pull down to refresh
202 sats \ 2 replies \ @endothermicdev 4h \ on: Geeks, MOPs, and sociopaths in subculture evolution | Meaningness mostly_harmless
I'm not sure what I would do - probably get back into more engineering. I used to spend a lot of time at my local makerspace and was into 3d printing, milling, etc., and making prototypes of anything and everything.
About the original article - I feel like I'm noticing a lot more mops lately. I'm sure there were plenty in previous cycles, but even then it seemed like the new entrants were still interested in an entirely unique technology, or breaking the existing financial paradigm, or at least sympathetic to these interests. I browse the bitcoin subreddit every now and then, and it's changed drastically from even a few years ago. It's full of comments celebrating selling bitcoin to pay off a mortgage or become a homeowner. Because that's the real goal apparently. I've similarly noticed comments about how nobody actually bought and held for >5 years ("those are just bots!!"), and that bitcoin might "go to zero" at any moment. I don't think many people there are interested in using it either, it's just a line item in their robinhood account or something. I one point I would have pushed back against these notions, but at this point it would be spitting into the wind.
Anyhow, it's nice over here on SN!
go to zero at any moment
That's definitely a tell. I did appreciate the article's sense that some of this is part of the natural course of things: clearly, if Bitcoin is going to gain widespread adoption, it will attract many people who aren't particularly interested in the tech. The question is will there be so many of those people that they weigh the project down.
reply
Weigh it down in what way? In terms of the protocol, software and consensus? I think bitcoin has, so far, had a pretty good history of technical merit winning out. That certainly could change, but I'm cautiously optimistic.
In terms of the asset, I do wonder what will happen to adoption and price if there are enough new adopters and they are dead-set on keeping it as 5% of their portfolio vs. equities, real estate or whatever. They see it as an alternative to some tech stock. If that's the case, and they're rebalancing regularly, it will certainly become correlated to every other macro asset in that portfolio. Does it then just end up back in the hands of those with higher conviction over time? I'm not sure if this would stall out adoption or cause a loss of interest due to the price action for long enough to make a difference. At any rate, I wouldn't expect it to act like a debasement hedge or a 21M/∞ asset until the average marginal buyer/seller treats it as such - which could be quite a long time indeed.
reply