters that the US government is behind the dollar. The US government has a lot more tools, and a lot more legal authority and motivation, to make sure the dollar doesn't crash.
It's kind of like me saying, "Hey people, I've got a new stable coin called Isaac Coin, and it's backed by the full faith and credit of...me I've got a really high credit score, so you can trust me, your Isaac Coin won't lo
Re: (Score:2)
Then, no one will have to trust any political entity to do the stabilization.
A key tenet of cryptocurrency, blockchain tech is that it is supposed to enable "trustless" financial infrastructure. It's supposed to keep functioning ok even if no-one trusts anyone else, and that includes trust in political institutions.
Re: (Score:2)
The key aspiration of cryptocurrency--that it doesn't depend on trust--is dubious at best. Every transaction depends on trust. If you buy something from someone, you have to trust that the thing you are buying, is what you expect it to be. If you make an agreement with someone, it's worthless if you can't trust them.
The only people that benefit from trustless transactions, are those who don't deserve trust.
Re: (Score:2)
- Determining which account has access to/effective ownership of how much value
- Determining which (sequence of) transactions took place when
- If documents/attestations are registered on the blockchain, determining which exact content of such was present (registered) at what time. E.g. statements of transfer of ownership, or anything needing non-repudiability.
- If various identities, registered on the blockchain, make various agreements at various times with e
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Crypto is a Ponzi scheme.
Fiat is a Pinto scheme.
Re: (Score:2)
Jeez. Everything you said was wrong. Which is not to say that Bitcoin is a good thing but your understanding of it is completely wrong.
Re: (Score:1)
Pretty sure everything I said is accurate.
The person who firsts develops a crypocurrency has zero value unless they convince someone to give them money for it. And unless they convince other people to give them money for their crypto they don't make any money either as the value doesn't increase.
Only by convincing more people to give money in exchange for the crypto does any value get added. It's a zero dollar material value as it's made up / digital.
How much crypto do you have? Trying to get more people to
Re: (Score:2)
"Sure some people made money, but they only make money by the people below them buying the item"
It isn't an item but a unit of trade. The profits that matter are those found in gains from trade, not holding the currency. Yes BTC is deflationary, it will EVENTUALLY be worth more than today but that isn't a net increase, it is replacement mechanism for distribution of new money by banks and meant to equalize.
The reason you think BTC is a ponzi scheme is that you are looking at it like a speculative gambler an
Re: (Score:1)
Ponzi Scheme
"a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors."
The people who buy crypto later are the only reason the people who have it initially can trade it for money.
Crypto has no value on it's own. Wood does, food does, gold does, especially for electronics. So if you tie something to a material object, that's how you generate a stable currency backed by a material object
Re: (Score:2)
"The people who buy crypto later are the only reason the people who have it initially can trade it for money."
Cryptocurrency is not something you trade for money, it IS money. You use it to buy goods and services or save it to spend on goods and services at a later time. There is no 'enterprise' real or nonexistent and there are no 'returns.' Any increase in value over time if saved comes from increased demand with a fixed supply (if there is 1 BTC being traded around and 1 worth of economic activity today
ponzi dapps galore (Score:3)
I once visited an evening about Ethereum relatively early in its development. I was surpised to learn that most of the available "dapps" on the ethereum blockchain were about gambling. Many even refered to themselves being pyramids in the name or description. You were basically 'gambling' that you were one of the early adopters. That there would be more suckers coming in after you. What struck me most was that this was deemed perfectly normal.
It's one of the things I only later realised: if you have lots of crypto currency (say a billion dollars in bitcoin), you're not rich yet. At some point you will need real world people who will want to buy all those tokens from you for actual money. If trust in the token diminishes you might not be able to cash out.
So yeah, it really is a big pyramid scheme in that sense, reliant on the influx of new suckers.
Jamie knows scams ! (Score:2)
https://www.huffpost.com/entry... [huffpost.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you're right - let's not let the market work its magic. And I'm sure Bernanke asked very politely. And those of us who have read our history know that the firm in question was Bear Stearns.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean when Hank took a knee for Nancy ? (Score:2)
Oh, the shenanigans ! Glad those unregulated markets worked so well in the face of systemic failure. 'Cuz if those "healthy" institutions hadn't taken the bailout, they wouldn't have remained solvent for long.
https://money.usnews.com/money... [usnews.com]
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/p... [cbsnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Whether they would have failed or not is irrelevant; if Diamond didn't want to take the funds at the time and he was forced to, then you can't claim he scammed anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
And you are failing at spelling. Mr. Dimon (not Diamond) was free to resign as a matter of principle. I don't recall him doing so. In which direction did this force vector point ?
He's right for apologizing about the Bitcoin=fraud (Score:2)
...because it's not fraud until someone is actually defrauded.
Bitcoin, and cryptocurrency, are merely mechanism of collusive overvaluation that fully act like Ponzi schemes and enable the easy grifting of vast sums of untraceable money based on the consensual "faith" that X has value when it intrinsically doesn't.
Super easy, barely an inconvenience.
Now, to be fair, fiat currency also is based on faith, and JP Morgan doesn't have any qualms about that.
Re:He's right for apologizing about the Bitcoin=fr (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say it wasn't justified, but it's still "faith" that the government will honor the value of that dollar.
Faith (Score:3)
"fiat currency also is based on faith"
Sort of. But the collective faith of a few billion people executing all levels of commerce on the basis of that faith is a pretty powerful stabilizer.
Bitcoin has exactly none of that.
Re: (Score:2)
"Fortune favors the brave." Millions of people responded and bought Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Most by now have lost most of their "investments." I'd call that fraud, implying returns that were never possible. Only the ones who got in early, made money. And ironically, made money by exchanging their crypto for dollars. And that is how ponzi schemes work. Only the early birds make money.
Dimon is Mostly Right on This Opinion (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Bitcoin isn't so inefficient when you consider that the international money system is a hot mess running on old COBOL mainframe computers who almost nobody alive knows how to program anymore. International money transfers go through a dozen hoops and middlemen, hundreds of offices around the globe, tens of thousands of employees checking stuff, running things, accounting...
Crypto is the common-sense, better way to do global value transfer in the modern Internet age. It's simple, there are no middlemen, only
Re:Dimon is Mostly Right on This Opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
If you repeat the choir of the naysayers that Bitcoin has "no intrinsic value", you haven't grasped the significance of the really hard problems that Bitcoin solved - being a truly decentralized and secure value transfer system. Which involved solving the double-spend problem, the byzantine generals problem, with Nakamoto consensus and the blockchain mechanism.
This is a big deal. It has value. And it's not "a ponzi scheme" for a variety of reasons, only of them being that Bitcoin solves an extremely hard, r
Re:Dimon is Mostly Right on This Opinion (Score:5, Informative)
I understand both - Banking is not the cash payment system (e.g .credit cards). But, for the sake of argument, we'll include it. The compute costs of the entire global banking, cash payment, and clearing functions is a tiny, tiny fraction in comparison to just Bitcoin.
Credit Cards are approximately 1Billion per day.
Visa, alone, can handle 24,000/second.
Bitcoin? 7/second. Not 70,000. Not 7,000!. Not even 77. SEVEN - PER - SECOND! All that compute to process seven transactions / second - or 12,343 per day. Visa can handle twice in a second what BC can do in a day! Five orders of magnitude difference!
https://crypto.com/university/... [crypto.com]
Also, an IBM mainframe, that runs all that COBOL, is an extremely efficient computer in terms of cost per transaction in comparison to anything based on Intel or AMD CPUs. It's not a byte/word-oriented machine, but a record oriented one. It processes the entire record at once. They are optimized and tuned to perform this exact sort of work. That's why the banks and credit card companies still use them. Not out of any fealty to IBM, but because the run, they run fast, and they don't crash due to some clown dev not putting a semi-colon in the right spot.
Re: (Score:2)
"Bitcoin? 7/second. Not 70,000. Not 7,000!. Not even 77. SEVEN - PER - SECOND!"
Oft repeated false information. This limitation was overcome long ago and the throughput can range from hundreds of thousands to millions of transactions per day.
Re: (Score:2)
Typically for it to be a ponzi scheme, I believe the true value of the asset needs to be hidden. That is, you need to say "we have X amount of assets backing your investment" when actually you have X-y amount of assets.
Ironically, some of the stable coins seems to be doing that, so the ones he says are not ponzi schemes could actually be ponzi schemes, and the ones he says are ponzi schemes are not (they might just be a bad place to put your money, but that's not enough to make it a ponzi scheme).
Who? (Score:2)
Seriously, who?
Re: (Score:3)
The ONE guy who... (Score:4, Informative)
was (and still is) CEO of the Wall St bank that DID NOT need a bailout in 2008...
In fact, the fed pleaded with him to BORROW some money so that it would LOOK to the American people like all banks needed help. They believed that would prevent the public from noticing that one bank's responsible behaviors and exceptional stability in that moment would prove the others were all bad actors. Perverse Washington thinking to be sure, but the regulators were afraid the public would lose faith in almost all banking if the one good bank was there not taking funds and ALL the rest obviously needed the funds. In the end, Mr Dimon did several things - he borrowed the money they wanted him to borrow (and quickly paid it back) AND when the feds then asked him to buy another failing bank and absorb it to help the system, he did. Without Mr Dimon, the financial collapse of 2008 might have been FAR worse (think: 1929-style bank runs).
Dimon is widely-known to be the best banker on Wall St, and far smarter and wiser than the financial geniuses in government and academia. If you have a brain, and you care about money, you LISTEN to this man even if you later disregard his advice for other reasons (like political views, or preference for high stakes gambling...)
Enough (Score:2)
Stable coins are either scams or illegal banks (Score:2)
Ponzi vs ponzi (Score:2)
Basically the Ponzi scheme of modern finance has decided the crypto Ponzi scheme can’t be cooped and thus must be condemned.
I'm quitting ethereum. (Score:3)
ETH NIC cleansing.
Re: (Score:2)
Bitcoin is a competitor (Score:1)
Bitcoin is a competitor of Jamie, what else would you expect him to say?
unlike the centralized ponzi scheme (Score:1)
that is the US Federal Reserve