tommyguns2
Senior Moderators
Staff Member
- Dec 25, 2010
- 6,337
- 5,061
One of the most compelling arguments I've heard about BTC is that the algorithm limits the total amount to 21 million, or something like that. That is an important feature, as it distinguishes itself from the various central banks like the US Fed or the EP Central Bank that simply prints money and puts an IOU on its balance sheet.
In one respect it does allow the central bank to regulate its value by controlling the money supply, and this has value when the currency comes under attack. But it doesn't fix the fox guarding the hen house problem. In my humble opinion, the US Fed has succumbed to political pressure over the past 18 months, and that's why they didn't raise rates at the proper time. Of course, it's always easy to be a Monday morning quarterback, but that is my view on the latest sh*t show.
BTC and ETH have extraordinary volatility because at this time there is no central way of regulating its value. I suppose that's both a feature and a negative.
I'm curious what the recent negative move on BTC has had on El Salvador? I haven't read anything, but they are an interesting case study.
In one respect it does allow the central bank to regulate its value by controlling the money supply, and this has value when the currency comes under attack. But it doesn't fix the fox guarding the hen house problem. In my humble opinion, the US Fed has succumbed to political pressure over the past 18 months, and that's why they didn't raise rates at the proper time. Of course, it's always easy to be a Monday morning quarterback, but that is my view on the latest sh*t show.
BTC and ETH have extraordinary volatility because at this time there is no central way of regulating its value. I suppose that's both a feature and a negative.
I'm curious what the recent negative move on BTC has had on El Salvador? I haven't read anything, but they are an interesting case study.