Dogecoin Has Risen 400 Percent In the Last Week Because Why Not (arstechnica.com) 118
Dogecoin has seen its price rise by a factor of five over the last week. Yesterday, it was trading at $0.13. Today, it's one of the world's 10 most valuable cryptocurrencies, with a market capitalization of $45 billion. Ars Technica's Timothy B. Lee writes: Dogecoin's price tripled over the next 36 hours. My editor suggested that I write about whether Dogecoin's rise is a sign of an overheated crypto market, but for a coin like Dogecoin, I'm not sure that's even a meaningful concept. Dogecoin isn't a company that has revenues or profits. And unlike bitcoin and ether, no one seriously thinks it's going to be the foundation of a new financial system. People are trading Dogecoin because it's fun to trade and because they think they might make money from it. The rising price is a sign that a lot of people have decided it would be fun to speculate in Dogecoin.
Of course, the fact that lots of people have money to spend on joke investments might itself be a result of larger macroeconomic forces. The combination of stimulus spending, low interest rates, and pandemic-related saving means that a lot of people have more money than usual sitting in their bank accounts. And restrictions on travel and nightlife mean that many of those same people have a lot of time on their hands.
Of course, the fact that lots of people have money to spend on joke investments might itself be a result of larger macroeconomic forces. The combination of stimulus spending, low interest rates, and pandemic-related saving means that a lot of people have more money than usual sitting in their bank accounts. And restrictions on travel and nightlife mean that many of those same people have a lot of time on their hands.
Re: Bitcoin Maximalist (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm more of a minimalist, they're all shitcoins.
Except the full reserve currency/gold backed ones, those are simply an end run around financial regulations.
Speculating on nothing (Score:1, Troll)
Capitalism at its purest.
Re: Speculating on nothing (Score:3)
Capitalism at its purest is the pooling of capital in order to generate profits whose value exceeds the original investment.
Tulips do not appear to be a mechanism to generate revenue at scale. Thus this is not capitalism at its purest. It is *graft* at its purest: the *imitation* of something productive, utilitarian, and/or noble or virtuous ere("capitalism," "investment," "financial services) in the service of theft.
Capitalism was killed decades ago (Score:1)
Capitalism was killed decades ago. We have a huge central planner with full control. We have a USSR like system controlled by Central Banks.
Re: Speculating on nothing (Score:2)
Yes, and what few Communist and Socialist economies there are out there that have managed to survive are the models of efficiency and equity. /s
North Korea can't feed its people.
The Soviet Union rocked back and forth between being unable to feed its people (despite being mostly arable land), being unable to keep the lights on (despite vast oil and gas reserves), and being unable to house its people (despite having abundant building materials).
China in the Mao days couldn't feed its people and China in the X
Re: (Score:2)
North Korea isn't communist, it's a compromise between a theocracy with Kim as its godhead and old-style aristocracy with landless serfs and hereditary rulers. There is nothing resembling communism in either its economy or its government.
Re: Speculating on nothing (Score:1)
The state owns most industry and directs the economy to the point of distributing food and requiring citizens to collect their shit for use as fertilizer on government farms. Source: https://www.amazon.com/Nothing... [amazon.com]
The theocracy thing is perhaps unique among communist economies but if you exert that degree of control over economic activity and call yourself a communist or a socialist, I tend to believe it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and I'm sure you think the Democratic Republic of the Congo is actually a democratically elected republic.
Re: Speculating on nothing (Score:1)
How would you describe the economy of North Korea?
Re: (Score:2)
Feudalism. It more closely resembles a medieval economy and social structure than anything else. It's more socially and economically stratified than even the Stalinist USSR, and even more repressive than the Stasi.
Re: (Score:2)
There actually was a demand for rare tulips, and the viruses that made them so beautiful also made them very difficult to cultivate. And the reason for the price spike was that a law was passed that allowed for options contracts to be cancelled for a small fine, making there be little risk to making big bets.
No supply limit - what could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the insanity of this crypto bull market, that a cryptocurrency which started pretty much 'for fun', has no actual purpose - and worse still, has no theoretical supply limit - traded at a recent high of $0.45.
For the last 7 years since release, it barely managed $0.003.
With no supply limit, it kinda reminds me of this quote from HHG2TG:
Douglas Adams.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
and worse still, has no theoretical supply limit
Sort of like any modern inflationary economy. Weird.
Re:No supply limit - what could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Informative)
Sort of like any modern inflationary economy. Weird.
You're missing something when comparing the two. Modern inflationary economies absolutely have a limit, and that limit is determined by policy through central banking systems and manipulated to adjust inflation rates to keep markets stable. ... Except for say the few markets where the central banks are run by idiots such as Zimbabwe.
That is very different from the uncontrolled inflation that is possible in decentralised system which has no limits in place.
Car analogy: Just because it's good to drive a pickup truck on a farm doesn't mean it's good to drive a pickup truck in a European inner city.
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point, some inflation is a good thing. It encourages spending vs. saving, encourages investment, and slowly reduces the effective value of debt.
There's many different factors involved in an economy that balance off against each other, and left to their own devices, they're prone to wild swings, and always have been throughout history. People go to college for years to understand all of the nuance to economics. Non-inflationary unmanaged cryptocurrencies based on the notion of "if nobody manage
Re: (Score:2)
There's so many factors converging towards a potential cryptocurrency crackdown, too. For example, just a random one: the Biden administration is really concerned about the major silicon shortage right now. Well, if you crash demand for ASICs and GPUs for mining, you do a lot to relieve the supply crunch.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And more to the point: the highest rate of inflation on the dollar in the past three decades is ~4%, and the highest ever was ~21%. Bitcoin frequently makes swings that wild. The dollar is a massive beacon of stability and predictability in comparison to cryptocurrencies, even when you look at its least stable times.
There's a reason why even crypto advocates like Musk still price their products in dollars even when you buy them in cryptocurrencies, and you only get a briefly-valid exchange rate on your pu
Re: (Score:2)
People love to say this, but every economy that's experienced hyperinflation has already been in deep shit for other reasons. Printing money is just a way of holding on for a little longer.
Please (Score:2)
The supply of Dogecoin will increase by 4% this year. The supply of Bitcoin will increase by 1.76% thus year. There doesn't seem to be a meaningful difference.
Re: (Score:1)
and worse still, has no theoretical supply limit
All cryptocurrency scarcity is artificial. That's entirely why Dogecoin's developers made the satirical choice to turn the coins per block mined value to the moon.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh for God's sake, just shut up. You're so awful that we have an AC calling you out as the first post on every cryptocurrency story on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
All you need is something else to do with your life. You're a broken record by this point.
Re: (Score:2)
I was gonna say, Cardano actually has some merit. Granted it has gained a lot over the last year! Just not as much market cap as Dogecoin. Haven't looked at Dogecoin's actual volume though, so it may be a paper . . . doge?
That's nothing (Score:3)
Seriously guys, we have *got* to start regulating Wall Street and investments more. And do something about wealth inequality. There is way, way too much money at the top and they're throwing it around recklessly. The next crash is going to make 2008 look like the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But he didn't use the phrase "raising taxes on the wealthy". He used the politically charged phrase "redistributing the wealth", which was a key goal of the Nationalist Socialist party to "redistribute the wealth" of the Jews and foreign nationals. It's a key goal of Marxist parties as well.
Re: That's nothing (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The exact phrase he used was "do something about the wealth inequity", you're right. I drew the parallel and pointed out historical disasters, including genocide of millions, rooted in just such attempts to redistribute wealth. And it is a key policy of many politics rooted in outrage against others, especially politics that strive to seize wealth. There can be good reasons to do it, especially when the wealth was stolen rather than earned. But the idea that merely owning wealth is proof of evil has been a
Re: (Score:2)
You're also attempting to link the Holocaust and the Holodomor together when they have almost nothing in common.
Not a political ideology, not an economic ideology, not a motive (unless you're one of the Stalin wanted to ice the Ukrainians nuts)
I get the distinct impression you're trying to paint the deadliest white nationalist uprising in history with y
Re: (Score:2)
I link the Nazi seizure of Jewish property and foreign assets, and the Russian communist redistribution of working farms, as both being forms of "redistributing the wealth" deeply involved in the death of millions. Whether the National Socialist party was what Bernie Sanders would call socialism isn't the point: it's that both cried out for the "redistribution of wealth" and both slaughtered millions in the process.
The Nazi party painted themselves as saviors from Communism. Each fostered extreme fear of th
Re: (Score:2)
I link the Nazi seizure of Jewish property and foreign assets, and the Russian communist redistribution of working farms, as both being forms of "redistributing the wealth" deeply involved in the death of millions.
That's just it.
The Názi seizure of Jewish property and foreign assets was an aside. That was merely the logical thing to do to some group you were planning to exterminate.
Those 2 things can't be linked as "consequences of wealth distribution"
The actions of the Soviet Union and what happened to the Ukrainians, yes. Though of course with even a little bit of nuance, the real problem there wasn't wealth distribution.
Re: (Score:2)
> The Názi seizure of Jewish property and foreign assets was an aside. That was merely the logical thing to do to some group you were planning to exterminate.
But it wasn't "an aside". Redistributing wealth fro "those people who don't deserve it!" was part of the point. It didn't have to be logical, it _did_ gain votes and supporters. The same thing happens in Communist revolutions, and it happens in revolutions against royalty. It's a very popular political theme, and one that has often destroyed th
Re: (Score:2)
But it wasn't "an aside". Redistributing wealth fro "those people who don't deserve it!" was part of the point.
No, dude.
The wealth of the paltry amount of Jews (relative to the population) of Germany didn't accomplish shit. It was a microscopic fraction of the total wealth of the country.
It was simply part of the racist trope fed to the impoverished masses.
You said:
"Doing something about wealth inequality" can be very risky. It's precisely what the National Socialist Party did about foreigners and Jews who'd invested their money in education and businesses, "returning the wealth to the people".
The "redistribution of wealth" wasn't risky business because it was what the Nàzis were all about.
The goal was quite clear: To elevate aryans above everyone non-aryan in their country, with a particular extra level of spite toward Jews.
What you
Re: (Score:2)
The wealth of the paltry amount of Jews (relative to the population) of Germany didn't accomplish shit. It was a microscopic fraction of the total wealth of the country.
It was simply part of the racist trope fed to the impoverished masses.
That is - unfortunately - completely wrong.
The wealth of the jews financed the beginning and the first year fo the war.
Go figure.
Re: (Score:2)
That is - unfortunately - completely wrong.
And you are, unfortunately, completely full of shit.
While there is no doubt that plunder took place, the claim that Jewish plunder was a large part of the war funding is nonsensical, period.
Total plunder from Jews across the entire war is estimated at around 8 billion 2021 dollars.
This is to be compared with the yearly spending of Nàzi Germany of around $751 billion 2021 dollars.
The idea that the 1% of the population that was Jewish had "20% of the wealth" or other racist tropes were just that- tr
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, you are an idiot.
The jewish population was not 1%.
And is not today.
It was roughly 30% in Germany at that time, no idea about other countries.
No idea where you got your numbers from ...
Re: (Score:2)
But in case I'm missing something, can you go ahead and solve for "n" for me?
n = 505000 / 67000000
Seriously dude, do you ever get tired of looking like a dumbfuck? [ushmm.org]
I mean seriously... 30%? You think there were 20 million Jews in Germany?
How fucking stupid can you be?
Re: (Score:2)
The communist revolutions deposed aristocrats.
The Nazis simply where a fascist regime, finding a minority which happens to be relatively rich, deprive them from their wealth and kill them.
While both might be (similar?) disgusting, it is quite a difference.
Aka: there is no big difference between "communist revolutions" and e.g. the French revolution, or the American revolution. The communists btw. considered themselves democrats, giving the people option to vote: if they joined the party. At that time, in th
Re: (Score:2)
> While both might be (similar?) disgusting, it is quite a difference.
The Communists also hated the Jews. Look up the "Jewish Autonomous Oblast", the Communist prison camp for Jews during World War II.
"Redistributing the wealth" has been a powerful indicator that a political party is rallying hatred and jealousy to kill people, seize the assets, and ruin the economy. More recent examples include South Africa, whose economy effectively collapsed and has still not recovered since the end of apartheid with
Re: (Score:2)
"redistribution of wealth" formerly in the hands of Afrikaners, the white colonists of South Africa.
There was no such redistribution as they did not get stripped from their wealth.
Re: (Score:2)
They _tried_ to transfer the wealth, especially farm land and industries. Then AIDS hit: South Africa currently has roughly 20% of their population suffering from HIV, and it's according to some studies it's more than 40 times as prevalent among the African population as the Afrikaaners. That's a recipe for racial disparity in the ability to collect or retain wealth, especially as AIDS treatment remains expensive, and a recipe for racial discrimination in hiring workers.
Re: (Score:2)
They're still trying to redistribute it, in more recent efforts with a constitutional amendment.
https://abcnews.go.com/Interna... [go.com]
Re: (Score:3)
That's an OTC stock, not a traditional Wall Street stock. It's in the "OTC QB" market, which has relaxed requirements for listing compared to the major exchanges, but there are some disclosure requirements. Not all states require those disclosures as sufficient for their "blue sky" standards, though.
Because of those required disclosures, we can see [twitter.com] that HWIN's unrestricted stock seems to mostly be owned by banks in Macau and Hong Kong, so US regulations wouldn't really do much. That smells like a way to
True, but tighter regulation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that wealthy people throwing around money recklessly is a great way for the poors to get rich, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously guys, we have *got* to start regulating Wall Street and investments more. And do something about wealth inequality. There is way, way too much money at the top and they're throwing it around recklessly. The next crash is going to make 2008 look like the .com boom.
That's what refusing to tax the rich gets you - a top heavy economy. Capitalism has already been empirically shown (by Thomas Picketty) to be a mechanism for concentrating money into the hands of a small percentage of the population. If we leave it unchecked, everyone else is impoverished no matter how skilled & qualified they are, how smart & entrepreneurial they are, or how hard they work. Why do you think the 'gig economy' & hyper-exploitative & abusive distributors (e.g. Amazon) & ma
Re: (Score:3)
"Scrooge McDuck" doesn't throw it around recklessly. He taps the whims of others who "throw it around recklessly". Those who profit most from gold rushes are those who sell shovels and pans to the miners in the legitimate parts of the market, and those who simply defraud foolish miners. Electric companies and solar cell manufaturers and video card vendors are doing well out of it. Fraudsters setting up fraudulent echanges, or stealing from purely secured exchanges, are doing veyr well indeed.
Re: (Score:3)
That's clearly not cannon [app.goo.gl].
Re: (Score:2)
You did notice that he lets it hit his _own_ head, in an enclosed space where none will be lost? I see your point. Do you see mine that he keeps it intact?
Re: (Score:2)
Musk is kind of the opposite. Since PayPal, every single one of his companies relies on heavy government subsidies and pays him handsomely. So really it's money leaving the pockets of normal people (via taxation) and entering Musk's pockets.
You may think that it's worth society investing in reusable rockets, etc. but any conversation has to start with what's really happening.
Re: (Score:1)
1. Musk's salary is minimum wage. The only sort of "being paid handsomely" is that the value of the companies, and thus his equity in them, has risen, which applies to every single business owner on Earth.
2. SpaceX being granted contracts for services by NASA is in no way a "subsidy". Rather, they're saving the government a huge amount of money vs. what was previously a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What nonsense.
Last year his salary and bonuses (not asset appreciation) from his companies probably totaled to more than the cumulative salary and bonuses anyone ever has earned over their lifetime. Just his salary and bonuses would be enough to rank him in the somewhere between 50 and 60 in the Forbes 400.
If you make up dumb shit and claim that's what I'm saying, it's easy to refute. But that's
Re: (Score:2)
For #1, scroll down.
The DOD purchased a launches on Falcon 1 for Tacsat 1. They cancelled their order because they had already demonstrated Tacsat 1's capabilities when Tacsat 2 launched on a Minotaur 1.
Re: (Score:2)
They also did this, yes. the DoD also gave them hundreds of millions to develop rocketry.
Musk is especially singled out in the post I was responding to as a particularly selfless individual doing good in capitalism without subsidies and without taking money out of his company, instead making money on stock appreciation.. It wasn't my choice to single him out, but I will say he is both mo
Re: (Score:2)
The two were one and the same. The DoD had a programme to investigate the use of smallsats for practical purposes (the TacSats were smallsats for demonstrating battlefield tactical control). There were however few options for smallsat launches at the time - mainly just the highly overpriced Pegasus. There were several companies proposing to develop much cheaper smallsat rockets, so the DoD make a contract with each of t
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think a stock award is? It's a form of annual bonus or salary.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not in any way "annual", it is not a "bonus", and it in no way meets the definition of "salary". it's tied to key metrics, and more to the point helps compensate for the dilution that occurs to his stake in the company every year, largely due to his instance that all employees get stock options.
Re: (Score:2)
It's wages that the company pays him. Oh no, it's erratic and not annual. It's still wage income at the expense of all the other shareholders.
Re: (Score:2)
Read my other post: no it is not "wages" and it is not "salary".
If you ever had filed your income tax yourself, you would know that.
Because all those things are legally defined terms and have a separate page/section on your tax filings. /* facepalm */
Re: (Score:2)
It certainly is not a salary.
Perhaps you want to use a dictionary of legal terms and read it.
I spent $2.50 in electricity to mine $2.50 in Doge (Score:2)
I spent $2.50 in electricity to mine $2.50 in Doge while burning in my new computer with a then-new AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT.
I guess I can keep doing that to warm my cold basement now, making a net profit of pennies in a couple months.
"To the moon!" Whatever. We have fun here.
Sell NOW! (Score:2)
I've got 100 doge sitting here that I bought in 2014, came with a silver coin that is probably worth whatever silver is worth today.
I'm going to be so rich, and all I had to do was buy some useless shit before other people got convinced they were worth something.
Shall I roll my profits into gold? I'm pretty sure 100 doge buys a few tulip bulbs. Does anyone know how to plant them, which end goes up?
Re: Sell NOW! (Score:2)
If you expect an apocalyptic crash invest in a cabin inna woods, toilet paper, bic lighters, guns, ammo and a crew of people not shy of violence.
If you expect a dot com or 2008 style crash, just plain money.
If you expect stagflation/massive taxation/war, invest in nationalities and real estate across the world.
equal craziness for all (Score:3)
In my area, there is a massive real estate boom - both commercial and residential. I've been scratching my head about the commercial since it started at the start of the pandemic. Huge warehouses, luxurious office buildings, new restaurants, massive strip mall renovations, etc. are being built everywhere I go. When they are completed, most put up space for lease signs and just sit empty. That of course makes sense when you see all of the old buildings that are now vacant due to businesses going bankrupt. There is zero demand for commercial real estate.
The only explanation I can imagine is that construction types are setting up shell businesses to get easy loans, sucking up on the construction money, and then bankrupting the shell businesses while the construction companies make bank. Everybody has game.
So, what is wrong with those who can't afford the big games having their own?
Presents. (Score:2)
I got a couple of family members $100 worth of dogecoin each for their birthdays. They're quite happy with it now.
Tweets (Score:5, Informative)
People are trading Dogecoin because it's fun to trade and because they think they might make money from it. The rising price is a sign that a lot of people have decided it would be fun to speculate in Dogecoin.
I have a feeling a tweet [twitter.com] by a certain Twitter user that a lot of people follow contributed to its rise too.
The more people pump it [twitter.com] the more people will buy it for fear of missing out.
Re: (Score:2)
...the more people will buy it for fear of missing out.
Ah, the classic FOMO strategy of valuation, brought to you by the PT Barnum Investment Firm, and the law offices of Dewey, Cheetum, and Howe.
This market is more fucked that a post-pandemic porn convention.
Re: (Score:2)
Dewey, Cheetum, and Howe.
I don't think I've seen that line-up of Yes. I preferred it with Chris Squire.
Nature at its clearest (Score:1)
Pronunciation (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Without recalling formal pronunciation key standards, something like 'dohj'.
Alternatively, like the Italian title: https://forvo.com/word/doge/ [forvo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Dodgy coin.
Re: (Score:2)
Doge originated from a Homestar Runner [wikipedia.org] episode [youtube.com]
Sometimes I wish I had no ethics or morals (Score:2)
Who let the dogs out? (Score:2)
Dogecoin is backed by the same stuff as greenbacksfaith. Trust is holding dogecoin. Both legit currency. Neither gov’t owned. You buy-in to what you want to use for money.
Dogecoin can achieve currency; something Bitcoin et.al. have not. Cryptocoins have not been able to demonstrate the ability to reach acceptance as a medium of exchange.
This is that moment. Dogecoin starts circulating or it joins Bitcoin as a store of value not achieving the hallmark of a money.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot more people trust the dollar than trust Dogecoin.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot more people trust the dollar than trust Dogecoin.
That’s a good. Dogecoin is fractionally equivalent. That and the emerging “market” with Coinbase IPO and Kraken.com where coinage can exchange, people can convert when desired to plain paper bill currency. But more and much more in the future paper bills are banked as store of value rather than currency. VISA MASTERCARD PAYPAL et. al. moved transactions off paper.
The USA has three statutory currency legislated paper, check and credit card. Without a Coinbase there is no route to exchange
Inflation (Score:2)
> Of course, the fact that lots of people have money to spend on joke investments might itself be a result of larger macroeconomic forces. The combination of stimulus spending, low interest rates, and pandemic-related saving means that a lot of people have more money than usual sitting in their bank accounts.
We are in for some serious inflation in the years to come. People keep telling me I'm wrong, they point me to articles that say inflation works differently now. You just wait and see, the value of t
Tether adds $400 million seconds before DOGE surge (Score:1)
Cryptocurrency (Score:2)
Itâ(TM)s all going to be fun, until somebody cracks the cryptography. Which will happen.
Digital snakeoil (Score:1)
The tulip mania bubble (Score:1)
resembled the current illogical passion over cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrencies represent nothing. They are backed by nothing. When push comes to shove they are ... nothing. They are the emperors new clothes. When people reaalize that there will be an implosipon just like the Tulip Mania of the 1630's. In short it's a speculative bubble backed by nothing. If there's a way to ... sell short, do it.