Oh boy. Quick question, how?

This is a problem when the village invests in young people, because then young people are in debt, psychologically, to the village.

Parents must invest in their children. Relatives, patrons, etc. Not the public. It can't afford it anyway.

Here it is, point number one.

Restucture debt, debt transparency, and creditor coordination.

I have a feeling, since this is the first point, they know debt is the most important one. They want debt transparency so they can police members' banking systems, and creditor coordination to avoid liquidity shocks.

Central planning BS. We could stop reading here. She has a total lack of ability to understand the problems.

The power of a theory is in the predictions. She has no ability to predict things, hence this won't end up like she thinks.

Good that she put therapies first, but where's prevention!?

Where's zinc and Vit D? How about lessening comorbidities instead of treating them. Sickcare.

Fake it until you make it!!!

There's the money shot. Comparing our time to post-WWII.

GDP numbers are garbage, they are too dependent on government spending and don't represent the actual productive economy.

Poverty is increasing for the first time in decades...

It's been way longer than that!!!

2008 minimum

Inflation expectations are primary. That is what they are targeting. They aren't targeting ACTUAL inflation.

goal-seeking it's equation based. They just move u-star to get the equation to balance. Just like velocity

Labor market. They are totally confused. Full employment is supposed to lead to inflation as wages are bid higher and that trickles into the economy. That didn't happen.

They are admitting that the natural rate of interest is not affected by monetary policy. How does the fed funds rate affect the natural rate of interest?

Technology isn't driving growth, growth is driving technology. Productivity is wasted on debt service.

It's not the fertility rate that is driving the economy, it's the economy driving the fertility rate.

Something changed in 1980. The business cycle was Growth led to inflation, leading to collapse. Now, it is supposed to be "money printing" leads to growth. It's backwards.

Inflation fighting institution. Their tools are inflation fighting tools, not inflation creating tools.

That's quite the understatement.

Blaming the virus and not the fiat financial system itself.

"healthy competition" needs a "regulatory sandbox"? What if bitcoin is competing against the regulators?

"a clear regulatory framework" this can't happen because bitcoin is constantly changing. A regulatory framework can only hamper innovation and keep us locked to archaic government money.

No economic activity and massive money printing equals what? Yep, inflation.

This guy is a baffoon if he really thinks this. We are at peak oil, negative interest rates, Chinese economy and other Asian economies suffering and in free fall. There will be no bounce until much lower. Get ready for epic bankruptcies.

"As many expect it will" WTF?

There is only a small chance that this virus will slow down over the next month. These problems, disruptions, and convulsions will quickly morph into rolling defaults. That's the most likely outcome at this point.

How do you position your portfolio for that is the question.

Love this line, but it should be the epidemiology of economics or markets.

Great, the Fed is on it. I'm so relieved.

This is a key point. These supply chains took decades to build and can be undone in a matter of months. The just in time inventory of most supply chains will cause convulsions of default and bankruptcy. The CCP and PBOC can try to print over it, but then they get runaway inflation.

Some may have reopened, but with half their work force and some being requisitioned to produce medical equipment to fight the virus. With most of the economic parts of the country in lock down or curfews, very little economic recovery will happen.

People in the US claim a couple snow storms cause bad quarters, what will 10s of thousands dead and a 2 month lock down do? It might even be worse than that.

People were reserving judgement apparently until this Monday, because now they are all jumping on the bandwagon that I've been talking about for 3 weeks.

It was absolutely insane to still have a 6% growth rate on China. Hire me JPM, you need some better analysts. China's economy will shrink this year in real terms. They will suffer badly from inflation in H2 2020.

They will essentially try to get out of debt through stimulus, but this slow economy due to the virus and shutdowns will give prices only one way to go, UP.

"The way the wind is blowing"? What if the wind changes?

Ethereum will claim that everything is simply a "technical" hurdle - all you need to do is throw enough man hours at it and boom, a working system. The economic issues are much harder to reason about.

99%? so they need 5 months for 1%? At that rate phase 1's 10% will take more than 4 years to complete.

Not full ETH2.0 just phase 0.

In what respect is this true? TRON has more DAU

Which three? According to ethernodes.org geth has 77% of ethereum nodes, parity has 21%, and the third one has only 34 nodes total. Parity is getting out of the ethereum node business, so which three clients?

It's just virtue signaling at this point to say they aren't centralized.

We first have to examine what value is that is being transferred. Central bankers don't want to consider question; it's viewed as self-evident to them because they are Chartalists.

Value comes from subjective evaluation of people. Money, used as an indirect good in trade, gets it's value from characteristics that make it a great indirect good.

As the anchor of the nation's payment systems. They want control of payments! To do that they have to control the money itself.

Money is correct, not payments.

It has been achieving this end. It's an ongoing battle.

This is in contrast to confidence is emergent market money.

I like these priorities, but I think there's some more that non-development contributors can focus on. 1. Targeting high net worth individuals with the SoV use case, and insert a "borderless" SoV concept.

I like this. It's a clean and simple way to think about it.

Here he describes a quality person.

I don't think this is the question. Quality bitcoiners are more important that the quantity of bitcoiners. So I'd phrase it more like, "what will make high quality people want to be bitcoiners? and what are high quality people in this regard?"

Succinct. I think the first question, "what will make the price go up?" is the question to ask. Altcoins don't have a chance to beat bitcoin.

Yes!

The question Does blockchain apply to supply chain? Can it solve supply chain problems profitably?

Here he refutes himself, because he claims it's much wider than the reference code, but then says the idea of bitcoin, which is dictated by the reference code.

Says this here, and then refutes himself later.

They aren't calling out incivility. Most of the time, very civil people simply refuting false statements by people playing a victim. Those people crying incivility would probably read my sentence and say I was attacking someone.

What is crypto technology, sounds like he's creating a new term to fit his delusion.

Starts with the appropriate amount of virtue signaling.

He's implying this shouldn't be the case for someone lying in a news publication.

If people want to use another money for political reasons, they are more than welcome to, but that's not a reason to believe that that alternate money will have any significant market share whatsoever. The ideologically motivated will slowly lose even more relevance if they refuse to use the market's money.

For example, some people today negotiate with merchants to accept silver coins instead of fiat on an ideological basis. Would the authors claim that the political philosophy of these silver bugs threaten in anyway the 99% dominance of the regions' fiat. You can see how these ideological zealots would segregate themselves from the broader more dynamic economy and fall behind.

The conflict the authors are envisioning is not one actually in a transaction. Individuals to a transaction will decide on one money.

The authors are categorically misidentifying the nature of convergence. Culture, politics, art, music, certain characteristics of language like slang, and food, have a different nature to that of money. These things benefit from differentiation, and don't have binary network effects like that of money. Money must be shared by parties to a transaction to be money. Money is one shared thing between parties. In a single transaction there may be many cultures, cultural items could even be the subject of the transaction, many political beliefs, preferences for art and music, etc, but there will be only one money. If two things are used as money, the transaction becomes one of barter.

The choice is money or barter.

It's true that "crypto" can exist for a long time as a pluralistic collection of different cultures, but that doesn't mean the value will display that. "One big winner" means roughly 99%+ of the monetary premium will be in one good that acts as a medium of exchange in a single transaction.

Culture can't sustain a money. If there are two equally entrenched cultures for money, the one with most unforgeable costliness will win. It is true that competing on unforgeable costliness can result in a drawn out process. It's often said that if the gold standard were brought back, bitcoin would still win, but it'd take much much longer, maybe a hundred years.

This statement is lacking any appreciation for the individual. I'll be reviewing the source material later, but for now, I can say beliefs don't matter. If an individual believes the properties of Bitcoin are different than they are, their node simply falls out of consensus. Consensus here is an objective thing in time. Right now, the properties are X, moving to properties Y entail a whole hell of a lot more than collectively changing the wet code of the network. There's logistical issues, game theoretic issues, monetary confidence issues. It's not a mistake that the consensus rules of Bitcoin haven't hard forked.

It's not as simple as saying, 'coins get their properties from fickle shared beliefs of the mob.'

Miners don't "decide" anything beyond their personal hash rate, as your example Bitmain found out. They lost $0.5 billion in Q3 2017 alone trying to take on Bitcoin. "The eyes of the public" don't affect the outcome of one winner. As you say, the Bcash attack failed, and rekt those people that had a multicoin strategy. Value was consolidated into the hands of people that had the correct understanding. It wasn't luck that bcash failed. The bcashers were diluted, not the bitcoiners. bitcoiners benefited.

The public won't look at these forks and think they should buy them. They are failures. It consolidates Bitcoin's narrative.

Altcoins are attacks on individuals by enticing them to invest in an inferior, sometimes non-existent, network/token. Altcoins are not an attack on Bitcoin. They do occupy some mindshare in the space, but on net they attract more mindshare into the space, and Bitcoin undoubtedly gets the lion share of the quality attracted. In other words, if altcoins attract 100 new people to the space, the best 5 or 10 will quickly find their way to Bitcoin, while the degens stay in the altcoins.

VCs will reap what they sow. You'd be hard pressed to find a VC that isn't invested in Bitcoin, too. VCs push a multicoin future on individuals in the space, not on Bitcoin itself. They harm individuals with their actions, not Bitcoin itself.

Since monetary maximalism is a methodology based on sound logic, "monetary maximalism ascending" is a good thing. "Crypto-as-tech" is not the opposite of monetary maximalism, unless there's some hidden definitions here. Crypto is tech. The Bitcoin stack is tech. There's no reason I can see for crypto-as-tech to be mutually exclusive with monetary maximalism, unless crypto-as-tech means perpetuating inferior monetary scams.

Startups fail all the time. Bitcoin is larger than nation-states, so few startups aren't even noticeable in the grand scheme of things. It would be a better argument to say, 'If china cracked down on Bitcoin etc etc.' But that already happened and Bitcoin shrugged it off.

These companies benefit from Bitcoin succeeding. It's still the majority of Coinbase's and Blockchain's business, even though they are openly hostile toward it. They are speaking one way, while their P&L says they're behaving another. They most definitely don't want Bitcoin to fail. The best they can hope for is to delay it.

Companies aren't formed for value capture. This is a fixed pie fallacy, and a rent-seeking conception. Companies don't fight over a fixed pie of profits, they are formed to create value. Of course, they attempt to capture market share away from competition, but that's much different than capturing value. "A value capture layer" is exactly the wrong way to look at it. Companies create/ add value to raw materials or intermediate goods. If they only capture value, they go out of business (unless they are protected through govt intervention in the market).

Great companies don't have an adversarial relationship with the market. That's an extremely important point here and might be the prevailing situation of the Bitcoin ecosystem. If that's the case, a mass cleansing of the market is due and will come shortly. Good companies welcome competition, loser companies manifest their adversarial relationship with the market as the authors articulate here, usually through regulatory capture, which I do know is specifically being pursued by Coinbase. However, as long as there's no govt intervention, there's no adversarial nature possible in the long run.

What other way is there? It's fine if people don't want to use their reason in making financial decisions, but they will lose, because the world is an adversarial place, where people benefit from misleading those with weak reasoning abilities. If this were a utopian market without bad actors or byzantine actors, you'd still benefit from determining the market behavior in advance of others.

I'll counter their advice with this: we should steer clear of conflating the market outcomes with individuals' outcomes. Suggesting an individual to not use logic is extremely irresponsible. They'd have no protection against bad actors and scammers. The fate of the individual isn't shared by the market. The market will eventually land on an answer, but the individual could be utterly rekt by that point.

No analogy is perfect, but, as annotated above, gold could have never existed and it wouldn't change the monetary maximalist methodology. Analogies just make the concepts a little easier to grasp, because they are relatable.

Again, I think I understand what they mean, because I know their arguments, but the words they actually use here are nonsensical. Money is sound if it has arisen from the market. There can't be two sound monies in the same market. But now it's the "soundest monetary-policy coin?" Is monetary-policy an adjective here?

Gold is simply used as an example of the underlying reasoning involved in monetary convergence. If a gold standard never existed it wouldn't change anything about the reasoning itself.

In the very first sentence we have several problems. I think the authors mostly correctly identify the concept, "that in a free market for money one big winner will emerge" but they say this is merely an idea, as if there's no argument present. Of course, this isn't the case. Monetary maximalism is a result of logical lines of reasoning. It's a methodology in that way. If there was different evidence, the lines of reasoning could lead to a different result. It's a seemingly small point, but their main objective of the article is dependent on their definition right here. Monetary maximalism isn't an idea, it's a methodology.

Second, in the first sentence, we also have reference to "soundest" money, which is a little nonsensical. I understand what they are trying to say, but it doesn't work IMO. Sound money is money that has emerged from the market as money, it's already won. The soundest money then would be the money which is backed by most of the market I guess, but a degree of soundness is incorrect.

See, they get it. They're just writing something controversial I guess.