[HN Gopher] Coinbase from YC to IPO ___________________________________________________________________ Coinbase from YC to IPO Author : todsacerdoti Score : 429 points Date : 2021-04-14 15:15 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (blog.ycombinator.com) (TXT) w3m dump (blog.ycombinator.com) | llamataboot wrote: | Compare Coinbase to say a major exchange like the NYSE. Realize | that crypto is a space that could be damaged by gov intervention | at any time. Realize that there is very little lock in effect on | these markets, and fees are becoming less and less over time. | | How does Coinbase ever manage to justify a valuation this high? | 100B.... | | Ping me when the stock price is under $100. | fnord77 wrote: | ipos in recent years seem more like unload-on-the-bag-holder | events than fundraising events. | | maybe they were always like this, but recently the valuations | seem bloated by various measures. | thebean11 wrote: | Coinbase does things that have no NYSE parallel, for example | running a centralized ETH staking service (they keep 50% of the | profits, which are 5+% of staked ETH so it's very high margin). | | Of course anybody can run a service like that, but Coinbase has | the brand name and a leg up on compliance/legal so they'll get | to charge a big premium on this stuff. | skybrian wrote: | The ETH staking seems to be "coming soon?" | kgog wrote: | > How does Coinbase ever manage to justify a valuation this | high? 100B.... | | How is Doordash "worth" ~$50B? | | We're all in a delusion when it comes to public markets _. | | _ We're not ALL in a delusion, but market movers certainly seem | to be. | throwaway3699 wrote: | If FAANG can be worth > $ 1T, then $50B starts to seem fairly | reasonable. I really don't know what justifies either | evaluation though. | enra wrote: | The difference is that NYSE doesn't make that much in the end | by operating the market. Coinbase is crypto first company, has | lot of different things going for them. The buy/sell ramp, | exchange, they are the defacto listing platform for new coins, | they hold assets, they provide custody of assets (which you | need as a fund/company) and they are positioned to do almost | anything that crypto does. More the crypto industry grows, the | more they can grow.Now as a public company they are positioned | to acquire companies much more cheaply. | | Most companies or banks offering crypto are not really built on | it, they are just UI brokerages and buy the coins somewhere | else. Same way they handle other assets. The trades are "free" | because they take portion on off the spread. They buy a coin | for $99 on the market and sell it to you for $100. It's easy to | do but something Coinbase didn't want to do because it's not | transparent and honest. | | Ironically finance and banking institution are the worst at | tech. Building on top of crypto is hard. Crypto trading is | hard. Crypto security is hard. Financial instigation security | is based on the fact that you can always fix things manually, | call and fax in changes. That doesn't work for crypto. | | And it's not like you can build all these capabilities and the | legal framework over night or over months. Competition has been | there from the very beginning but they are still the market | leader in the western world. | | Overall bullish on Coinbase in the long run. It's more of a | platform than it is bank or an exchange. | | Disclaimer: ex-Coinbase employee. | 0xcb0 wrote: | It will never be under $100 again! Like BTC will never be under | $50k again. Well I have no plan about the price of Coinbase, | this is more about the value it brings to the crypto market. To | the liberation of money, wealth and power to the "normal" | people. | | It's a revolution and we as IT sector have been sleeping on it | (at least it feels like there is a lot of negative feedback | concerning this technology). We are good people, but we refused | to follow that hype since 2009 as any RDBM could do the same | ... nearly ... on a local scale. Well, not really imho | | Now it's there and it wont go away. Tesla, VISA, Master, | Coinbase, ... (I'm just from the west and know these, look at | Asia, they are the future. They are much further than us) | | There will be billions if not trillions pumping into that | market. And it will continue, as the industrial revolution in | late 19th century. It's a paradigm shift and nothing less! | | That is a transparent market. NYSE will no be able to compete | with it. Even thought it 100x more old and established. It'll | look like a little shop in no time compared to Coinbase, | Binance, TFX .... | | There have been pseudo "mafia" structures for so long in | traditional finance. DeFi and Crypto will show/shows the world | how much money can be made handling money. Basically banks have | been earning more than all money in the world combined, and | they did NOTHING!!! They just got richer, while generating no | value for society. They even harmed the society and we accepted | it as we had no option. | | Now we can shift that over generating value to the normal | person. This is not less "crazy", generating value from | basically nothing, but it's the only way to show that the | current system is flawed. | | Any gov. trying forbid with crypto will fail. It's too late! | There is no way of shutting anything like ETH down. It's | technically impossible if there is enough incentive for the | mines/staker! | | We need a better world! If the cost for doing so is to burn | down NYSE (not literally), we should do so today. And not wait | another 50 years. | seriousquestion wrote: | > could be damaged by gov intervention at any time | | Less likely as time goes on, especially now with a $100B US | company on the books. | | > How does Coinbase ever manage to justify a valuation this | high? | | Millions of active users, strong financials. | | https://investor.coinbase.com/news/news-details/2021/Coinbas... | josu wrote: | A few arguments to justify the valuation: | | - Government intervention tends to benefit incumbents. | | - Coinbase employs a lot of lawyers [1]. | | - Coinbase invests a lot in lobbying [2]. | | - While fees are lowering for international exchanges, those | who serve US customers are still able to get away with very | high fees. | | - People are less sensitive to fees when the assets they are | buying are very volatile. | | - NYSE serves brokers, that then themselves serve the final | clients. Coinbase is able to serve customers directly, thus it | can keep all the fees for themselves. | | [1] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and- | practice/coinbase... | | [2] https://seekingalpha.com/news/3679495-square-fidelity- | coinba... | rednerrus wrote: | Aren't very high fees antithetical to crypto, also | centralization? | lovedswain wrote: | Antithetical? High fees are all but a feature :) | spir wrote: | Not for long | https://twitter.com/zksync/status/1382244366023004161 | tingletech wrote: | Meet Kevin also did an analysis | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waTWaNqI23Y | koolba wrote: | There is no way that Coinbase has a stronger lobbying base | than the established financial players. They can get into | this game, block it with tighter regs, and dig into their | deep base of clients to offer similar products. I don't see a | moat here. | GordonS wrote: | I'm not so sure. Western governments could had intervened and | banned or heavily regulated crypto currencies at any time over | the past several years. In particular, the Silk Road and Alpha | Bay take-downs would have been the perfect opportunities - but | they didn't take them. | | Now we have crypto currency companies floating as public | companies, and others (e.g. Tesla) heavily invested, | speculatively, in Bitcoin - maybe crypto currency had now | reached a point where it's too big to fail? | | OTOH, some western governments and their security apparatus are | all-in on mass surveillance and privacy invasion, and they are | going to _hate_ any real degree of currency anonymity, so more | regulation could still be on the cards, but perhaps in (secret) | consultation with the likes of CoinBase. The likes of Monero | and Zcash are likely targets. | dannyw wrote: | Bitcoin is perfect for mass surveillance and privacy | invasion. | | It's as if all transactions, of any size, can be perpetually | tracked, with a courtroom-ready digital signature reducing | evidence doubt about who made a transaction. | eloff wrote: | Agreed. | | I'm doing a little side project with my brokerage account where | I pick 20 good socks and 20 bad stocks. Sell the bad ones short | and double down on the good ones. | | That's how hedge funds work. It's interesting because as long | as your picks are mostly right you can make money regardless of | of the market is going up or down. Plus it'll be fun to say I | started a hedge fund at parties. | | Coinbase is my number 1 bad pick. | fukmbas wrote: | It's a bubble just like every other valuation. Writing is on | the wall...valuations, stocks, cars, houses | skyrocketing...wages stagnant. Something has to give | mensetmanusman wrote: | Governments love crypto because it is easier to track than cash | once it is used for a fiat exchange. Not sure why they would be | against it. | rawtxapp wrote: | This IPO significantly weakened the "gov will ban it" argument, | it's like too big to fail now that it's in the hands of | millions of retail and institutional investors alike. | throwastrike wrote: | The exchange game as it was with stocks and bonds is all | about consolidation (and resulting revenue base). People are | betting that coinbase will consolidate the market. I don't | buy it but that's the "story". | melonakos wrote: | Inspired by Coinbase, I wrote an essay on decentralization just | now. A remarkable day today! | https://notonlyluck.com/2021/04/12/the-compelling-vision-of-... | dogman144 wrote: | Really is! From Charlie Shrem going to prison to a IPO in ~7 | years. Space has come so far and has such a history. | bosswipe wrote: | I remember hesitating on a ETH trade because of Coinbase's high | fees and losing money because of it. Ever since I've felt like | Coinbase is a scam wrapped up in pretty UI. | rgifford wrote: | The NYSEs parent company Intercontinental Exchange Inc (ICE) is | worth 66.40B. Today's IPO puts Coinbase at 100B+. The NYSE has | been in operation since 1817. Coinbase has been in operation | since 2012. The value of all crypto is < 1T. The value of the US | stock market is 50T. | | Trading fees in the crypto-world are getting more competitive as | more established players support crypto. I don't see a defensible | market position here, let alone established track record or | strong potential for growth in future earnings. | | This is all feeling very dotcom bubble 2.0. | briefcomment wrote: | The value of all crypto is over 2T now | OnuRC wrote: | No it's not. Crypto market beyond 1,5T now is probably just | fake market cap and volum since nobody is checking that | latter end, just saying it reached to 2T is wrong IMO. But | it's absolutely beyond 1T sth. | kirbypineapple wrote: | Bitcoin alone is worth over 1T, so your statement that all of | crypto is worth less than 1T is a bit silly. The goal posts | keep moving for crypto...next year it'll be that crypto is | worth less than 5T, etc. | | I looked at the NYSE daily volumes...unless I'm reading them | wrong, they did $800m USD worth of trades today. Coinbase did | $5b USD worth of trades today. So if you compare a company | that's almost 200 years olds volume against a 9 year old | company, and find that the startup is doing more than 5 times | the volume of the incumbent (with zero lock in, since clients | are free to trade cryptos on any exchange), then I'd say your | comparison is actually a ringing endorsement for Coinbase. | knowaveragejoe wrote: | FWIW, I think that total of $800m is purely stock trades and | not the sum total of money moving through NYSE. According to | wikipedia they were moving $130bn in 2013. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Stock_Exchange | selectodude wrote: | You are reading them wrong. The NYSE traded 971 million | shares of stock today worth $51 billion. That's just the | NYSE, too. ARCA and ICE are owned by them as well. | | https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/trader.aspx?id=FullVolumeSummar. | .. | austenallred wrote: | Coinbase is... not a stock exchange? | knowaveragejoe wrote: | The value of all crypto is ~2.27Tn at the time of writing: | | https://www.coingecko.com/en/global_charts | | Roughly 1Tn of that from 01/01/2021. | FabHK wrote: | Agreed. As I've pointed out elsewhere, Coinbase trading fees | are about 60x those of NYSE, Nasdaq, etc.; and Coinbase siphons | off about 0.4% of the entire crypto market cap per annum. | | I don't see how that is sustainable at all. | sdenott wrote: | No retail investor has accounts directly with the NYSE. | Coinbase directly holds the customer relationship and if more | government regulation comes down on crypto it will be a better | moat for them against competitors. | | I think Coinbase may still be overvalued but don't think it is | directly comparable to NYSE or other major exchanges. | dylkil wrote: | >This is all feeling very dotcom bubble 2.0. | | How many dotcom era companies had net income of $800mil in a | single quarter? | rgifford wrote: | I don't know exactly. Yahoo was one, adjusted for inflation. | | Man, almost forgot how it's spelled it's been so long. | ghego1 wrote: | The comparison with NYSE is indeed very convincing. | bglusman wrote: | It's a tiny bit pedantic, but the Coinbase offering today was not | actually an IPO, I learned, but a DPO (Direct Public Offering). | It was not a fundraising event for Coinbase, only a liquidity | event for shareholders, and unlike an IPO no explicit valuation | process occurred to select an offering price. | Scoundreller wrote: | Doesn't the Coinbase treasury create/hold un-issued Coinbase | shares? Do we know they didn't sell any of those? | eloff wrote: | Its not pedantic at all, it's the most interesting part of this | IPO, because this is a new way to do IPOs. | Aunche wrote: | Spotify and Slack went public through direct listings as | well. | fossuser wrote: | Also Palantir and Roblox - I think it's the way forward for | most companies. Spotify was the first and the others have | had slight variation to terms, but the core idea is good. | eloff wrote: | Yeah, I wonder if this will become a trend. I always | thought the underwriting agency in an IPO was a form | institutional gate keeping / toll booth on the road to | going public. | ProAm wrote: | It will be a trend for heavy VC funded companies that are | not really profitable (not speaking about Coinbase | specifically). DPO's allow VC to recoup investments at | around the 10 year mark for company's that do not make | financial sense on paper. | xbmcuser wrote: | its not interesting this is just another way stock markets | are more about gambling instead of a way to raise capital. | Previously you had startups doing their best to get sold to | big companies instead of becoming profitable companies. Now | they are going this route. | eloff wrote: | I don't know what your argument actually is, or what it has | to do with what I said. You're just complaining under my | comment because you objected to the word interesting. | anonporridge wrote: | 1. Keep valuable growth companies private for as long as | possible where only accredited investors (rich people) can | invest in them. | | 2. Open up to the public market only once you've reached the | max theoretical valuation. The company is still hugely | overvalued on hype and future growth is unlikely. Ideally, | you quickly make it into the S&P 500 so you can hand off the | bag to passive index holders who have very predictable buy | rate (mostly retirement savings). | | 3... | | 4. The rich profit of the plebs like always. | eloff wrote: | Yeah, capital > labor as Thomas Piketty pointed out quite | nicely. | bhupy wrote: | Just FYI, that's just a theory, and in the decade since | his book was published, there have been several rebuttals | and refutations pointing out that this theoretical | mechanism doesn't match the empirical data. | | https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/wp16160.pdf | | > Using a sample of 19 advanced economies spanning over | 30 years, I find no empirical evidence that dynamics move | in the way Piketty suggests. Results are robust to | several alternative estimates of r-g. | | https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=35466 | 68 | | > Recent influential work finds large increases in | inequality in the U.S. based on measures of wealth | concentration that notably exclude the value of social | insurance programs. This paper revisits this conclusion | by incorporating Social Security retirement benefits into | measures of wealth inequality. We find that top wealth | shares have not increased in the last three decades when | Social Security is properly accounted for. This finding | is robust to assumptions about how taxes and benefits may | change in response to system financing concerns. | | Auten & Splinter came out with the most widely | accepted[1] rebuttal, which showed that Piketty's | theoretical model was based on a reality that ignored | major taxes and transfers, and once you account for | those, the effect goes away completely. | | http://davidsplinter.com/AutenSplinter- | Tax_Data_and_Inequali... | | > Top income share estimates based only on individual tax | returns, such as Piketty and Saez (2003), are biased by | tax-base changes, major social changes, and missing | income sources. Addressing these issues requires numerous | assumptions, especially for broadening income beyond that | reported on tax returns. This paper shows the effects of | adjusting for technical tax issues and the sensitivity to | alternative assumptions for distributing missing income | sources. Our results suggest that top income shares are | lower than other tax-based estimates, and since the early | 1960s, increasing government transfers and tax | progressivity resulted in little change in after-tax top | income shares. | | [1] | https://www.economist.com/briefing/2019/11/28/economists- | are... | stevewodil wrote: | Let's start having companies mint fungible tokens so anyone | can invest in them early on. It's like ICO's but hopefully | it goes better this time | xadhominemx wrote: | A traditional IPO does not have to be a fundraising event. This | was an IPO, just one structured as a direct public offering | instead of negotiated sales the day before. | ilyaeck wrote: | What difference does it make? Shares trading openly on the | market is as explicit a valuation process as it gets. | fernandopj wrote: | The basic difference: | | In an IPO the company puts private shares in the open market | and gets money from it, priced at the IPO price. Whoever has | (private) shares now has public shares and can trade whenever | they want. | | In a Direct Listing the company often already traded shares | "openly" but not in a "public" way, but now wants it listed | publicly so retail investors can trade it, and there's no | immediate need of capital so the objective isn't to get a | funding from offering shares in an IPO. | ttt333 wrote: | Kinda. In a normal IPO the big banks will agree to underwrite | (that is, buy from the company and then immediately sell to | investors) all the shares at an initial "offering price", and | this is agreed upon in writing a little bit before the launch | day. I don't believe this happens in the direct listing | format, it just starts floating with no underwriting process. | | So there is a difference in structure, but to your point | immediately after launch it does not really matter to the | general investing public | fossuser wrote: | Banks rip off companies in IPOs by underpricing the stock so | their investors get a kickback. | | That's the least charitable way to write it, but it's | somewhat close to the truth (the other part of the truth is | that pricing is hard which is why we have markets). | | DPOs allow companies to list at a reference price without | losing out on money - they can sell at the true price later. | | Banks naturally make up a bunch of reasons why this is bad, | but it's mostly nonsense. | | When one side does many of these types of transactions per | year (banks) and one side may only do one or two in a | lifetime (founders) expect the side with more experience to | both tilt the deal in their favor _and_ to have a compelling | narrative of why it 's actually better for you. | | See: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bill-gurley- | direct-lis... | | There's a funny story (I searched briefly, but couldn't find) | that when Elon took Tesla public via an IPO and the bankers | told him the initial price he just said "no, at least $XX or | no deal". I think the bank price was $17 and he said at least | $19, but I could be off on the numbers. They did his price | and that price was still too low. | | It's a mistake for any company to IPO from now on imo, SPACs | are even worse really (unless you're running a fraud in which | case SPACs are great). | u678u wrote: | DPO is the same though right? If you do the capital raise | before the DPO or a capital raise in an IPO there isn't | much difference. | RaketenStadt wrote: | There are a number of important differences, in fact the only | meaningful comparison is that they are selling shares to the | public. | | The title is wrong, there is no IPO. Presumably "IPO" is | meant as "public offering." If there's a place to be specific | about these things, isn't this thread it? | Zelphyr wrote: | I don't know much about finance but based on what GP said, | the biggest difference (aside from the acronym) is that one | is a fund-raising event and the other is a liquidation event | for shareholders. I read the latter as Coinbase's investors | said at a board meeting, "Ok, we're ready to cash out now." | so they held the DPO. | smashem wrote: | So much BTC FUD on HN - it's kind of disgusting. | sherifnada wrote: | It would be really interesting to see an article about biggest | companies YC passed on around that time in the crypto space. We | hear about the YC success stories but I think the "could have | been"s are also equally interesting | rawtxapp wrote: | For anyone interested, they have a listing day page[1] and are | doing a cofounder Q&A live in a bit[2]. | | 1: https://www.coinbase.com/listingday 2: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuqkjklLSCY | vmception wrote: | thank you! shared that to a lot of people | georgeecollins wrote: | Does anyone know what percentage of their business is in Bitcoin | vs Etherium vs other crypto currencies? I have not been able to | find that out and I think it would be a helpful thing to know in | terms of forecasting their business. Does anyone know how I can | find that out? | | Thank you anyone who can help. | dogman144 wrote: | probably in their s1 or other sec docs | georgeecollins wrote: | You're right, it is in the S1. Thank you dogman144!! | | In case anyone curious, S1 page 99: | | Historically, a significant portion of Trading Volume and | transaction fee revenue has been driven by the purchase, | sale, and trading of Bitcoin and Ethereum, and in 2019, | Litecoin. For example, for the year ended December 31, 2019, | Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, and other crypto assets | represented approximately 58%, 14%, 10%, and 18% of Trading | Volume and 60%, 11%, 8%, and 21% of our transaction revenue, | respectively, and for the year ended December 31, 2020, | Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other crypto assets represented | approximately 41%, 15%, and 44% of Trading Volume and 44%, | 12%, and 44% of our transaction revenue, respectively. | dogman144 wrote: | Nice! | FabHK wrote: | One thing I find hilarious, btw: | | The antiquated low-tech equity exchanges charge less than 1 bp in | trading fees on average, if I'm not mistaken. | | The hip new high-tech crypto exchange charges between 50 and 200 | bp in trading fees (unless you trade a lot), around 60 bp on | average, it seems. | | So, crypto trading on Coinbase is two orders of magnitude more | expensive than good old fashioned equity. Yay for progress! | throwaway4good wrote: | Right now Coinbase is trading around 350 making it worth about | 100B, the total value of bitcoin is about 1.000B and all | cryptocurrencies that are tradeable on Coinbase is maybe 1.500B. | | So the ratio between the value of the exchange is about 1/10 - | 1/15 of the total value of the market it trades. (For comparison | take say Interactive Broker's market value to the market value of | the total stock market.) | | And Coinbase far from the only exchange out there. With this | valuation I bet the value of the exchanges is higher than the | value of the total cryptocurrency market. | kvothe_ wrote: | This is not an issue since they make money from per trade. | aqme28 wrote: | It's not even nearly the biggest exchange! Binance trades 10x | the volume, so if Coinbase is worth 1/10 of the crypto market, | is Binance worth 1x the crypto market? | throwaway4good wrote: | Yep. It seems crazy - if you take all the stock market | brokers and exchanges and compare it to the full stock | market, their value is only a tiny part. | | However for crypto exchanges ... well ... what is going on | here? | aqme28 wrote: | Maybe because traditional investments have a lot of uses. | Since crypto is pretty much just speculative right now, it | makes sense that the exchanges are the ones capturing that | value. | FabHK wrote: | One reason certainly is that Coinbase charges very high | fees, namely around 0.6% of the traded amount. The other | reason is that crypto is traded a lot. If 1/6 of the entire | crypto market cap trades on Coinbase every quarter (and | that seems to be the case), then Coinbase has earnings of | 0.1% of the entire crypto market cap every quarter, or 0.4% | per annum. Apply a 25 P/E ratio, and you get a value for | Coinbase of 10% of the crypto market cap. | pinkybanana wrote: | It is already down to $330... | agotterer wrote: | Comparing the Coinbase market cap and the total market value of | Bitcoin is not comparing apples to apples. Just in the last 24 | hours $74B worth of Bitcoin has traded hands. The entire | purpose of Coinbase is to facilitate that exchange and take a | cut for doing so. If the trade rate doesn't change the entire | "market cap" dollar value of bitcoin will trade hands every two | weeks. Being responsible for facilitating a sizeable percent of | those transactions is pretty awesome and very valuable. | | With that said, I think they are overvalued at $100B. Not | because of the total market cap size of crypto, but because | their revenue doesn't justify a valuation that high. | dsaavy wrote: | I think a more relevant metric would be the velocity of the | Cypto market rather than the total value of the number of coins | out there. Since Coinbase is taking a % of every transaction, | if you send .1 bitcoin once then they get .5% of that. But if | you send .1 bitcoin 10 times then they get .5% of 10*.1 (not | the real % obviously). | | I've seen numbers around 250k to 350k transactions per day for | Bitcoin and more than 1 million for Ethereum. So if Coinbase | can capture a decent percent of that market then you're talking | about tens of millions in revenue per day (if not more). | | From a quick search it looks like Coinbase had around $1.8 | billion in revenue in the first quarter. That could/should grow | along with popularity of crypto in general. | paulpauper wrote: | for what it's worth, I would not invest in it | timdaub wrote: | I've met Fred Ehrsam multiple times at conferences when he was | around as a VC. He's a great guy! Well done! | drocer88 wrote: | Any idea what time COIN will start trading? | ZeroCool2u wrote: | Just started! Immediately spiked to over $400 from the listing | reference price of $250. | downrightmike wrote: | Privately it was going for 540 earlier this week | smeej wrote: | This is a claim that would need a citation. | | There were no authorized private markets in the last | week,and Coinbase's stock issuance documents forbid sales | without company approval. | | FTX was trading over $600 at one point, but that was a | synthetic asset and based off of an inaccurate estimate of | the share count. Was that what you were referring to? | downrightmike wrote: | Yes, you're right. | SavantIdiot wrote: | Waiting to see that option chain... | SCAQTony wrote: | Netscape moment...' says Mike Novogratz -- Is that a scary quote | or what? Netscape did their IPO in 1995 and IE 6 killed them in | 2001 but the "body" was finally buried in 2008. It sounds like a | self-inflicted curse tempting Goldman or JP Morgan to become | their "IE6." YMMV. | | https://cointelegraph.com/news/coinbase-listing-is-crypto-s-... | rawtxapp wrote: | Netscape might have died, but it kickstarted the internet | revolution in a major way. | purple_ferret wrote: | Coinbase is definitely a success story in how to appeal to the | masses. There were always alternatives, but coinbase always came | out on top despite the high fees and poor customer service. | | I think Coinbase as a publicly traded company will be very | interesting to follow. Not only is it a massively cyclical | industry, but the supposed point of crypto is to reducing the | reliance on, and grifting from, companies like Coinbase. It's | very success should be inverse to the goals of crypto, and over | time, one would think the relationship can only get more fragile. | jcims wrote: | One factor of that appeal in the US is that you have to provide | your SSN to the exchange you're using. There's a lot of | intangibles that Coinbase brings that overcomes the activation | energy required to punch in those numbers on a web form. | | Just an anecdote but, much to my chagrin, I've had a largely | dormant Coinbase account since 2013 and haven't received any | notable spam or evidence that my contact info has been handled | sloppily. | | Recently I started the enrollment process for a couple other | popular exchanges and almost immediately start getting some | gnarly spam of topical relevance. | sombremesa wrote: | > much to my chagrin, I've had a largely dormant Coinbase | account since 2013 and haven't received any notable spam or | evidence that my contact info has been handled sloppily. | | > Recently I started the enrollment process for a couple | other popular exchanges and almost immediately start getting | some gnarly spam of topical relevance. | | So...you're happy now, right? | jcims wrote: | lol Yes! I feel like a member of the economy now. A guid in | a database somewhere...i have value. | dehrmann wrote: | > the supposed point of crypto is to reducing the reliance on, | and grifting from, companies like Coinbase | | That was the pitch of crypto. In practice, people are buying it | as a bet that it will go up. I suspect most people are only | buying it because the value is going up. If bitcoin _actually_ | worked like a currency and traded between $8k and $12 for the | past 5 years, no one would care. | rawtxapp wrote: | Except currencies have much bigger market caps, it wouldn't | have worked as a currency in that range (outside of a _very_ | small economy). We are now in the initial phase where it 's | being used as a store of value, but sooner or later, it's | going to reach roughly it's true value at which point, you | would expect it to behave more like a currency rather than an | asset with a huge upside. | spiralx wrote: | Currencies don't have market caps, assets have market caps. | The fact that people talk about crypto's "market cap" is as | clear an indication that it's not and never will be a | currency. | delaaxe wrote: | Currencies definitely have total supplies which can be | measured in USD. Let's not be finicky with definitions. | https://fiatmarketcap.com/ | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | Global wealth is $400T. All crypto currency combined is worth | about ~$2T at this point. So to store 0.5% of the world's | wealth, we are using 0.6% of the world's energy. | | Banks obviously don't use anywhere near this much energy. | Bitcoin is estimated to use more energy than all other server | farms put together. | | So we are using 0.6% of the world's energy to store 0.5% of | the world's wealth. And < 0.6% of the world's energy to store | the other 99.5% of the world's wealth. | | Doesn't seem like the ideal wealth storage technology. | delaaxe wrote: | I like this reasoning in terms of global wealth | Consultant32452 wrote: | What's the total energy cost, including human capital, of | keeping the petrodollar afloat via global wars/hegemony? | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | Even if it is greater than 0.6% (it's plausible) - dollar | denominated wealth accounts for 25% or global wealth. | Which is 52.5x the amount of wealth as all of crypto. | | The US doesn't even use 20% of the world's energy. So you | would need to think that 125% of the energy the US | produces and consumes goes directly into fighting wars | and "supporting the petro dollar" - which is absurd. | Almost 50% of energy is spent on transportation and | utilities alone... | | In the most generous of worlds, Bitcoin is 10x less | efficient than the current systems. It is probably closer | to 1000x less efficient (or more). | Consultant32452 wrote: | Well the US has killed over a million people in Iraq, | Afghanistan, and Syria in the current wars. How are you | calculating the cost of that million lives to prop up the | dollar? | | This is one of the biggest selling points of crypto, it's | not tied to a government that may decide to commit mass | murder for its sake. | lotsofpulp wrote: | I would include the energy needed to maintain trust in | other currencies including efforts to prevent counterfeits, | which I might argue includes some portion of a nation's | militaristic might. Trust is an even more ambiguous, yet | crucial aspect of maintaining a currency's value, tied up | in the "order" or predictability of the society using the | currency, which involves various legal systems and at the | most basic level, relationships between its peoples. | | It takes a relatively minuscule amount of energy to | maintain a database of numbers associated with certain | people and entities, but quite a significant amount to make | it mean something. | abalone wrote: | If this were actually true, Coinbase would not need to | exist with a market cap of $100B. | g_sch wrote: | I don't really understand this argument. If militaries | are part of the embodied infrastructure of a country's | banking system, this would imply that replacing the | banking system with something decentralized (like | cryptocurrency) would cause countries across the world to | reduce their military footprint. | | I find it much more likely that military resources would | be diverted to somewhere upstream of mining in the value | chain. For example, if we continue relying on carbon- | intensive proof-of-work blockchains, why wouldn't armies | simply be diverted to secure energy resources? | reidjs wrote: | This implies that the energy required to store wealth in | centralized databases is easily calculable. | | It also implies that the goal of storing wealth is | optimizing for low energy usage, which seems less important | than security/safety, ease of transfer, taxation, | automation, and other factors. | | I'm not making an argument for or against PoW. Just want to | point out it's possible >.6% of humans energy output may in | fact go towards banking and payments. | abalone wrote: | This is a poorly reasoned comparison. The .6% figure was | in reference to .5% of wealth; presumably much more | energy would be required to store closer to 100% of | wealth with crypto. | | Given that we are nearing the irreversible destruction of | our climate and that existing electronic systems offer | all the benefits you mention, but with massively lower | energy cost, your claim that energy "seems less | important" is unsupported. | beervirus wrote: | > So to store 0.5% of the world's wealth, we are using 0.6% | of the world's energy. | | It's even worse in terms of energy per transaction. | rozap wrote: | That's why we need centralized exchanges like coinbase to | enable off chain transactions within their walled garden. | Then we can have the worst of both worlds. | Grustaf wrote: | The energy is not spent on storing though, it's expended | when verifying transaction, isn't it? | ufo wrote: | In the sense that verifying transactions is what keeps | the bitcoin network alive. | ozmbie wrote: | The energy spent on bitcoin's proof of work is not tied to | the volume of transactions though. At a technical/protocol | level, the same amount of mining would be needed if there | was $100 trillion being stored or $1 being stored. | | Although higher prices make larger mining operations more | enticing and profitable. | svachalek wrote: | Sadly this is true other than "no one would care". Many would | care, just mostly not in countries with stable fiat. | | But the success of BNB which is basically just a corporate | database on a blockchain shows there is a big part of the | community that doesn't care about decentralization at all. | delaaxe wrote: | BNB is an ERC-20 | rodiger wrote: | Yeah I believe you mean BSC | gge wrote: | > the supposed point of crypto is to reducing the reliance on, | and grifting from, companies like Coinbase | | Yes, that is still the case? Decentralized exchanges like | Uniswap are dominating (over $1B volumes daily) and growing | very rapidly. Crypto is and always has been about | decentralization. | divbzero wrote: | > _coinbase always came out on top despite the high fees_ | | Commissions tend to come down as markets mature (with some | exceptions like real estate) so I will be curious to see if | this occurs in the crypto market as well. I suspect that appeal | to the masses will not be a long-term durable advantage. | paulpauper wrote: | Early on coinbase made it very easy to buy, even if it meant | taking losses. They allowed people to trade with funds that | were not yet cleared. This was a long time ago. Some ppl could | withdrawal the coins and then cancel the deposit by contacting | the bank. that did not last long. | Sohcahtoa82 wrote: | In the past, Bitcoin exchanges IMO felt shady. They frequently | were run from foreign countries and got away with avoiding | Know-Your-Customer banking laws. | | Coinbase brought a true sense of legitimacy and trustworthiness | to Bitcoin exchanging. | cableshaft wrote: | Yep. I always wanted to buy bitcoin way back in the day, it's | just every time I almost joined an exchange (like Mt. Gox) | they always made me feel really nervous and like I was going | to lose my money (didn't help that several of them got hacked | and did lose everyone's money). | | Coinbase was the first company that made the whole process | feel pretty safe and reliable. | MuffinFlavored wrote: | > Coinbase brought a true sense of legitimacy and | trustworthiness to Bitcoin exchanging. | | I could be wrong but to me this makes every shill for crypto | that says "it's anonymous!" a joke. | | I had to provide a driver's license and do checking account | verification to be approved on Coinbase. Does that not remove | the anonymity or am I missing something? | smolder wrote: | It does remove any question of who you are for coinbase, | but bitcoin was only ever pseudonymous transactions, not | fully anonymous. We can all see how each wallet behaves. | MuffinFlavored wrote: | and in an "audit" or "government" scenario, your Coinbase | wallet is linked to your driver's license + checking | account, right? | | Do we know if Coinbase would cooperate with US government | in such a situation? I would imagine they would. | | I'd imagine they are also going to be sending IRS | 1099-like forms for all crypto transactions, right? | fossuser wrote: | Yeah - it's not anonymous, the shill people didn't | understand the technology and are wrong. | | Every transaction is part of the public ledger. If you | ever want to get money in or out from fiat you need some | point that is going to require ID. | | You could try and avoid this doing in person and cash, | but if make any mistake ever your entire history of | transactions is known. | | Some people have tried to do things to obscure this (coin | mixing), some coins exist to do something clever to make | it private, but BTC isn't and the other stuff doesn't | really work. | | Coinbase is great because the original exchanges like | "Magic The Gathering Exchange" (Mt. Gox) were amateur | hour, they were routinely hacked and lost everyone's | money. Coinbase was the first real company that showed up | and did what they were supposed to do. They also made | things easy with good UI. | | I think this is partly because in the Mt. Gox days it | wasn't taken too seriously, (most) people were playing | with it because they thought it was cool not because they | expected it to grow in to a trillion dollar monster. | Sohcahtoa82 wrote: | Bitcoin CAN be used anonymously if you never use an online | exchange to convert fiat to Bitcoin or vice versa. | | But yeah, otherwise I agree with you. Once you've bought | your Bitcoin from Coinbase, your name is attached to a | Bitcoin address. Law enforcement might not know where the | coins go once you spend them, but they could subpoena you | or otherwise make some sort of legal demand to know who you | sent them to if they suspected you of buying illegal | things. | o_p wrote: | >the supposed point of crypto is to reducing the reliance on, | and grifting from, companies like Coinbase. | | Not necessarily, the point of crypto is to reduce reliance on | fiat money, due to the high fees of crypto it makes sense to | build centralized services on top backed by decentralized | cryptocurrencies, these exchanges dont hold real power, as you | can just switch exchanges (unlike credit card processors). | Bitcoin is like the internet gold, but you dont buy stuff with | gold. | urza wrote: | Unpopular opinion - Bitcoin would be better without Coinbase. | janandonly wrote: | I used to buy my coins on MtGox, I am still waiting on the | closure of that lawsuit in Japan. | | Happy to have done business with Coinbase back in 2015.. | | Of course later on I looked for a better and cheaper exchange, | but really, Coinbase helped Bitcoin grow as much as Bitcoin | helped Coinbase grow... | | Today Coinbase is just one of many faceless shitcoin casinos | but they had their use, once upon a time... | whalesalad wrote: | Frankly I think crypto would be hardly anything like it is | today without Coinbase. They made it accessible. | spurdoman77 wrote: | Not very valuable opinion if you dont have any arguments. | tofuahdude wrote: | Ideologically, sure, but practically? Not a chance. Coinbase | was instrumental in helping Bitcoin achieve its current | stature. | csomar wrote: | Not really. The ship of a single exchange or wallet dominating | Bitcoin or the crypto space has sailed. It's quite hard for | Coinbase to have any significant control over the network. (ie: | Bitpay tried that and now they are mostly history). | | Coinbase provides a regulated environment for trading crypto- | currencies as well as on-off ramps to traditional finance. It's | definitively a plus to have them around. | smaps wrote: | What's the reasoning behind your opinion? | nscalf wrote: | Were you in the space before Coinbase became big? Because I've | had crypto exchanges get hacked and run away with my money. | There was zero trust (for good reason) in any of the sites that | let you buy crypto. Without Coinbase, this likely would still | be a sketchy ecosystem that wasn't taken seriously. Coinbase | was the first slick, trustworthy exchange based in the US. I | personally am not very comfortable buying from foreign | exchanges, and when I have to I move them out of those | exchanges as fast as possible. | | I think Coinbase was absolutely crucial in changing the public | opinion of "buying bitcoin is for criminals" and "you just get | hacked and lose it all". | thesausageking wrote: | I was. Most Bitcoin OGs have a lot of animosity towards | Coinbase. Some of it is the "eternal September"[0] effect | that Coinbase had bringing a lot of new people who didn't | embrace Bitcoin's values and just wanted to gamble on crypto. | | But some of it is based on Coinbase's actions against Bitcoin | over the years. They've promoted and helped pump up a lot of | s*t coins, including forks of Bitcoin. And they've done | little to support or further the values Bitcoin was built on | or core development. | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September | russellbeattie wrote: | I'm not sure what I'm more amazed at: The foresight of Coinbase's | founder starting the company so early on, or _my_ personal total | lack of foresight having read with interest about Bitcoin from | the beginning and yet not bothering to buy a single coin at any | point over the past decade. | wmf wrote: | TradeHill was founded a year earlier and failed due to lack of | demand. Gemini was founded after Coinbase and never caught up. | It really looks like Coinbase got the timing right. | thinkingkong wrote: | I know lots of really smart software people who avoided crypto | because it didnt and still doesnt "make sense". But we all | didnt invest on the merit of the technology. We forgot the | whole "how will people behave" part and lost out on millions. | randomopining wrote: | That was me. But tbh I do now see the value of Bitcoin | specifically, in a zero-sum deflationary sense. But the | environmental cost doesn't really make it worth it. | | Defi could make sense... but I think people underestimate the | value of a physical bank with real people running the show. | But a lot of rent extraction too... so idk. | tootie wrote: | It still makes no sense to me. It makes sense in the sense | that if people believe in it it becomes real. But I don't get | why people believe in it. And frankly I'm still pretty | skeptical that it's being floated by more than money | laundering. | rawtxapp wrote: | One thing is, crypto is at the intersection of many | disciplines at once, tech/finance/economy/psychology/game | theory, etc. | | I'd if you try to start with a clean slate and no biases | against it from the get go, spend some time researching and | understanding it alonside what money is and it's history, | etc. You'll probably start to see some usefulness to it. | tootie wrote: | I understand a lot of that stuff. I think the last 10 | years have very thoroughly vindicated fiat currencies and | central banking. The fact that we powered through the | last financial crisis without inflation and the biggest | pain was inflicted by austerity policies in Europe made | it all pretty unequivocal. Crypto is powering close to | zero of the mainstream economy. Nobody got a bitcoin | bailout. The "money" isn't flowing. I've seen multiple | big Wall Street banks say they're going to start using | blockchains for whatever and fail to get any traction. | It's great for avoiding taxes or buying drugs but I | haven't seen any other practical application. The game | theory aspect is probably very relevant. There's a lot of | FOMO driving speculators into the frenzy. | rawtxapp wrote: | > The fact that we powered through the last financial | crisis without inflation... | | If you trust those metrics, yes everything is perfect. | Prices at grocery might not have inflated, but assets | certainly have, real estate is crazy expensive, stock | market P/E ratios have also exploded. For the working | class whose income has relatively stayed stable, it means | life is a lot harder. | | The money is very much flowing in the crypto world, just | look at DeFi, it has more or less the equivalent services | available elsewhere, but everyone has access, you don't | need trust, it has large volumes and billions of dollars | in capital in these protocols. | | It's great if you want a predictable global monetary | system not controlled by any single entity. If you don't | see any value in that (as in you really trust your gov | and the politicians/bankers), I don't think there's | anything I could tell you to convince you otherwise. | dogman144 wrote: | From something I wrote above, this was my ah-ha moment: | | Not all cryptos are like this, but for bitcoin and other | ones that have the incentives right: bitcoin's massive | breakthrough is a protocol that can send verifiably | discrete entities across a network, without a central party | needing to verify the discrete-ness. This is a huge | breakthrough in a lot of ways, but basically consider if | you network could send payments as exactly as easily as it | does HTTP packets, and w/o a client-server model, just p2p. | HTTP changed the world, and that's the idea behind | bitcoin's value. If you could somehow buy a slice of HTTP | in 1997, or TCP/UDP, now knowing how important and valuable | those became (valued by the size of the internet economy), | would you? | tootie wrote: | The only distinction between crypto and just HTTPS is the | distributed concept. Something that I don't really think | is valuable and neither do most consumers. Crypto | exchanges get robbed more often than banks. The notion of | investing in "http" is akin to investing in "blockchain" | which isn't a thing. Anyone who saw the value of the | internet would have been buying Apple, Google and Amazon | because they were providing goods and services. Not | tokens. I'm heavily invested in reddit karma, but it's | still not fungible. | Ekaros wrote: | I feel myself as value investor. That is why cryptos or Tesla | and many other tech companies never made sense to me... I | might be right one day, but currently it seems that market is | what market is. | rawtxapp wrote: | To me, value investing is when you already have a good idea | of what something is worth, but it's trading below that | value. That's great strategy if you know and understand a | certain sector. | | It's very difficult to value futuristic things, it might | succeed beyond our wildest dreams or completely flop. | cwkoss wrote: | Everything seems so overinflated right now. As a value | investor, what looks good currently? | ignoramous wrote: | $NET if you're looking for slightly undervalued tech | stocks. | | The recently announced products to take on zscaler, | crowdstrike et al looks commendable whilst they are also | at the same time going after the cloud incumbents with | Workers. I'd reckon, they've got the engineering chops | and the infrastructure to bat both those out of the park. | Black101 wrote: | my $250 order didn't go through... | kleer001 wrote: | Try again without a time limit, unless you're joking | Black101 wrote: | I don't have access to a broker that allows orders with no | time limit... unless you're joking | | And of course I was not joking... you should have tried it | yourself... only bankers get the best price. | paulpauper wrote: | And down bitcoin goes. $3k off the highs. If given a choice | between 1 million to invest in in a large cap growth stock | portfolio vs. Bitcoin, I would choose the stock portfolio every | time. Crypto too volatile relative to upside. Airbnb and other | big tech growth stocks have much smoother returns which can be | magnified with some leverage strategies. | smabie wrote: | BTC has a pretty amazing Sharpe ratio. If you want smooth | returns, then reduce your allocation? | Dopameaner wrote: | As Powell announced cryptocurrencies 'vehicles for | speculation'. It is mind blowing the cryptocurrencies are | making bets and are valued without any sound reasoning behind | them. How many companies actually use them at regular place? | How hard is the barrier of entry? | dogman144 wrote: | I'm not sure what you mean by "cryptos making bets." | | Valid points on use, but paypal adoption might cause a jump | and a few others in that direction, but still small. | | Barrier to entry, paypal or not, is fairly small actually. | Good wallet and transaction ecosystem that works via QR code. | Depending on what way CB and places like BlockFi go, links to | dollar economy get a lot stronger too. | | What sound reasoning is behind all this: bitcoin's massive | breakthrough is a protocol that can send verifiably discrete | entities across a network, without a central party needing to | verify the discrete-ness. This is a huge breakthrough in a | lot of ways, but basically consider if you network could send | payments as exactly as easily as it does HTTP packets. HTTP | changed the world, and that's the idea behind bitcoin's | value. If you could somehow buy a slice of HTTP in 1997, or | TCP/UDP, now knowing how important and valuable those became | (valued by the size of the internet economy), would you? | NaturalPhallacy wrote: | USD doesn't have sound reasoning behind them either | (anymore). It's based on faith in the system. | randomopining wrote: | I mean realistically it's how you pay taxes to the US | Government which represents the United States, probably the | most innovative and industrial nation ever to exist. | | If you want to operate with/within the US, you pay the | dollar. That's fairly "sound" reasoning. | | Btw im invested heavily in crypto but just saying. | mmmmmbop wrote: | It is backed by the U.S. Army. | randomopining wrote: | Why? Lol. If your risk/reward profile is such, it's a fine | investment. Super liquid, volatile, upward trend. | | Yeah if you're 70 years old, don't throw in half of your net | worth. | edem wrote: | Coinbase is not for crypto people. It is for people who only care | about hodling some crypto for profit and want an easy on-ramp. It | is not for traders either as it is incredibly expensive to | deposit and trade. I'd take Binance over Coinbase any day of the | week. If I use Coinbase I pay 2% only for depositing which is | insane. If I use Binance for example deposit is free, withdraw is | 0.75 EUR and I pay 0.2% (note the zero) for transactions. | sosuke wrote: | Dividends to HN users? Joking aside congrats! I'm planning on | picking up a share or two as I did with Digital Ocean. | Scoundreller wrote: | Whenever something charges/pays $0, it's probably not a perfect | price :) | csomar wrote: | They did give 0.1 btc in the early days. Which if you did hold | into them would be roughly $6500 by today's rate (you'd also | have BCH, BCHN, BSV and BTG). | sosuke wrote: | Crazy I missed another boat there. More will come down the | river and I'll jump on the right one eventually. | jedberg wrote: | I just looked at my Coinbase balance for the first time in a | few years. | | Apparently I got $5 of free bitcoin at some point in 2016 and | it's now worth $800. Sweet! | Tenoke wrote: | They also seem to have quietly closed early users' accounts | and taken the holdings. | bhaile wrote: | I have an account from early on when they first launched. | Got some small BTC in it and never touched it again. Still | there. Odd why some got closed. I log into it once every | couple of years. | clpm4j wrote: | Can confirm that happened to me. | lubesGordi wrote: | I got .03 btc from the early days sign up. It's almost $2k | now. Thanks Brian! | jspaetzel wrote: | It's incredible they were allowed to go public with risk being at | such an all time high. Kudos to the company though, it's really | ideal for the investors so c'est la vie. | FabHK wrote: | Allowed by who? | haolez wrote: | Indeed, Coinbase is so good that it doesn't look like a | cryptocurrency exchange (despite the fact that it doesn't appeal | to the more anarchic uses of crypto). Exchanges usually feel | half-baked and there are tons of cases of security issues with | the loss of customers' money. | | Kudos to the team! | throwawaybbqed wrote: | I was an early user of coinbase. I only bought a fraction of a | coin because of Paul Graham and YC's reputation. Well .. I was | wrong. I was not an active trader. It seems they have closed by | account and liquidated the btc within (if there were actually btc | in my name). I am deeply disappointed that they don't have a | telephone number I can call to help figure out the situation. | Pretty disappointed. | smabie wrote: | I _highly_ doubt this is true. | bpodgursky wrote: | As other people have alluded to, this might be California | "escheating" you out of the account if you haven't logged in | for a couple years (in which case Coinbase doesn't have a say | in it). You should look into what's in California's unclaimed | property registry: https://www.sco.ca.gov/upd_msg.html | px43 wrote: | Eh, maybe a month ago I found a Coinbase account from 2013 that | I had forgotten about, and it still had everything in it. Your | story makes no sense. Coinbase support has always been pretty | good for every problem I've ever had. Why talk to someone on | the phone when you can click a button and have a live chat with | a support agent instantly? | | https://help.coinbase.com/en/contact-us | marrone12 wrote: | Is this a plant? coinbase support is notoriously horrible, | even my friend who works at the company thinks it's bad. | NaturalPhallacy wrote: | If half the company isn't reading this thread I would be | shocked. They came from YC and they're mostly a bunch of | nerds like us. | RhodoGSA wrote: | I accidentally sent a wire from my business account instead | of my personal account into coinbase. Since my account | wasn't verified to be a business account they contacted me, | sent the money back and reimbursed me the $30 wire fee. I | found the customer service to be great. | | I've been trading crypto for a while and exchanges are as | sketchy as it gets. Sometimes, you have anecdotal | experiences that bubble up on the internet but i truly | believe coinbase is the most trust-worthy exchange. | px43 wrote: | I've needed support maybe four times in my 8 or so years | using them, and each time they've resolved my problem | quickly. | | The complaints I've seen about Coinbase support are usually | people who withdraw coins to the wrong address or something | and are upset that Coinbase won't reimburse them for their | own fuckups. | | I have had several cryptocurrency exchanges straight up | steal money from me and then ghost me. Coinbase has been a | pleasure to work with relative to everything else in the | crypto space. | dev_throw wrote: | Coinbase customer service has always been tragic. I remember my | BTC being locked up until I could "verify" my identity by | submitting a photo of my passport, but their site kept | glitching out and zero response from customer service. This | went on for months. | | Pulled all my coins out and will never use this scummy product | again. | vmception wrote: | yeah right, they likely have the account closed but the assets | still held | csomar wrote: | > It seems they have closed by account and liquidated the btc | within | | This might not be completely legal. How much Bitcoin was it and | what it is the date of liquidation? | unreal37 wrote: | Have you even communicated with them about it? | | Today might not be a great day to try that. But reach out to | them and ask. | cbhl wrote: | I wonder if this is escheat at work, or if it is just them | adding new multi-factor and ID requirements and not staying | on top of it... | [deleted] | dehrmann wrote: | Since this is a direct listing, imagine making the first trade. | There's no price for it. You might be an institutional investor | who negotiated a price beforehand with large shareholders. Or | maybe it's a bunch of people yoloing it with limit orders. | nly wrote: | Stock exchange liquidity is dominated by market makers who will | do their own assessment, or simply wait for price discovery | rawtxapp wrote: | I believe it starts with a reference price of 250$ per share. | olalonde wrote: | Fun trivia: Brian Armstrong was looking for a co-founder on HN | back in 2012: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3754664 | newbie578 wrote: | From startup to IPO in under a decade. Well played! | Congratulations! | arcticbull wrote: | Not to take anything away from this accomplishment -- this is | more a point of interest -- the average time from formation to | IPO for a company that's going to is 6.3 years [1] | | [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/320793/median-time- | ventu... | ignoramous wrote: | Well, what's the average time to a $100B IPO? | kilbuz wrote: | Getting closer to infinity every day. | arcticbull wrote: | I echo this sentiment lol, in general, why would you? I | think it's pretty barbell shaped. Either you're going | public in the sub-20B range, or you wait until you hit | $1T+ like Aramco. That's not to say there won't be folks | in the middle. But why go through the reporting | requirements if you have no trouble raising capital, and | only have to answer to a small group of smart money? May | as well just buy back shares from your employees at | secondary. | | I know there's certain pressures - like the 7 year clock | on RSUs, and there's still a cap on outside investors | right? | superos wrote: | The irony; Bernard Madoff dies, but his spirit lives on. | williesleg wrote: | A busted clock is right twice a day | ddevault wrote: | Bitcoin is an enormously wasteful ponzi scheme mind virus and YC | should be ashamed of their involvement in it - not proud. I long | for the day (which it seems may come soon!) when cryptocurrencies | are outlawed and we can all move on with our lives. | literallycancer wrote: | Your existence is wasteful. If you don't like it, just don't | use it? Why do you feel the need to tell others what do to with | their lives and money? | unreal37 wrote: | Outlawed? I don't think that will be possible. Bitcoin is part | of the US financial system already! | dehrmann wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 | | This was almost certainly a blatant due process violation, | though. FDR was fond of those. | ecommerceguy wrote: | BTC is different. It will never go down from here. | coolspot wrote: | I would say it is a new paradigm! | [deleted] | tibiahurried wrote: | As many other recent IPO, this valuation is just out of this | world. Also, Coinbase is not the only player in the space. Many | also use Binance.us; it offers stacking, cheaper fees and usually | lists more alt coins. | | I must admin that I bought my first cryptos on Coinbase but soon | realized how expensive it was and looked for alternatives. | | I don't understand what is so unique about Coinbase and why this | insane valuation. I am skeptical and not going to buy, at least | not at this price. | | Long term I expect exchanges to having to drop fees like stock | exchanges. At that point, unless they can offer juicy interests | rates like Celsius, how would they make money ? | Tenoke wrote: | I still prefer Binance who are exposed to users via actual crypto | (BNB) than Coinbase who are trying to eat the trad investors | exposure and banking on their preferential treatment from US | regulators. | | Not to mention that Binance has 9x the volume, much much more | crypto and is pro-competition and lists Coin on day 1 while CB | wouldn't even consider listing BNB or anything by competitors. | arcticbull wrote: | Well, Binance is, somehow, dramatically more of a fly-by-night | bucket shop intentionally looking the other way to people | opening multiple accounts to avoid KYC -- and they won't event | tell you in which country they're domiciled. | | They're one of Team Tether's top partners in crime. | | How on earth can you believe their volume numbers haha. | literallycancer wrote: | That's a feature. Willingness to avoid onerous regulation or | even break the law to benefit users is a good thing. | baq wrote: | that's assuming non-users aren't getting hurt. | arcticbull wrote: | Yeah, it's not lol, it screws over legitimate participants | to benefit the house. | csomar wrote: | > How on earth can you believe their volume numbers haha. | | They might be inflating their numbers but they are | definitively huge. Everyone I know who is involved in Crypto | is using them. | Tenoke wrote: | I doubt they are inflating them and it's trivial to check | by going on both CB and Binance, looking at the order books | and executing a few orders against them. | arcticbull wrote: | Right, you know in a completely unregulated market, you | can just put fake things on the books yeah? | | Remember that ETF that was trying to list a few years ago | said 95% of all volume in the crypto space was fake. [1] | Now, at the time, they included Binance as a legitimate | exchange but you know nobody's looking and they can do | literally whatever they want. | | That designation is especially suspect as: | | > Of the 10 exchanges, only Binance isn't a money | services business (MSB) | | Consider of course this was 2 years ago. | | This whole space is utterly uninvestable. | | So let me reverse the question -- on what basis do you | believe these unregulated fly by night bucket shops are | on the up and up? What have they done to prove their | legitimacy to you? | | [1] https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitwise-calls-out-to- | sec-95-o... | ChainOfFools wrote: | correct. the part that seems to evade people's mental | model of this process is that the exchanges know which | orders in the book are theirs, but the customers do not, | so there's no risk whatsoever of the exchange filling an | order that works against their balance sheet. it all | looks perfectly organic from the outside. | Tenoke wrote: | I mean, how can what's on the book be be fake if my | trades are executed faster, the spread is smaller and I | can take advantage of the higher liquidity?? | | Those things aren't just arbitrary numbers with no | effect, if you are trading it's pretty noticable where | the volume is higher even if you don't look at the order | book. | arcticbull wrote: | Sorry? They most certainly can be arbitrary numbers. [1] | | You know 99% of all LTC trading on Coinbase was one | account trading back and forth with itself a couple years | ago. Spoof trading involves putting up a big order, then | yanking it at the last second before it gets executed. | | If you're the house, you can do literally anything if | only the fox is watching the henhouse. As the peer | response states, if you're the house, you know which | orders are yours so there's zero risk of them | accidentally getting filled. You put fake orders on the | books, you fake close them, and report them as a real | transaction in the log. The liquidity can just be | pretend. | | [1] https://www.complianceweek.com/regulatory- | enforcement/cftc-f... | Tenoke wrote: | .. Again that's all good in theory but in practice you | can verify by trading. My orders do get filled faster on | Binance, I can take advantage of the better spread and | liquidity etc. The majority of orders aren't just | disappearing randomly or anything. | | It's especially obvious when trading higher amounts or | trading a smaller liquidity token in the first place. | Maybe I can't verify the actual numbers but I can very | much verify there's more liquidity etc. than when I do | the same transactions on a smaller exchange (and I'm on | ~5 exchanges). | arcticbull wrote: | No you cannot verify by trading lol, any more than you | can verify the payout ratio of a slot machine at a rigged | casino. They can synthesize opening and closing the | orders, matching them internally, based off a feed from a | legitimate exchange. Since they control everything they | can easily ensure they don't accidentally get matched to | an external order. This gives the illusion of liquidity. | Tenoke wrote: | >any more than you can verify the payout ratio of a slot | machine at a rigged casino. | | If I use a slot machine a million times and I get higher | payouts than at the casino next door, why should I | consider it rigged? | | This is just nonsense. I am getting all the benefits of | high liquidity and volume, my orders actually execute and | I take advantage of the smaller spread. You can posit | whatever you want, but the more likely explanation is | that the volume is indeed higher. | arcticbull wrote: | They have not provided you with any reason to believe | them. They won't even tell you _where they 're located_ | lol. | | This was a common growth hack for exchanges. When a new | exchange launched they wanted to feign liquidity to | establish a sense of credibility. They literally copied | feeds from peer exchanges until they bootstrapped. | | After all, why would anyone trade at an illiquid | exchange? How do you get the first people onboard? You | pretend you already have a lot of people onboard. More | volume = more credibility. | | The question you should ask yourself is if nobody is | looking, why would they ever stop? | | [note] by "growth hack" I mean literally a felony in any | other context, but in the crypto space _shrug_ who cares | I guess. After all in which jurisdiction would you even | sue them lol. Thanks to the "beauty of the blockchain" | they won't even tell you where they're based. | pelorat wrote: | Binance is used everywhere, whilst CB is mostly used by | Americans. | Tenoke wrote: | >intentionally looking the other way to people opening | multiple accounts to avoid KYC | | That's blatantly false. Many have been caught trying to | circumvent via VPN or similar, it's just impossible to catch | quite everyone no matter how hard you try. | | >which country they're domiciled. | | Malta? | spurdoman77 wrote: | https://coingeek.com/binance-not-licensed-to-operate-in- | malt... | | Binance has never been in Malta, in fact they are not | located anywhere. I would be very cautious in dealing with | them because to me that kind of approach to regulation | doesnt sound healthy. | ketamine__ wrote: | It's on the Binance wikipedia page. | arcticbull wrote: | Wikipedia cites a Malta Today article from 2019. | | > [Binance established their headquarters in Malta] soon | after the Maltese government passed laws that provided a | regulatory framework for businesses operating in the | Cryptocurrency and Blockchain industry. The regulation | officially passed into a law on July 4th 2018. Malta | remains the only country in the world to officially pass | such laws. | | The Coindesk article from 2020 states: | | > Until February [of 2020], Binance was considered to be | based in Malta. That changed when the island European | nation announced that, no, Binance is not under its | jurisdiction. Since then Binance has not said just where, | exactly, it is now headquartered. | | And quotes CZ: | | > "Well, I think what this is is the beauty of the | blockchain, right, so you don't have to ... like where's | the Bitcoin office, because Bitcoin doesn't have an | office." [1] | | The Wikipedia article is stale, and incorrect on the | basis of the subsequent statements from executives | involved. | | The beauty of blockchain indeed. | | [1] https://www.coindesk.com/binance-doesnt-have-a- | headquarters-... | arcticbull wrote: | > For example, the company's chief growth officer, Ted | Lin, told Decrypt just a few days ago, "We have offices | in Malta for customer services, and some compliance | people there, but it's not the headquarters per say | [sic]. It's the spiritual headquarters. It's a name that | people think about when they think about Binance." | | Oh my god lol. | arcticbull wrote: | They won't tell you where their headquarters are "because | Bitcoin doesn't have one": | | https://www.coindesk.com/binance-doesnt-have-a- | headquarters-... | | In fact "Malta ... question mark?" is about as much | information as we have. | | And the KYC evade is just based on opening more accounts | before you reach their threshold. Because rather than | operating like a real business, requiring everyone to | provide KYC during onboarding, they just look the other | way. | Tenoke wrote: | They do require KYC for any fiat deposits or withdraws | and not requiring them for small amounts of crypro-only | trading is not unusual nor illegal. | spurdoman77 wrote: | That is quite literally illegal nowadays in many | jurisdictions. | asdev wrote: | CB abides by regulators and doesn't list every crappy project | that comes along. They're trying to bring legitimacy to crypto. | Binance is the wild wild west still and BNB is a centralized | useless ETH sidechain. | ketamine__ wrote: | Users are moving to Binance Smart Chain (BSC) and using BNB | because Ethereum transaction fees are too expensive for | people that aren't rich. | randomopining wrote: | Aren't the BSC/BNB gonna go up if lots of people use it? If | not, what technological advantage does it have? If it's | because it's too centralized... doesn't that defeat the | whole purpose? | exdsq wrote: | Agree. I was involved in integrating Rosetta with a | blockchain and it was great to see their push for | standardised interfaces and requirements to get listed with | them. | sneak wrote: | The definition of legitimacy in cryptocurrencies is "can you | send or receive this on the blockchain?" | | Arbitrary gatekeeping in an attempt to avoid the regulatory | banhammer is somewhat of a lame kludge, in my view. | | There is a ton of value available on chains and in tokens | that regulators don't like. | nuclx wrote: | They're listing a scam that is XRP though. | colesantiago wrote: | why is XRP a scam? | vmception wrote: | the reasons that XRP is considered a scam involves an | ambiguous new standard that would require all securities | and everything in the equities market to also be called | scam. Things like there being a centralized issuer (like | all assets except for physical commodities), things like | all of the asset being created in advance which is called | a premine (like all assets before crypto, except newly | authorized shares which are then sold) | | as XRP aspires not to be within the securities framework, | there is still a desire of the market for more | forthcoming disclosure and many people (including myself) | don't like prior - but extremely successful - marketing | of XRP/Ripple that didn't separate Ripple Inc activities | from XRP use | | but in the crypto space, scam is not defined at all and | has complete dilution of any meaning. it is typically | rooted in ignoring market sectors, in favor of a general | all encompassing single cryptocurrency attracting all | capital in the world at all times in perpetuity, so any | crypto asset that dilutes some of that capital is called | a scam because it slows down the desired world view. | obviously people outside of the crypto space consider all | of that to be an absurdity. the "middle" view is that | there are assets that share a technology feature set that | are simply bearable by the market, like any commodity or | equity they can attract trillions of value even while a | different technology matures that better matches an | ideology of elitist enthusiasts. | thepasswordis wrote: | Coinbase delisted them. | Tenoke wrote: | >BNB is a centralized useless ETH sidechain. | | I dont agree and what you are incorrectly talking about is | probably BSC, not BNB. | seriousquestion wrote: | Binance is a total mess compared to Coinbase in terms of | usability. | justinzollars wrote: | Coinbase was a great idea, considering what a mess mt gox was! | Congratulations to the team! | mrb wrote: | Nitpick: this was not an IPO, but a DPO (Direct Public Offering). | In other words no new capital was raised today. Coinbase's | existing shareholders (investors and employees) were simply | allowed to sell their shares on the public market. | whatever1 wrote: | For reference, BP the number five global oil behemoth with 200B | in revenues in 2020, has a market cap of 85B. Coinbase that sells | pumped speculation for a fee has a market cap of 100B. | | Markets are efficient. | Aunche wrote: | The efficient market hypothesis means that valuation of | Coinbase reflects all available information. I'd wager that | this is true. It doesn't mean that the services Coinbase | provides actually are actually worth that much or will ever be | in the future. | rgifford wrote: | Literally compare COIN to any other market maker or financial | institution. I would love to hear some justification here. | rednerrus wrote: | Worth $1B tops. | s8s8discourse wrote: | How do you justify your $100m valuation of a company that | generated $700m of PROFIT in a single quarter? | Aunche wrote: | The fundamentals of Coinbase aren't actually that far off if | you assume that their $730-$800 million Q1 income is | sustainable. | pjc50 wrote: | https://www.advratings.com/banking/worlds-top-banks-by- | marke... : it's in the top 10-20. | | Does anyone know what the value of assets under management by | Coinbase is? | hnews_account_1 wrote: | AUM is the absolute wrong metric to measure for an | exchange. This is why I tell everyone to never pretend they | understand a subject the moment you read the first | Wikipedia page you come across. | rgifford wrote: | All crypto is < 1T. I don't know what their market share | is, probably high 100Bs. | chabes wrote: | All crypto is > 2T, as of the last few days | FabHK wrote: | USD 90 billion "assets on platform" (which, as has been | pointed out, is not a good metric for an exchange at all). | That's about 5-12% of total crypto assets (depending on the | time of day) [1]. | | By the way, Coinbase revenue in the last quarter was nearly | 0.1% of the entire crypto market cap. | | So, Coinbase took around 60$ of any 10,000$ traded on | Coinbase, and 10$ of any 10,000$ crypto market cap, which | implies that 1/6 of the entire crypto market cap traded | through Coinbase once this quarter, unless I'm mistaken. | | See the second story in Matt Levine's _Money Stuff_ : https | ://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-04-14/good-a... | | [1] more likely, the percentage is fairly constant, while | the USD value fluctuates a lot with crypto prices, so "AUM" | might be around USD 200 billion now (as crypto market cap | is USD 2 tr). | ObserverNeutral wrote: | > Fee for speculation | | Well first of all everything is speculation, it goes both ways, | you mentioned BP, well people use barrels of oil today because | they think it won't be worth more tomorrow | | Coinbase takes a fee for every transaction in the assets traded | on the platform. | | The asset in question is the one which people choose as the | asset to hold on to express their fears of inflation | | This is not unlike 2010 when people like Stanley Druckenmiller | and libertarians alike predicted hyperinflation due to QE. | | Normies are where Druckenmiller was back in 2010, they have an | irrational fear of inflation and they express it by buying BTC. | | Coinbase is perfectly positioned to gain from this movement | which emerged, and it will only continue given that like | anything the more authorities tell humans what to do (in this | case to spend) the more they rebel by doing the opposite | ROARosen wrote: | So if their business model is raking it in by selling pumped-up | speculation, and the pumped-up speculation market is a growing | sector, then that's what is called an efficient _business | model_ which has nothing to do with the fact that markets are | 'efficient'. | | Also, since when does anyone care if casino's business is based | on pumped up gambling. As long as there are millions of | transactions going on, the business model will stay | 'efficient'. | pjc50 wrote: | Unfortunately this is right. It doesn't matter whether it's | rational or not, but it's definitely profitable. At the | moment. | | Given we have financial crises in the global economy on | roughly a decade basis, and the last one was 2008, there | might be another one soon .. | mandeepj wrote: | Not really. We already had one - COVID + decade of economy | reset cycle - combined rolled into one. Next one - will not | happen (probably) until at least 2027\2028 | narrator wrote: | Getting people to overpay for entertainment is a great | business model. | rgifford wrote: | > As long as there are millions of transactions going on, the | business model will stay 'efficient'. | | I have a timeshare to sell you. | ROARosen wrote: | Last time I checked timeshares were a shrinking sector. My | advice to you is: consider pivoting your biz model to | crypto brokerage. | J5892 wrote: | That's a saturated market. | | The real money is in crypto-timeshares. | | We have all the advantages of a timeshare business, and | also blockchain. | fosk wrote: | I mean, re-read that 2-3 times. | | With the emergence of a new group of people that have | massive crypto reserves at their disposal, paying for a | timeshare in crypto would make that asset accessible to | them natively. | | It's not a bad idea. If crypto is a new paradigm, the | world will need crypto-XYZ to appeal to that crowd. Cars | (Tesla), and timeshares are among them. | narrator wrote: | To Predict the Future: Think of the dorkiest idea you | can. In the 2000s this was: | | * Completely made up digital money with no government | backing that you have to convince some sucker to take so | they give you two free pizzas. | | In the 90s this would be: | | * Keeping track of your friends on your computer! | | * Carrying a computer around that you use to take | pictures of yourself and send them to friends! | | In the 80s this was | | * Electronic music without words. | | * Reading books on your computer | sandworm101 wrote: | >> Markets are efficient. | | They are certainly great at turning air into gold. Maybe that | was always their true purpose. | omgJustTest wrote: | No they are turning gold into bitcoin. :) | AbrahamParangi wrote: | Would you rather own crude or DOGE, the official currency of | Mars? | dylkil wrote: | the salt on this board when it comes to crypto only gets worse | as time goes on | staplers wrote: | I have distanced myself from hn GREATLY over the last year. | The decline is seemingly exponential. | Shacklz wrote: | And I think there are good reasons for that: | | 1) The energy consumption of bitcoin mining alone is | estimated to have reached the levels of entire countries | (Argentina was the latest country I've heard it being | compared to), while actual usage of bitcoin (except for | speculation) is still a fringe niche thing | | 2) When shown that the coins do not scale, instead of moving | on to an improved version, those coins continue to grow. | Instead of 'okay, proof of concept done, it does not scale, | let's move on to an improved version', the bonanza just | continues. | | There are probably more reasons like these, but I think it | would be straight-up weird if the technically versed audience | of HN would disregard the reasons above as much as the | current crypto-markets do. | jeremyjh wrote: | Yes, perhaps this is correlated with the fact that the | successive number of years that crypto has been hyped and | failed to deliver anything of value only grows as time goes | on. | chrisco255 wrote: | I would reply to you and describe the burgeoning ecosystem | of economic activity and the speed at which the entire | sector is growing, but I have a feeling that convo will not | go anywhere. Crypto is eating finance. It's going to eat | everything else too. The longer you fight that, the harder | the 21st century is going to be for you. | randomopining wrote: | Yeah but how does Crypto make stuff happen in the real | world? Like a bank can repossess people's houses and | stuff and have the law applied. Crypto only has power | over what's on that specific blockchains contracts. | Judgmentality wrote: | What problem does crypto solve apart from being a digital | alternative to gold? It's not anonymous (except Monero | which is centralized), transaction fees and times tend to | be high (depends on which currency and exchange you're | using), there's zero recourse for stolen funds currently | (which makes it ripe for fraud). And in addition to that, | at least for Bitcoin, it's an environmental disaster. | | What do you think makes crypto useful? | dylkil wrote: | At its bare bones crypto is a perimissionless payments | system, you dont see any value here? | galactus wrote: | And also that people are starting to seriously worry for | the energy consumption of something that provides no useful | value. | o_p wrote: | Ok no-coiner. | splithalf wrote: | Your definition of efficient is anything but? | SilasX wrote: | BP, being an oil extractor, might have higher expenses and so a | comparison purely by revenues might provide less insight than | desired. | whatever1 wrote: | BP has been in business for decades making 20-80B/year in | profit. If anything, their financials should be an indication | of what a 100B company looks like. | SilasX wrote: | Then profit figures should be your headline, not revenues, | which are more weakly correlated to enterprise value. | pvarangot wrote: | Yeah it sucks that the valuation for a company that | inefficiently mines a resource that's going to be stored | forever and mostly used to speculate, with only a small part of | it ever put to productive use has such a high valuation. | | But yeah the valuation for Coinbase is also insane! | Grustaf wrote: | Oil is "mined" very efficiently, and I bet most of the | production each year is used pretty quickly. | pvarangot wrote: | Oil is mined super inefficiently except for shallow wells, | it has tight margins. Some operations, specially fracking, | actually shut down pretty often when the barrel price goes | down near 60 which is were we are now. | | If you look at production vs. consumption in the world | there's usually a bit more consumption than production. If | you look per country on the US there's more production than | consumption. That's because "extraction" is heavily played | with to speculate with the price. | staplers wrote: | a company that inefficiently mines a resource that's going to | be stored forever and mostly used to speculate | | I've never heard the Nasdaq described like this. Interesting | though. | staplers wrote: | sells pumped speculation | | Probably the same type of person to criticize biased | journalism. | whatever1 wrote: | *someone who watched dogecoin soaring 100% in a week. | staplers wrote: | Dogecoin isn't listed on Coinbase. Is NYSE, Nasdaq, or | SNP500 selling pumped speculation? | HNfriend234 wrote: | There is lots of speculation now but I think eventually real- | world applications will be made with crypto. At the very least, | it will be likely that the bigger cryptos will start to be | accepted by major companies to buy goods/services. | rgifford wrote: | Crypto doesn't make a good currency for average consumers due | to its instability. Who would do day to day purchases w/ | funds that fluctuate +/- 10 percent? This is why you want | centralization. | | Store of wealth? Aight, you got me. Solid arguments to be | made for it as a new anti-fiat. Its recent divergence from | gold concerns me though. That seems bubbly. | | As a settlement protocol between nations and financial | institutions? Already well proven out and in use. No argument | to be made. | Animats wrote: | Remember how cryptocurrencies were supposed to eliminate the need | for intermediaries who added cost to transactions? | smabie wrote: | I mean, you can swap without a centralized exchange. In fact, | for my PA account I would never use a CEX to swap coins. | Aunche wrote: | Coinbase is very profitable and has huge cash reserves for a | company of its size. I don't see any reason why they would feel | the need to IPO if not to take advantage of people's FOMO. | nostromo wrote: | At a certain point people want to stop being billionaires on | paper and to become billionaires with actual liquidity. | | And the timing seems right -- Bitcoin is sky-high and could | crash tomorrow. (I'm presuming here that Coinbase and BTC will | be highly correlated, but who knows.) | base698 wrote: | Paying for a lobbying org seems like a pretty good reason: | https://seekingalpha.com/news/3679495-square-fidelity-coinba... | marrone12 wrote: | Also to provide liquidity to their employees. | cwkoss wrote: | I expect Coinbase becoming a publicly traded company benefits | them to a greater extent in reducing the chance of regulatory | destruction than they benefit from additional access to | capital. | atarian wrote: | So this pretty much legitimizes Bitcoin right? I can't imagine | the US government deciding to crack down on it after such a high- | profile IPO. | drawkbox wrote: | The whole mission of Coinbase is legitimizing cryptocurrency | when you break it down. They are like Windows 95 to the | internet, it is how many people will use the market. | | People also asking why a company would go to the public stock | market when they are an alternative market, well part of it is | to legitimize it and reduce the chance for regulation. Once | enough people are making money from it then it becomes harder | to put back in the bottle. It is also part marketing, many | people will for the first time hear about cryptocurrency soon | because of it even though it has been around a decade+. It also | makes the investors rich and fuels more cryptocurrency | investments. This event alone will create many wealthy crypto | entrepreneurs. | | Coinbase is like cryptocurrency being merged into Wall Street | main/master on git. This is the moment that truly merges the | Wall Street investment world with cryptocurrency, for better or | worse. The roller coaster has reached the precipice, no turning | back now. | annoyingnoob wrote: | What is coinbase's moat? Not sure I understand how they arrived | at the valuation. | cwkoss wrote: | Time in existence without being hacked and losing customer | funds and regulatory legitimacy. | rgifford wrote: | There isn't one. That's not really a concern these days. COIN | is worth double ICE, the parent company of the NYSE. I don't | know how you justify that. | | Coinbase is, in spirit, a modern pets.com. | ecommerceguy wrote: | I use coinbase to store eth mined along time ago and to rake in | free crypto when I'm bored. Today I got $5 in something called | CELO. | boredpandas777 wrote: | Casinos should be able to convert their business into crypto | exchanges and list on the stock exchange with similar valuation. | All remote too so they'd be pandemic proof :) | rnikander wrote: | How can I trade USD for BTC without paying these big fees to | someone like coinbase? | dogman144 wrote: | coinbase pro purchase cuts fees a ton, you'll be able to access | pro if you can access normal cb | NaturalPhallacy wrote: | Pay someone with BTC cash or paypal or something. | | I don't know of a better way. | neolog wrote: | Why do IPO announcements always get upvoted so much? | seriousquestion wrote: | Anyone know if the 60 employees, who didn't agree with the | mission focused approach, kept their shares? | | https://blog.coinbase.com/a-follow-up-to-coinbase-as-a-missi... | smeej wrote: | They had the option to exercise whatever options they had | vested, yes, subject to the company's normal rules. | | Employees who had been with the company two years or more would | have seven years to exercise. Those who had been there between | one and two years would have 90 days. | | Employees who had not yet been there a year would not have | reached the vesting cliff, and would not have had vested | options available to exercise. | bherms wrote: | This isn't accurate. All employees, regardless of tenure, got | 7 years to exercise their shares that had vested up until | that point. | seriousquestion wrote: | That's surprisingly generous. Startups in Silicon Valley | usually have a 30-90 day exercise window. | ashconnor wrote: | I guess if the point was to get rid of people then | reducing the financial disincentive is a prudent move. | AlchemistCamp wrote: | This is pretty amazing. | | Gary Tan made a YT video about his experience backing them very | early and getting a 6000x return: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5YApjnTG10 | | It's remarkable that Brian Armstrong gave up what would have been | very valuable options in Airbnb--the most valuable YC company at | the time--to found a new company that surpassed it. | [deleted] | purple_ferret wrote: | There's something pretty surreal about an actual multi- | billionaire running the youtube investor guru schtick. | ceres wrote: | You know it's possible for people to start YouTube channels | as a hobby/side project/whatever. Not everyone with a YouTube | channel is trying to scam you. Billionaires are people too. | Justin Kan has a YouTube channel for example. You should | check it out :-) | barnabees wrote: | At least he's not selling a course | cableshaft wrote: | Wow. Assuming he put in just $10,000 (and I imagine it was | probably more than that), 6000x return would be 60 million | dollars. | | Any early companies out there right now seem like it could | potentially offer even a 10th of that in ~5-10 years? | paulpauper wrote: | i dunno how people say VCs have a return of only 9% year when | Ycombinator is absolutely crushing that even with a high | failure rate. AirBNB, box, dropbox, coinbase, etc. | | Paul stumbled on an absolute goldmine by just giving a bunch | of promising companies with good founders 10k in exchange for | a decent portion of equity and then some of these companies | being worth billions. | | NOw you know what those homes and are so expensive in Palo | Also and elsehwre, You got of these guys making fortunes, and | that money tricked down everywhere. | mgfist wrote: | There are a lot of VCs out there. Some do well, some don't. | | But remember that unlike the stock market, investing in a | VC means locking up your money for 10 years. Slightly | beating the market is not worth the liquidity loss, you | have to do a good bit better. | ZephyrBlu wrote: | > _i dunno how people say VCs have a return of only 9% year | when Ycombinator is absolutely crushing that even with a | high failure rate_ | | YC is a massive outlier and they have insanely good deal | flow because of their brand. | Simon321 wrote: | What is the return like for Ycombinator? | pinkybanana wrote: | Well I bought BTC at $1 and so did many others, now it trades | at $60k... | KitDuncan wrote: | but did you hold it this long? | maxlamb wrote: | He actually put in $300k, so his shares are worth around 2.4 | billion now | janandonly wrote: | Did he? If he simply bought bitcoins with his $300.000 in | 2012 (average bitcoin price of $8) then his net worth now | would be .... 37500 bitcoins or $2.362.500.000 ... 2 point | 3 billion frigging dollars... | lpapez wrote: | In theory yes. | | In practice, cashing out billions of dollars worth of | stocks is easier than cashing out billions of dollars | worth of crypto. | paulpauper wrote: | OTC private block trade | | it's not like the btc must be sold on an exchange | rawtxapp wrote: | You wouldn't be selling those on the open market, | institutions have been able to acquire billions of | dollars worth of crypto OTC without moving markets. | | Another option is, now that it's becoming clear to people | that Bitcoin is here to stay, you can just borrow against | it to spend (avoid taxes, hold on to the upside). Case in | point, this person/group borrowed 300M$ with about 1B$ | net worth[1]. | | 1: https://defiexplore.com/cdp/8463 | pushrax wrote: | I'm new to this. Is the collateral locked into the | contract and unspendable until the contract is closed? | | It's also kind of unclear what the interest is from that | page. edit: apparently it's 8.5% | https://mkr.tools/governance/stabilityfee | rawtxapp wrote: | It's just a smart contact vault, you can put collateral, | take it out whenever you want, you just need to make sure | that at any given point in time you have at least 150% of | your debts value in collateral in the vault. This person | is at over 400%, so very conservative borrowing, can | withdraw some collateral. | | There are also centralized versions with blockfi if you | prefer traditional loans. | nly wrote: | 150% collateral (66.7% LTV) seems fairly risky for an | asset like Bitcoin tbh | rawtxapp wrote: | It handled the black swan event of complete market crash | at the beginning of the pandemic pretty easily. And the | other thing is Bitcoin's market cap is well over 1T$ now, | as expected the volatility goes down as the market cap | goes up. I suspect those ratios are going to come down | significantly within couple of years. | pinkybanana wrote: | How so? For example coinbase is happy to convert your | early bought coins to fiat if you want, and these days | the liquidity is billions. | | I haven't looked at Coinbase stock liquidity, but I would | be it is worse as BTC liquidity. | Kiro wrote: | What do you mean? How is that any better than the 2.4 | billion worth of Coinbase shares he has now? | | You phrase it like he made a mistake and lost out on a | huge profit but the ROI is exactly the same so really | don't understand your comment. | kgc wrote: | Actually at one point Bitcoin had an equal fork, so that | number should be double for Bitcoin. | pinkybanana wrote: | It is actually interesting thought pattern, which would | be better investment? With owning private equity there is | also lots of work involved I would guess, with BTC you | just sit on it... Latter is of course very hard in | volatile market, while PE you probably can't liquidate. | pinkybanana wrote: | Airbnb market cap is at 105 billion and Coinbase is currently | at 86. | | Personally I'm very sceptical that current valuation for | Coinbase is justified. It is a great company for sure but there | definitely arent similar network effects as with Airbnb. | There's plenty of competition in the crypto exchange space. | paulpauper wrote: | also airbnb is not dependent on the value of a speculative | asset. There will always be demand for rentals. | kneel wrote: | There is 20 trillion of negative yielding debt floating | around in govt bonds, luckily we can hedge against these | horribly mismanaged house of cards before they fall on us. | The demand is real. | enjo wrote: | Bitcoin is worthless without dollars backing it. It's | because you can turn Bitcoin into dollars that anyone | wants it. | thebean11 wrote: | You can make the same argument about any asset class. The | path from Bitcoin/gold/real estate/crops to other goods | or assets goes through dollars out of convenience | (because your destination is purchasable in dollars). | Don't confuse convenience with necessity. | kvz wrote: | Aren't they firing a lot of folks due to the pandemic? | paulpauper wrote: | That was a year ago. Airbnb completely recovered and then | some in terms of value. A few metro area like SF and NY | were hit , but the overall picture is improving, and such | setbacks will imho be temporary. | staplers wrote: | "Temporary value recovery" interesting way to contradict | your original claim. All value fluctuates. | aphextron wrote: | >also airbnb is not dependent on the value of a speculative | asset. | | What do you think US real estate is? | nick0garvey wrote: | I can live in a house. I can't live in a Bitcoin. | brudgers wrote: | You can live in a car. | | You can't drive a house. | knicholes wrote: | Motor home, then, to cover both bases. | anonporridge wrote: | Yes, but you also can't take your house with you stored | in your brain if you have to flee the country. | | Bitcoin as chaos insurance (or schmuck insurance as | Chamath calls it) is the use case that makes the most | sense to me. | microtherion wrote: | Then again, you rarely have to dig through a garbage dump | for your house because you accidentally threw it out: | https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/15/uk-man-makes-last-ditch- | effo... | anonporridge wrote: | True, but houses burn down all the time. Or get destroyed | by "acts of god" that insurance won't cover. | | If you backup your private key in a redundant way, | multiple storage locations can be completely destroyed | without any loss. If you were really paranoid, you could | distribute it around the world to mitigate geographic and | geopolitical risk. | Grustaf wrote: | People having to flee the country are not a big customer | demographic for either of the companies. | anonporridge wrote: | In America, there may not be tons of people ready to | flee, but we do have a culture of valuing the people | having checks against government power (see second | amendment). | | So, that's what I think is more likely the mentality of | western people holding long term. A check against | incompetent government. | mtnGoat wrote: | do you really think if the sh*t hit the fan? the entire | BTC network and the internet at large would still be | working for you to transfer these units around? | | this to me is where the comparison to gold falls off. i | can hold physical gold and silver and trade it at will | even without power, pricing updates, etc. this does not | apply to crypto. considering cutting internet access is | now a normal thing during unrest, being able to pay with | anything that is not physical, probably wont work out. | anonporridge wrote: | It depends on the scale of shit hitting the fan. | | If the global internet goes down and stays down, then I | think it's safe to say that global civilization is | permanently collapsing, in which case billions of people | are going to die in the resulting famine and the | survivors probably won't be able to maintain enough | technology to survive long term as climate change | continues to snowball. | | In this scenario, yeah bitcoin is worthless. But so is | gold. The only thing worth stockpiling for this scenario | is brass and lead (and a strong local community of other | preppers who can organize into a new micro state after | the collapse). And even then, you have to ask if the | reward of surviving is even worth the cost of prepping. | mtnGoat wrote: | it wouldn't even take a global internet shortage, just | your country to go offline, how you gonna pay someone to | get you out(keep you safe, etc) if you cant transfer your | crypto to them? A few ounces of gold on the other hand | will take you anywhere you want to go. Crypto is far from | a safe hedge in any type of crazy event. | | you see, gold can still be traded without power and | internet, as could cash or really anything physical, as | the value is assigned by those trading it at that time | for whatever use they have but BTC is totally useless, | toilet paper would literally have more value. | brass/lead(killing people) isn't the only way to survive. | fuzzer37 wrote: | The people who say that bitcoin is going to be useful | when "shit hits the fan" have a very very specific | definition of shit hitting the fan that is just so | unrealistic. | thebean11 wrote: | Like hyperinflation and an economic crash? I'm not | convinced either will happen, but they seem squarely | within the realm of possibility. | paulpauper wrote: | people need shelter, they do not need crypto . There is | huge demand for housing in metro areas even in spite of | Covid, and regulation and other restrictions make it hard | to increase supply, and landlords generally want to lock- | in long-term rents with good credit scores due to | difficulty of evicting, meaning more demand for short- | term rentals. . | k00b wrote: | Things precede shelter in the hierarchy of needs yet | shelter is still valuable. Also there are shades of | shelter. Most people might not want to live in the | trailer park of money. | Grustaf wrote: | Airbnb doesn't provide "shelter", it's for travellers. | programmarchy wrote: | Agree, AirBnB is essentially serving a luxury travel | market. | s8s8discourse wrote: | Bold assertion immediately following a pandemic in which | the demand for rentals fell to... zero. | | It took a significant pivot for AirBnB to recover and | maintain revenues. | Grustaf wrote: | Airbnb doesn't have network effects, the value to users | increases pretty linearly with the number of hosts, and | doesn't really increase at all with the number of other | users. | Ozzie_osman wrote: | That's just cross-side network effects. More users is | better for hosts which means more hosts which is better for | users which means more users. | | What you probably have in mind is "direct network effects", | more like what you'd see with a chat app or social network | (though social networks also have cross-side effects | between users and advertisers). | d3ntb3ev1l wrote: | Also ignoring most cities now are banning or highly | regulating these illegal hotels in residential | neighborhoods | | Coinbase seems less threatened by regulations | mtnGoat wrote: | you think coinbase is overvalued at those numbers but not | airbnb? how do you justify airbnbs? | sekai wrote: | oh boy, wait until you hear about Tesla | dang wrote: | Please don't post unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments. | It causes threads to go to repetitive (and often | inflammatory) places, which is a failure mode for HN. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | You-Are-Right wrote: | How does this help with climate change? | janandonly wrote: | And in Brian had simply bought bitcoins with his $10.000 in | 2012, when the price was $4-$12 per piece? | | He could have bought 833-2500 bitcoins, with a current value of | $5.2500.000 - $157.500.000. | | He choose to do more than "HODL" and go through the hard work | of building a product and a company, which in my book, makes | him a true hero. Even though he went the casino/shitcoin rout | later... | dnr wrote: | Would bitcoin be worth nearly as much as it now if Coinbase | didn't exist? | koonsolo wrote: | Plenty of exchanges out there, so I would say yes. | paulpauper wrote: | but Gemini is the only other regulated US one. Coinbase | is huge, even bigger than binance. Something like 50 | million ppl have an account. Ppl wondered why the July | 2020 Twitter hacker made so little. The reason is, | coinabse blocked withdrawals to the hacker address, which | if they hadn't, the hackers would have made 3x more..so | let that sink in.. | thebean11 wrote: | Isn't Kraken also based in the US? Last I heard they're | in the process of getting a bank charter. | runawaybottle wrote: | Coinbase will be in every fund that needs crypto exposure. I | can't see how this thing doesn't reach 1k, and splits a few times | by end of year. | gregwebs wrote: | There are at least 14 applications right now to operate crypto | ETFs. | andxor wrote: | Those funds can already buy GBTC. | unreal37 wrote: | They can't. GBTC trades over-the-counter, not on a major | exchange. | andxor wrote: | ARKW is an ETF and includes GBTC. | cwkoss wrote: | That's like buying a box of cookies because you need | chocolate chips | andxor wrote: | It's just an example. | dd36 wrote: | I still don't see what the upside is to their valuation? It's all | baked in AFAICT. | cj wrote: | Very little. This is a result of the private equity market | growing so large that companies can put off going public for | very long (Coinbase raised $800 million and the last round was | "Series E"). | | 10-15 years ago, it was much more difficult for companies to | raise this much before going public, which forced companies to | go public much earlier, before all upside was realized by | private investors. | | The result is private equity and VC funds benefit from the | early gains, and by the time the company becomes public (and is | accessible to retail investors) there's typically not much of a | lucrative near-term upside opportunity. | | The same thing will happen with Stripe once they finally IPO. | They'll debut at an insane valuation, and there won't be much | upside opportunity for retail investors to benefit from. | Because if there were, they would be able to more easily raise | the capital from private investors rather than the public | market. | nostromo wrote: | This may be starting to shift as companies are getting much | higher valuations on the public markets than they are from | VCs. | | Coinbase is getting a 10x valuation from public markets | compared to what they got from private markets just two years | ago. In theory, they've left a lot of money on the table by | waiting so long to go public and raising from VCs instead. | | (The price is dropping, so who knows if this will be true for | very long.) | Dopameaner wrote: | That said. it is interesting how most of the unicorn | companies have reached above their valuations in the current | market. | | Exit valuation of uber was 82.4$Billion, which we considered | as insanely high then. Now it sits at 100.2 Market cap. | | I have been aggregating some of them in my google sheet. Its | very peculiar https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IPIyrn- | 36GpepXXkfoLF... | nojs wrote: | > Because if there were, they would be able to more easily | raise the capital from private investors rather than the | public market | | Coinbase isn't raising capital though because it's a direct | listing. | nscalf wrote: | This is assuming valuations are based off fundamentals. The | market is absolutely disconnected from what companies can | actually deliver, and instead has become a place to park the | surplus of money in the system. | dd36 wrote: | Yeah. I was trained as a fundamental analyst. Multiple | expansion doesn't even explain the relative valuations. It | feels like a popularity contest sometimes. | TameAntelope wrote: | Is there any way of knowing how much YC made on the IPO? | Ballpark/order of magnitude? | | Always curious to see what a win looks like from the accelerator | side. | jedberg wrote: | Not sure about YC, but Andreessen-Horowitz seems to have made | about $14B from their $2M investment? Assuming I'm reading this | SEC filing correctly. And Union Square Ventures appears to have | turned $13M into about $7B? | | https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1679788/000162828021... | rp1229 wrote: | If they wanted to realize those gains, they would have to | sell right? causing the price to plummet? | ignoramous wrote: | Mental numbers. | rawtxapp wrote: | I believe this is the proof why VCs chase those 10x numbers, | I bet that that single investment has paid off all their | failed investments and then some. | jedberg wrote: | Most likely this single investment made their fund. | wildrice wrote: | Congrats, to YC. The world is full of people who will discount | the success of Brian and , but in just a few short years he's | created one of the world's largest financial institutions. | | In line with the ethos of crypto? No, not at all, but a bridge | has been made between the old world and the new. This IPO will | load the coffers of some of the most innovative VCs, engineers, | and people who took the risk of investing in, and working at | Coinbase. | nojito wrote: | You would think they would raise for BTC/Cryptos instead of USD | via IPO. | | Really says a lot of their faith in Crypto's future. | sowbug wrote: | They're a bridge between USD and virtual currencies. They care | a lot about USD's future as well. | nojito wrote: | Nope they just need capital to exit. | | Unfortunately there's no liquidity in crypto hence why they | want USD. | unreal37 wrote: | That's a disingenuous argument. | | Just because you won't accept your salary in Euros, doesn't | mean you don't have faith in the future of it. | nojito wrote: | How so? | | You would think the currency of the future would be liquid | enough to provide capital for their growth no? | | Why resort to raising USD? | PretzelPirate wrote: | Coinbase did a direct listing and didn't raise money from | this event. They provided liquidity for their shareholders. | Fede_V wrote: | I'm horrendously worried about crypto gaining more marketshare as | long as proof of work crypto remains mainstream. It has | significantly worse externalities than just about any company I | can think of (including defense contractors/vaping companies), | and, if it grows larger before we have clean energy, then we | virtually guarantee we won't be able to tackle global warming. We | are going to bestow a world that will be significantly worse than | the one we inherited to our children, and, it's not like the | carbon emissions that crypto is creating are used in the service | of creating valuable technology - it's literally useless proof of | work. | | I've worked in tech for a long time now, and I believe the | stereotype about amoral techies is completely untrue - yet seeing | the adoption of crypto among my peers is really depressing. I'm | not sure how so many of my peers who would never ever work for a | defense contractor or a vaping company are willing to work in | crypto at this point. My objections are not ideological - if | someone invented a cryptocurrency that was completely green and | it would take over the market, I'd be totally in favor of it. | | I would genuinely like someone to explain it to me, because, the | kinds of essays I've read that try to argue that crypto is | actually good for global warming are so shoddy that I can't | believe people would take them seriously absent a huge dose of | motivated reasoning. | fumblebee wrote: | Couldn't agree more. | | I struggle to comprehend how an energy obliterating and | (relatively speaking) primitive technology like Bitcoin is the | top dog in this space. Sure, first mover advantage counts for | something, but come on - how has superior tech not yet left it | in the rearview. | | In a space that moves at such rapid pace with heavy investment | and buckets of innovation, at some point the crowd surely will | migrate en masse to a PoS based blockchain like (most likely | but won't be fully operational until ~2022) Eth2, or (less | likely but still in with a shout) Algorand, Tezos, etc. | New_California wrote: | Bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency that is very hard to | change. This property is critical for sound money, including | for the emission schedule. | | Other coins are easy to change and so cannot be relied upon | to preserve _any_ properties, including emission schedule. | | Vast majority of coins is also not decentralized at all and | being so prone to get effectively regulated. | rodiger wrote: | This is just plain incorrect. Every cryptocurrency's rules | can be changed via hard fork. Bitcoin doesn't have any | magic property that guarantees there won't be a hard fork | affecting the emission schedule. | seanyesmunt wrote: | Bitcoin's "magic property" is the faith that the miners | have. It has been hardforked, but the majority of | computing power has chosen to stay on Bitcoin. | rodiger wrote: | I fully understand that, but sentiment can change. It's | disingenuous to say it won't change in the future because | it hasn't yet changed. | New_California wrote: | Bitcoin actually has this "magic" property of being very, | very hard to change. It is derived from community | extremism against changes and from the huge number of | players who would need to agree and then huge number of | existing deployments that are very slow to upgrade. | | Bitcoin is hard to change the similar way TCP/IP protocol | stack is hard to change. | rodiger wrote: | It's easier than you think. Just five organizations | command >50% of hashpower[0]. I don't think it's likely | to change soon but it's not out of the realm of | possibility, and it's not even the most decentralized | cryptocurrency in terms of difficulty to enforce new | network rules. | | [0] https://news.bitcoin.com/5-mining-50-btc-hashrate/ (I | fully understand this is a pro-BCH site but their sources | are accurate) | Nursie wrote: | > Sure, first mover advantage counts for something, but come | on - how has superior tech not yet left it in the rearview. | | To me it demonstrates perfectly that this market is largely | speculation based on brand recognition and number-go-up-tech | rather than any use of the currency. If it was based on use | and capabilities then yes, we would expect BTC to be | superseded by its more capable cousins. | | But it's not. | adventured wrote: | I largely agree. It's specifically because Bitcoin is | perceived to be a place to hide capital from inflation - | and the world is comically flooded with capital right now, | chasing anything and everything - while all the central | banks are busy vaporizing their garbage fiat. Bitcoin is | not a currency. It's bizarre that people keep calling it | that, years after it became obvious that it's not. If it | were a currency, Bitcoin would collapse rapidly toward | zero, because it's wildly impractical as a currency. | | The Forbes list of world billionaires features 2755 names. | They gained $5 trillion in wealth over the past year. | Bitcoin is a trivial toy next to the wealth in the world | today. A fun little token play thing, a place to hedge a | couple of bucks, it goes in the basket. | Nursie wrote: | Which seems to me exactly like the sort of thing that | will work out great, until it doesn't. | | Best of luck. | rednerrus wrote: | Tether is how BTC stays at the top. | rawtxapp wrote: | PoS is yet to be proven, I'm really hoping eth2 shows that it | actually works, because the other ones with PoS aren't that | heavily used or tested in adversarial ways. | | When it comes to money and value, the utmost important thing | is security, that's the tradeoff that Bitcoin makes and | that's what people are buying into. Everything else is | secondary. | monkeydust wrote: | What would be the criteria for saying 'eth2 works' in your | view ? | toolz wrote: | cardano is completely distributed PoS 46 billion market cap | (5th largest crypto) - I'm not sure what you mean by "yet | to be proven" | | it also theoretically supports 1MM tx/second - to put that | into perspective VISA does somewhere in the ballpark of 2k | tx/second (but theoretically can do much more than that I'm | sure) | RobLach wrote: | That's all still in the "research" phase. | toolz wrote: | 45 billion market cap is "research phase"? Exactly what | would make it move out of "research phase" then? | jacoblambda wrote: | As much as I like Cardano and as much as I have faith | that it will succeed, I think you might be overstating | what has been accomplished so far. | | - The network is decentralised and running Proof of | State. | | - The network is not currently running automated peering. | Block producing peers are manually selected by stake pool | operators at the moment. This doesn't necessarily make | the network more centralised but it exposes certain | risks. A node update (and I believe a protocol update as | well) will be coming out in the next 2-3 months that will | transition SPOs to running automated peering. | | - The network currently sits around 250-300tx/s max. | | - A near term (next 6 or so months) protocol revision | will be raising that limit to around 1k tx/s. | | - Hydra (isomorphic state channels) allows 1k tx/s to be | processed per state channel (which then periodically | checkpoints against the network) and was demonstrated to | maintain these performance metrics up to 1k state | channels. | | So the network is decentralised and it is doing very well | however it is not currently capable or currently | theoretically capable of handling 1MM tx/s. It can | however handle an impressive amount of transactions | compared to many other decentralised networks at the | moment. The protocol revisions that will allow close to | the stated 1MM tx/s are completed with corresponding | papers (containing formal proofs and simulations to | support tx rate and security claims) already accepted to | or well received at cryptography conferences. | | Cardano is doing very well and moving at a solid pace | however overstating where the project is and what it is | capable of will only serve to undermine outside | perception of the project. | New_California wrote: | No, Cardano is still centrally coordinated, with an | intention to go actual PoS some day. | delaaxe wrote: | Not anymore, it's fully decentralized since recently | toolz wrote: | no it's not, where would you even come up with the idea | that it was? | jacoblambda wrote: | I'd be curious what you mean by centrally coordinated and | not PoS? | | There are certain ways that Cardano is not yet fully | decentralised to be sure but the network is operating as | a proper decentralised PoS network. | | The network has been transitioning from Federated nodes | to Decentralised nodes (transferring by about 2% every 5 | to 10 days) for the past few months. The d parameter | (marking the transfer from 100% federated(1.0) to 100% | decentralised(0.0)) ticked down to 0 at the end of last | month and block production is fully decentralised. | | Where it is still centralised: | | - Peering between block producing nodes is currently | manual however automatic peering will be enabled before | the end of the quarter. | | - Development is largely controlled by the Cardano | Foundation, IOG, and EMURGO. This isn't unusual in the | decentralised software space however the plan is to | transition to handling development/feature contracts via | on-chain voting and treasury disbursement (and this is | already being trialled through Project Catalyst as a | decentralised accelerator program) within a year or so. | All feature integration and HFC event mechanics however | are properly decentralised. | New_California wrote: | Thank you for providing technical details. | deckard1 wrote: | I've often thought that, maybe, PoW crypto could be the Great | Filter. | | I feel like there is a good sci-fi book here. Bitcoin | continues to gain speculators, continues to rise in "value", | and humans are largely powerless to stop it. It ends up | forcing humans to produce more and more electricity, thus | heating up the planet in a horrible feedback loop. A crypto | twist on the nanontech "gray goo" threat. | nrp wrote: | I think the sci-fi end state is an interstellar | civilization that exists largely to grow an ever-expanding | system of Dyson Spheres, harnessing entire stars solely to | fuel proof-of-work cryptocurrencies. | cbhl wrote: | If Coinbase gets sufficiently mainstream, I suspect it will | mitigate a lot of this. | | A transfer of BTC between two Coinbase users can happen off- | chain, which means skipping the work necessary to mine a block | including the given transaction. | lysecret wrote: | So..... a bank? | Hallucinaut wrote: | Which then negates the espoused benefits of Bitcoin, no? | hctaw wrote: | Doesn't that defeat the entire purpose of cryptocurrency | themariner21 wrote: | Well, I'll tell ya, and this is just me. | | But last night, I re-watched Waterworld. It was the first time | in quite a while. | | And I found myself thinking, "Man, that life would be pretty | cool. Global warming would be pretty cool. Why haven't the ice | caps melted yet?" | | Honestly, I remember they were supposed to be totally melted by | 2007. And then it got pushed up to 2014. And then 2018. And now | here we are in 2021 with the same thick, boring ice caps, and | Dryland is still not a myth. | | I don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of our boring | pre-apocalyptic world. | | If Bitcoin is now what will bring about the Waterworld, then | I'll tell you what: I'm all for it. | | Just call me "The Mariner." 'Cause I'll be marinatin' in BTC | awaiting the end of this world, and the dawning of a far more | watery one. | delaaxe wrote: | 2 links: | | - In today's news: https://www.zerohedge.com/crypto/critics- | claim-bitcoin-threa... | | - From earlier: https://pomp.substack.com/p/bitcoin-mining-is- | good-for-the-e... | kbos87 wrote: | These are two great examples of just how thin and self- | serving the counter-arguments to crypto being an energy hog | are. I'll save you some time... | | The premise of the first article is that the carbon footprint | of fiat currency needs to include the impact of an endless | cycle of debt, inflation, recessions, and wars that fiat | currency enables. Regardless of whether or not that cycle is | true and driven by fiat currency is one thing... assuming | that cycle would end if we could flip over to crypto is | solidly ridiculous. | | The second article talks about the fact that 75% of miners | use renewable energy. Dig a level deeper into the source they | cite and you see that it's 75% of miners who use renewable | energy as a part of their "energy mix" (LOL) - and that it's | more like 39% of the energy used in mining is renewable. They | go on to talk about Great American Mining's efforts to mine | using captured methane emissions from oil & gas production. | It's an intriguing concept but it's literally in its infancy, | and the source they are focused on looks like it accounts for | less than 1/3 of methane emissions - | https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse- | gases#m... | | The fact that the reasoning is so very thin in both of these | examples tells me everything I need to know. People just want | a headline to point to. | svachalek wrote: | You are right but you need to substitute "proof of work" | for "crypto" when you talk about energy hogs. Proof of | Stake is also crypto and does not need to guzzle power. | raverbashing wrote: | Interesting the mental gymnastics people are going through to | defend their interests. | | The cryptofolks are trying for gaslighting and Firehose of | Falsehoods to cover up for their energy wastage projects. | spicyramen wrote: | I would be worried more about living in a country with high | inflation and been able to use cryptos. Can you share your | specific concerns about environmental impact? | russdpale wrote: | The problem is that you are solving the issue from the wrong | direction. Like getting people to stop littering, the answer is | to regulate the producers of the waste, not the end users doing | the wasting. | | The answer is to lobby governments for green energy, not rail | against people doing PoW. People who fold at home are using a | lot of energy also. | amznthrwaway wrote: | It's utter and complete horseshit to compare people doing | folding @ home with their spare cycles to BTC power usage. | mempko wrote: | Yet the Producer of Waste here is coinbase no? | burlesona wrote: | Not Coinbase, the miners. The arms race dynamic makes | electricity cost the only real limit on mining, and | unfortunately the more a single BTC is worth the more kWh | you can profitably burn to mine one. | px43 wrote: | It's not the miners, it's the power companies. | | Power companies have been burning shitty fuel to save | money forever, and it's astounding that they've managed | to shift the blame to consumers. | gt565k wrote: | Cardano is PoS and has been live for a while now. | | It's slowly chipping away at Ethereum's use case and with smart | contracts coming soon that are backwards compatible with | Ethereum solidity code, it will overtake Ethereum over time. | | There's other PoS blockchains that work and solve the concerns | you have outlined. | unreal37 wrote: | What do you think about computers that are always on 24/7? Or | TVs that never turn off (even if the screen is off)? | | (ETA: 23% of household energy use is by always-on devices. The | scale of this waste is MASSIVE.) | | Devices in our life consume energy 24/7 when we're not even | using them or needing them to be on. Energy conservation has a | LONG way to go. | | In fact, one could argue that the current stock market system | is a huge waste of energy compared to the benefit it actually | brings to "raising money for companies". | [deleted] | Fede_V wrote: | We should do a much better job of building energy efficient | devices, but, the amount of energy that's "wasted" by things | like TVs that never turned off is really tiny compared to the | energy footprint of the crypto ecosystem. | | Further, I worry that crypto will grow _massively_. If that | happens, all bets are off. In its current state, crypto | consumes more energy than several large countries - imagine a | world where that 's 10x or 100x and we've still not moved off | of proof of work. What's global warming going to look like? | unreal37 wrote: | "A study by the Natural Resources Defense Council found | that the energy use from Always On devices across the US | accounts for 23% of power consumption in the average | household, or a quarter of any given electricity bill. Our | own research confirms this." | | 23% of energy used by households is by always on devices. | | Not "tiny". | PragmaticPulp wrote: | Two wrongs don't make a right. | | Yes, unnecessary energy waste of other devices is bad and | should be reduced. Fortunately, we're making strides to | reduce electronics inefficiency all of the time. | | Proof-of-work cryptocurrencies are uniquely bad because they | become less efficient with each additional miner. The maximum | number of Bitcoin transactions was the same a decade ago as | it is now, but the energy consumption is many orders of | magnitude higher and continues to increase. | | When someone adds an additional server to a server rack or | buys a new laptop, we also get a net increase in value. The | new technology is likely to be more efficient, so we get a | net increase in efficiency. Proof-of-work is the only | technology that gets worse and worse over time, and literally | _pays_ people to continue making it worse. | mmanfrin wrote: | Idle CPU !== full-blast GPU. | loceng wrote: | And I still have yet to understand why should the rest of | society who hasn't bought into Bitcoin shoulder higher energy | costs because Bitcoin are driving up demand? | sleepygardener wrote: | This could be said about any commodity. Like because of gold | hoarding banks/individuals driving up the demand rest of the | society has to pay high price of gold for jewelry. | regimeld wrote: | It's a false equivalence (energy consumption, therefore bad). | What if Bitcoin is solving a true market need (that is, | preserving wealth in a truly decentralized way)? Would that | make it worth the energy consumption? | | You only need to look at what the current monetary system is | based on -- the petro-dollar. Backed by the might of the US | military, consuming crazy amounts of energy. What if Bitcoin | eliminates the need for this? | qwertox wrote: | I wouldn't be too worried. The industrial revolution brought us | many things which were just as disastrous, for example certain | chemicals, but these things can get regulated. DDT is no longer | used like it was used in the 70s. | | Let Bitcoin be Bitcoin, let the G7 (or whoever finds himself | responsible) quickly regulate the power consumption issue, then | PoW will likely disappear for mainstream applications. Luckily | there are alternatives. | supernova87a wrote: | Does a Bitcoin (for the $ value it represents) cost more to | manufacture than an equivalent US $1? After all, a $1 of US | currency represents some creation of work too, doesn't it? | | Capital/currency represents someone doing work, something being | dug out of the ground, something being created -- because these | things cannot be created out of thin air. When the Fed creates | money, it is doing so in tandem with some physical output of | the economy (unless they are purely inflating unbacked by | actual goods/services activity). | | A US $ is not without cost as well, isn't that right? Currency | is based on scarcity of something. Is it possible to have | scarcity limited currency without some kind of work involved? | NaturalPhallacy wrote: | This is a fascinating topic to me and something I've been | casually studying for over a decade so bear with me if I come | across as blunt or whatever... I just mean to answer your | questions directly and expound a little. | | >Does a Bitcoin (for the $ value it represents) cost more to | manufacture than an equivalent US $1? | | Yes, because it costs quote a lot of electricity. And... | | >After all, a $1 of US currency represents some creation of | work too, doesn't it? | | Nope. Costs effectively nothing. Not at all tied to anything | tangible - even electricity - whatsoever. Via fractional | reserve banking - for some reason we just...let banks do this | - they create it with a keystroke and it costs nothing | whatsoever. | | It's why we have inflation every year. Banks are constantly | creating USD and then charging interest for the privilege | they were given to do so. | | >A US $ is not without cost as well, isn't that right? | | Nope. Gets made up out of thin air every day. A bank creates | a loan. How do you think we got to $14 trillion USD? The | treasury has never printed that much money. Only ~10% of USD | physically exists (according to the Fed itself), and that's | counting $100 bills minted decades ago. And banks only have | to have 10% of the money to cover their loans. The number | being the same right now is just a coincidence. | | >Currency is based on scarcity of something. | | Currency is based on whether or not people will accept it in | trade. There are countless examples that prove that that is | the sole criterion. Even stupid, shitty, hard to use | currencies get used if they're what's accepted. Getting | initial buy in for USD was based on gold. Then silver, and | then in 1971, literal faith in the US government and nothing | else whatsoever: | | "and the unilateral cancellation of the direct international | convertibility of the United States dollar to gold." | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock) | | >Is it possible to have scarcity limited currency without | some kind of work involved? | | Not in my opinion. Gold requires mining. BTC requires | computing. But USD isn't a scarcity limited currency. | gdubs wrote: | There's an article in the NYTimes today on the environmental | impact of NFTs and I personally find the whole thing deeply | upsetting. I care a lot about the climate. It's maybe my number | one concern long-term, especially as my kids are concerned. | | I saw the buzz around NFTs, and thought - "hey, cool! A new way | for artists to make some money directly from their fans." | Sounds great. Minted a few NFTs to learn how it all works. | | And then I read incredibly distressing figures - some comparing | the cost to a _years'_ worth of family carbon emissions. From | clicking a button and waiting a few minutes! | | I haven't been able to get a straight answer on how true these | stats are. But the possibility that minting a few tokens caused | that much damage frankly makes me want to cry. | | You might say, well, that's stupid -- but honestly, when you | care about something deeply like the climate and you take pains | to reduce emissions and do things to try and help -- well, it's | incredibly upsetting. | thamer wrote: | The article: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/13/climate/nft- | climate-chang... | iso1210 wrote: | The problem is those emissions aren't being properly | accounted for. Those causing them aren't paying the true | cost. | frongpik wrote: | A dissenting opinion. If those in power really cared about | global warming, the WH would have codified work from home into | law. Right now the big corps are pulling workers back to | offices, so millions of office workers are going to drive back | and forth again. Obviously, the media prefers to talk about the | bad bitcoin instead. | hundreddaysoff wrote: | Naive related question from a crypto n00b that a lazygoogle | failed to answer: | | I just plotted some Chia. I left my laptop open to do this. | Usually I would just put the laptop in power save mode all | night. | | My understanding is that to actually make any Chia, I would | need to wait ~1 year with my one 100GB plot with full-power | mode enabled. Vs mostly with the case closed, as it is now, | while I do other things. | | And this doesn't even account for the rare elements etc needed | to fabricate my hard disk. | | So, general naive questions: | | 1. Vs Proof of Work, just how much better _are_ Proof of Space | /Proof of Stake/$HDOS_SUPER_AWESOME_PROOF in terms of energy | consumption but also other standard measures of environmental | impact? | | 2. How much worse, if at all, are they vs the null hypothesis | of "modern" pre-crypto finance? | | Has anyone run credible numbers on these things? | Nursie wrote: | Proof of space/time is a bad idea and you're right, it will | put incentives on manufacture and hoarding of storage space. | | Proof of stake involves using staking of cryptocurrency to | secure the currency. In theory it avoids the resource usage | of the other types of proof. In theory. | colinmhayes wrote: | Proof of stake has no mining, no datacenters. If proof of | stake ends up working it would probably be almost as | effective as Visa currently is. Visa is always going to be | more efficient due to it's centralized nature. Currently one | bitcoin transaction uses the same amount of energy as driving | a tesla 2000 miles, so POS is quite an improvement. | cwkoss wrote: | Proof of stake still requires cryptographic validation of | each block by each node, so it uses much less energy than | PoW, but not none. | | I think "no miners, still (distributed) datacenters" would | be more accurate. | ardme wrote: | Proof of stake is not secure, there is no way to recover | from a 51% attack. Proof of work and proof of space are | much better. | knuthsat wrote: | Complaining about externalities of PoW cryptocurrencies is like | complaining about the fastest function that exists in your code | and is magnitudes more efficient than anything else. | | Externalities that pollute the ocean, air, rivers and cities | are not present in crypto at all in the amounts that other | industries and human activities produce. | | There will be more people jumping on carnivorous and meat heavy | diets than there will be people using electricity powered | cryptocurrencies. Keto is trending more than cryptocurrencies. | | The amount of destruction that factory farming will inflict on | this world and is inflicting will never be reached by | cryptocurrencies. There will be no deforestation, no waste | mismanagement, no fertilizer drain, nothing. | rawtxapp wrote: | Just put a carbon tax on everything that has environmental | externalities, it's as simple as that, it doesn't make sense to | target a specific industry, especially one that uses | stranded/renewable energy. | aeternum wrote: | This is the simple answer. In the unlikely event Bitcoin | moves to PoS, miners will just redirect their hardware to | other coins | | The simple solve: price the externality. | skeeter2020 wrote: | broad-based consumption taxes are the best theoretical | response, but politically no one is going to impose them at | the levels needed to discourage consumption, and they almost | always get perverted in their application with carve-outs and | exemptions. Plus where does that money go? At best it's an | inefficient recycling paradigm when what we really need is an | at-source reduction in consumption in the first place. | aeternum wrote: | The goal should not be to discourage consumption, the goal | should be carbon neutrality. | | Any industry such as fossil fuel power plants must buy | carbon offset credits/tokens from industries or companies | that sequester carbon. Then let the market solve the | problem. The credits/tokens may turn out to be very cheap. | tovej wrote: | No credible way to decouple production/consumption from | emissions has been found. So no, we do need to start | curbing consumption, especially among people in the top | wealth quantiles (because they consume the most). | dd36 wrote: | Cap-n-trade was a very successful program for reducing | nox and sox emissions. If you create the right | incentives, markets tend to find a way. | tovej wrote: | They still aren't decoupled from emissions. IIRC | Emissions actually grow faster than GDP, so it's actually | worse than a simple coupling: it's a feedback coupling. | | All studies that have looked at seeming decoupling of | emissions from the economy have found that they | decoupling was due to outsourcing the emissions to other | countries. Markets cannot solve emissions as long as | value is a function of production. | aeternum wrote: | Countries that tax emissions should simply levy a | proportional tariff on goods imported from countries that | do not tax emissions. | | Wouldn't this eliminate the incentive to outsource the | emissions? You could even add some margin to the tariff | such that it is more economical for countries to tax the | emissions themselves rather than pay the tariff. | triceratops wrote: | > we do need to start curbing consumption | | You do that by increasing the cost of consumption. | Everyone has, even wealthy people, have a price point | beyond which something is too expensive for them. | tovej wrote: | I agree, and what better way than to impose a tax on | consumption after X dollars. Or perhaps even a general | luxury tax for goods that aren't absolutely necessary for | your welfare. | | Still better would be to start taxing natural resource | usage, or even setting quotas with strict penalties. But | it's hard to see politicians going along with it and I | don't know if it can be monitored sensibly. | triceratops wrote: | > start taxing natural resource usage | | I'd go with taxing fossil fuel extraction. Every barrel | of oil, liter of nat gas, or ton of coal is taxed. The | revenue from these taxes should go towards either a) | carbon capture or b) tax credits for lower-income | households or c) UBI. The costs of these taxes will | propagate throughout the economy and everyone will adjust | their consumption accordingly. | dd36 wrote: | The goal should perhaps even be carbon negativity. | Structure our economic systems such that removing | pollution pays. | bhupy wrote: | I think the idea is that it discourages _certain kinds_ of | consumption, and that 's carbon-based consumption. Once | upon a time, that could have been construed as a broad- | based consumption tax simply because there were no non- | carbon alternatives. Today, in 2021, that's not the case. | Solar is already the cheapest source of electricity, and | the relatively higher price of CO2 emitting energy is | already a market-based "consumption tax". A carbon-tax just | exacerbates and speeds up what's already happening. That's | probably acceptable because time is of the essence as far | as the climate goes. | abecedarius wrote: | > politically no one is going to impose them at the levels | needed to discourage consumption | | This seems like one of those Overton-window true-if-and- | only-if-the-media-say-it's-true things, like the supposed | taboo against vaccine challenge trials which was recently | falsified in a poll. | | > where does that money go? | | To the low-income people who are supposed to be the | insuperable political obstacle to carbon taxes in the first | place? | | Politics is hard, yes, but this Overton-window kind of | reasoning just drags at any real solution to anything. It's | not worth any allegiance. | jariel wrote: | "it doesn't make sense to target a specific industry" | | Normally, we wouldn't want to target one line of business | over another because we want the market to figure out where | the most value creation is, but it's not always the case. | | In this case it makes sense to target people who are | literally wasting electricity for supporting a Ponzi scheme. | Even if BTC or Crypto is eventually a useful medium of | exchange, there's still no reason at all to waste energy in | it's proliferation. | | Electricity transportation, and to some extent production - | is partly socialized in most countries. | | The market is not 'all knowing', it's full of asymmetries, we | regulate all sorts of things for that reason. | JohnJamesRambo wrote: | Proof of stake is here in Ethereum 2.0 and it works great. | Invest in that because this is the last hurrah for Bitcoin. The | next cycle will be the "Ethereum is the new better Bitcoin" | cycle. I say that as someone with almost all my net worth in | Bitcoin but it has miserable transaction speed and energy | usage. History has shown us that not innovating has never | worked out for any company I can think of. | WanderPanda wrote: | So you are saying your money is not where your mouth is? | qertoip wrote: | Incorrect, Ethereum is still using PoW. | dehrmann wrote: | If all you care about is energy usage and transaction speed, | the traditional finance system still wins. | | Unless people are actively trading bitcoin enough where the | transaction cost because an issue, there's little reason to | trade in their tulip bulbs for iris bulbs. A bet on a | cryptocurrency is a bet that people will think it's worth | more money, not an investment in the underlying technology. | base698 wrote: | Any idea where I can keep my money and generate 10 - 20% | passive income like you can with DeFi in the traditional | system? Most savings account have negative interest rates | currently. | capableweb wrote: | > If all you care about is energy usage and transaction | speed, the traditional finance system still wins | | Does it though? There are so many things to consider when | talking about the "energy usage" of traditional money. All | the vans moving money around, manufacturing, items to | support PoS systems, sorting, protecting the money and so | on. | Nursie wrote: | > There are so many things to consider when talking about | the "energy usage" of traditional money. | | Yes, so many things that BTC will never do. It's vastly | less efficient and offers nothing like the range of | services and products of the existing finance system. | [deleted] | pcthrowaway wrote: | It's coming, but it's not there yet; you can't buy PoS ETH on | any exchange I know. May be anywhere from 1-3 more years, but | hopefully sooner. There have been coordinated efforts by the | ETH miners to prevent the transition which has resulted in a | political clusterfuck in the Ethereum landscape. | | Cardano is the top cryptocurrency currently on PoS, and while | I agree that the next cycle will be the ETH cycle, I think | the one after that could be the ADA cycle. | Fede_V wrote: | I've been reading a few of the white papers about this, but | I'd absolutely love to go deeper in this. Do you have any | suggestions? | | I am especially interested in assessment about CO2 emissions | from _credible_ sources (please, no VCs with zero training in | physical sciences posting thought leadership pieces, I beg | you). | BobbyJo wrote: | Maybe I'm a huge cynic, it certainly wouldn't surpris me, but | I think the people pumping up crypto this cycle aren't | necessarily the kind that care about the difference. If | anything they'll stay away from ETH because it lacks a long | term cap. | yokem55 wrote: | One of the changes going into the July update is a | transaction fee change that burns (throws away) part of the | transaction fees. That will put some deflationary pressure | on total issuance, while at the same time, when they switch | to the staking chain total new issuance will be drastically | cut since running a validator is far more efficient then | mining. | | What the long term inflation rate will be then is really | set by the demand for transactions and how much congestion | there will be on their network, driving up transaction | prices and fees burned (or not). | throwastrike wrote: | A green crypto will not work unless it's tied to BTC. BTC is | basically a ponzi scheme built on top of ponzi schemes on top | of ponzi schemes. I too was optimistic about cryptocurrencies | back in 2013-14. I thought we'd eventually have a global | currency that's beneficial for all parties involved. But no. | There's simply no interest in doing that. Everyone is just in | it for the money. | ipaddr wrote: | Your dream and Mr Robots dream died along the way. | | When all debt was erased everyone filled with panic flocked | to the evilcorp coin. | | The system exists today for a reason. Discover and elimate | each reason to change the system. | RazTeve wrote: | Money has always been a tool for trading time | bko wrote: | Bitcoin allows you to convert excess energy into money. Because | it can be mined anywhere at any time, it's priced to the global | low cost of energy. It doesn't make sense to use expensive | energy sources. | | Much of energy production is meant to meet peak demand and | storage is difficult. Bitcoin mining is a great way to monetize | energy that has a low market value and would likely go to | waste. | | If you want to price energy or put a tax, by all means. But you | shouldn't discriminate against particular usages of energy. | You're angry at the wrong thing | frongpik wrote: | You imply good will of bitcoin miners. Once it becomes big | enough for state actors, people in power will burn the Amazon | forest or dry up entire rivers to mine bitcoin. Our | civilization is all about ruthless greed and bitcoin exploits | this nicely. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | "Excess energy" is a myth. | | It's 2021, and transmitting energy across the power grid is | easier and more efficient than ever before. No one is | building hydroelectric dams in the middle of nowhere without | a way to transmit that energy to somewhere else. It's still | better to send the energy somewhere where they can replace | coal-fired power plants than it is to burn it up mining | cryptocurrency. | | > Bitcoin mining is a great way to monetize energy that has a | low market value and would likely go to waste. | | It's exceedingly rare for energy to "go to waste". | | Miners do not really care about anything other than profit. | As long as the profit out of their operations is greater than | the cost of electricity going in, the machines will be | running. | londons_explore wrote: | Across most of the world there are at least brief moments | when the price of electricity goes negative. It happens | because some energy sources cannot quickly be shut down | (eg. Nuclear), so it makes financial sense to _pay_ to get | rid of electricity for brief periods. | | These negative prices don't coincide worldwide, indicating | that there is not sufficient electrical transmission | capacity. | bko wrote: | > Miners do not really care about anything other than | profit. As long as the profit out of their operations is | greater than the cost of electricity going in, the machines | will be running. | | Exactly my point. That's why they choose the global lowest | cost of energy provider. And if you allow the price system | to work, this would be the least valuable undesirable | energy. Anything else would be uneconomical. | enragedcacti wrote: | or they just bribe a local official and make profit on | what would otherwise be 'desirable' energy. | skeeter2020 wrote: | this implies some sort of perfect price for energy which | (regardless of the fossil fuels v. renewable angle) is a | myth. | barrenko wrote: | This and - literally millions of office worker drones power a | PC for MS Office/Excel whole day long for no net effective | social or global benefit which the likes of Bitcoin will weed | out eventually. And then one day we will replace Bitcoin with | something even more effective. | jariel wrote: | "Bitcoin mining is a great way to monetize energy that has a | low market value and would likely go to waste." | | Mining BTC is literally a waste. | | There is no value creation at all. | | Though some individuals may value it - it's not actually | useful. The world economy does not grow one bit due to BTC or | BTC mining - lives are not improved, products are not | developed or made, or enabled etc.. | | Even if BTC were a very useful currency, it would still be | wasteful to use considerable electricity to support it, | because it's not necessary - it just happens to be the | mechanism chosen to mine new coins. | christkv wrote: | I'm more worried about a hostile state actor like China using | its dominance in Bitcoin and other crypto coins weaponizing it | against our economies. Say crash the coins wiping out big | actors causing domino effects in the markets. | Tenoke wrote: | >I'm horrendously worried about crypto gaining more marketshare | as long as proof of work crypto remains mainstream. | | It's not really remaining mainstream. Bitcoin is soon going to | be the only big project (in terms of electricity used) with it. | The industry as a whole is moving away from it quite fast at | this rate, with ETH (second biggest) moving to PoS within a | year, and almost every new project being a or on a non-PoW | chain. | randomguy5421 wrote: | Eth is always moving to POS ---> THIS YEAR.\ | | Believe it when I see it. | rauljordan2020 wrote: | It is already live since December 1st, 2020 | https://beaconcha.in. The next step is to perform the | actual "merge" from PoW to PoS which will happen this year | bko wrote: | Bitcoin and Ethereum are two entirely different value | propositions. Ethereum is a lot more controlled by a central | body, moves a lot faster and is optimized for entirely | different things (flexibility, scale, building apps, etc). | | You can't substitute one for the other. Both will likely | continue to exist indefinitely. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | The problem is that Bitcoin miners and investors have a huge | incentive to keep the status quo. | | Bitcoin is no longer the scrappy renegade alternative | currency. It's big business now, with big institutional money | behind it. The investors in these Bitcoin businesses do not | want to see Bitcoin fall out of favor, and they're going to | do everything in their power to keep it popular and | profitable to mine. | Tenoke wrote: | Sure, but that's a Bitcoin problem not a crypto as a whole | problem. | | And let's face it - all the projects being built on crypto | which can cause it to grow much further cannot be built on | Bitcoin in the first place. | randomopining wrote: | STX - Stacks is built on top of Bitcoin and allows smart | contracts through proof of transfer. | New_California wrote: | You may like this: | | https://www.coindesk.com/frustrating-maddening-all-consuming... | yumraj wrote: | My biggest worry with Coinbase IPO is that it will become too | big to ban, as now it will impact the stock market and not just | the minority few who own it. | asenna wrote: | Are you also worried Facebook and Google have become too big | to ban? | | I don't get this logic. | bob33212 wrote: | Like a lot of bubbles, there is FOMO and lack of understanding | of the technology. It is easy to compare crypto to the | internet. When the internet first started out a lot of people | didn't invest in GOOG because it was not obvious where the | revenue would come from. | | People are afraid of making the same mistake here as well. "I | don't know how BTC will generate cashflow outside of being a | Ponzi scheme, but I assume the technology will advance and | revolutionize finance" so they buy. | api wrote: | GOOG was a good investment because nobody invested in it. If | everyone had invested in GOOG, it would not have been as good | an investment since its success would already be priced in. | | If the number has already gone up, you are too late. If | everyone is talking about it, you are too late. | randomopining wrote: | The function that BTC provides is a deflationary hedge. If | you look at the big existing things for that, gold and | silver etc... check out their market cap and you see btc | has a ways more to go. | fossuser wrote: | I don't know what BTC will do, but this is a banality and | mostly wrong in any way that's important. | | "The number has gone up" for Google almost since it has | gone public. | | If you bought BTC at $1 and it went to $10 - is $10 too | late? The number went up. | | The hard part is it's hard to know the underlying value of | things and a lot of value is socially determined by how | others value something. | | Why is gold traded as an expensive commodity? It has some | tiny practical uses, but is that why the price fluctuates? | People trade it because they think other people will trade | it and use it as a store of value when other stuff is | volatile. | | Some people think BTC's scarcity guarantees provide a | similar digital version of that. It's volatile now because | it's still early and uncertain, but if that's true then | BTC's price could be very high and it's hard to know if | you're too late. | | For other Non-BTC coins unlikely to get the same level of | social buy-in their value is a lot more questionable imo. | ETH has some real underlying applications (uniswap | decentralized exchange, powering contracts, other tokens | etc.). The privacy coins maybe can leverage that for a | reason for people to use them. The others seem like even | more fringe bets and more likely to be FOMO bubbles. | tolbish wrote: | That's what everyone thought about Bitcoin back when it hit | the crazy high of $800. | paulpauper wrote: | the problem will fix itself after the bubble bursts. Bitcoin | doesn't provide anything of much value. It is just a | speculative instrument. | base698 wrote: | If you haven't seen the DeFi space you are missing out. | 10-20% interest on crypto holdings. If you know where to get | interest rates like that... | DCKing wrote: | Having mined cryptocurrency a long long time ago when it was | still a novelty, it's really good to appreciate just how bad | the externalities are for cryptocurrencies. The incentives are | created for people to buy the cheapest energy possible and just | burn it up for a made up financial instrument [0], even when | that comes with a significant carbon footprint. Even if mining | is only a tenth as bad as the University of Cambridge thinks | [1]. On a much more minor note, it takes up energy generation | (renewable and otherwise) and chip production resources that | could be spent on actual production instead of yet another | financial instrument. | | I'd be in favor of banning the trade of all PoW | cryptocurrencies for this reason alone. There is no proper way | of banning _mining_ in general, and neither should anyone | desire to ban specific types of computation. Banning its trade | to strongly disincentivize the sheer senseless resource | consumption is more important and much more clear cut than any | financial arguments to do it. | | I realize this would utterly devastate the current | cryptocurrency market, but that's the point (at least for | anything that isn't proof of stake). We should get this over | with before our dependency on it further increases and the | environmental damage gets worse. | | The zeitgeist around this has changed substantially. PoW | cryptocurrencies really aren't credibly grassroots and have | been captured by whales. And there really isn't any application | of PoW ledger designs outside of cryptocurrencies with | significant mindshare either. For all of this - proof-of-stake | cryptocurrencies _should_ be an alternative. Not a direct | replacement, but able to cover most use cases. | | Coinbase was founded under a different zeitgeist and I don't | blame them for jumping into this market. But I think that | banning PoW cryptocurrencies should be strongly advocated, and | once this realization catches up at the right level, they have | a significant liability on their hands. | | [0]: For the record, all financial instruments are "made up". | PoW cryptocurrencies are the only one that come with blatant | resource consumption however. | | [1]: https://techcrunch.com/2021/03/21/the-debate-about- | cryptocur... | | (For the record, if a ban on PoW cryptocurrencies would come | into effect today I'd lose money over it.) | kolinko wrote: | PoW is on it's way out - Ethereum is moving away from it and | there is no reason for other cryptos to not follow. | | The major player in PoW will remain Bitcoin, which won't | change. | | But as soon as solar/wind become cheaper than coal, it will | switch to green without a blink of an eye. | | A random thought - I'm genuinely surprised Bitcoin folks didn't | yet crowdfund building a nuclear reactor for mining purposes ;) | They crowdfunded first ASIC production lines which are 1000x | cheaper, but at the time when Bitcoin was 1000x cheaper as well | :) | delaaxe wrote: | BTC is already mostly powered by green | randomguy5421 wrote: | lol no. | | Just no. | paulgb wrote: | The study I think you're referring to came from a crypto | company. It's the equivalent of when cigarette companies | released studies saying smoking was good for your health. | colinmhayes wrote: | The green energy used by bitcoin miners would be used by | others if bitcoin didn't exist. Instead those others use | dirty electricity. | deckard1 wrote: | It's weird seeing this argument that green energy is | somehow free and infinite energy. | | And yet, look at the market for Nvidia and AMD GPUs right | now. The miners already know that gamers have been pushed | out of the high end GPU market. Supply and demand doesn't | go away. People still need electricity for doing things | other than mining Bitcoin. All that happens is their | electricity rates go up. | londons_explore wrote: | Ethereum is quite centralised - people will follow the main | developers. | | Bitcoin probably wouldn't switch - there is no single person | or group who could get majority support to force such a | change. | yokem55 wrote: | Ethereum's development structure is only "centralized" in | the same way that linux kernel development is | "centralized". There is a big process that generates | consensus across the community from a lot of different | parties. By the time a change get into a pending hard fork, | it's been through multiple rounds of establishing buy-in. | Were the developers to push a major change in that didn't | enjoy the support of the broader community, it would be | abundantly apparent. | paulpauper wrote: | it has been 5 years an ethereum is still a long way form any | sort of POS adoption | asenna wrote: | The Beacon chain went live in December, 2020 and has been | running without issues. | | It now has about 4 Million ETH locked and staking which | cannot be withdrawn - that's almost $8 billion worth of ETH | locked until the move to PoS happens. Which means now there | is some real pressure to make it happen soon enough | (between 8-15 months). | | The situation now with the Beaconchain live and running is | very different from the past 4 years of research and | planning. | | https://beaconcha.in/ | baby wrote: | > if it grows larger before we have clean energy, then we | virtually guarantee we won't be able to tackle global warming | | I stopped reading here. | cslarson wrote: | As someone quite involved in the Ethereum ecosystem - I totally | agree. I also believe the Ethereum network will switch entirely | to Proof of Stake _this year_. | splithalf wrote: | Agree and I can't support companies that are putting their | weight behind it (Tsla, sq). It incentivizes global warming, as | a feature not a bug. Insane. | yrral wrote: | You never explicitly stated, but is your argument that the | energy consumption of bitcoin is the negative externality? | | First of all energy is not fungible, not in time and not in | space. There are times where consuming electricity is actually | beneficial for renewables and the environment. I think the main | mental block people have is that are trained to "save | electricity" and that "all energy usage is negative." I would | argue that using electricity during periods of wind or solar | oversupply is actually positive for the environment. Because of | this non-fungibility of energy, proof of work mining can be a | positive sum game for the environment. Let me explain: | | Back in the days where all our electricity came from fossil | fuels, I completely agree that marginal electricity usage was | bad for the environment. However I think that thought has | persisted with us even though it is no longer true 100% of the | time. With renewables sometimes the marginal cost of | electricity to our environment is near 0 or even negative (eg, | during periods of higher winds and lower demand) | | I predict that in the future as bitcoin mining becomes more and | more of an efficiency game that you will see bitcoin mining be | kind of a load balancer for the grid, effectively turning off | during peak demand (or low supply) times and contributing to | the base load during regular times. Of course this would be | distributed across the globe, and you would see more plants | running midday (with solar oversupply) and overnight (with wind | oversupply) than you would during early morning and evening | peak hours. | | For example, it may even help the economics of building new | wind plants. Eg, currently it may not be profitable to build a | new wind plant because base load is too low that the excess | power generated would need to be sold off at 0 or even negative | prices. However if bitcoin mining could be turned on during | these times and off during periods of high demand, there will | need to be fewer peaker plants in operation and it would | positively affect the economics of opening a new wind plant. | | Bitcoin mining only cares about the cost of electricity at a | given time, it is not like most other electricity demands that | are very time based. With the large variance of electricity | generation by renewables, I think bitcoin can in the future | help smooth demand according to the real supply/demand curve. | | It's kind of like a different implementation of the Tesla | utility grid batteries. Instead of deploying power, you force | the grid to build more renewable capacity (that the miners are | paying for) that you use except in peak periods, where you turn | off and effectively provide the grid with more power. | | Here are 2 articles of a bitcoin mining company doing just | this: | https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-01/bitcoin-m... | https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2020/05/21/ho... | praveenperera wrote: | People always complain about Bitcoin's environmental effects. | | What about Gold's, the current financial system's? | | https://www.zerohedge.com/crypto/critics-claim-bitcoin-threa... | losteric wrote: | 1. whataboutism | | 2. Most currencies are fiat, not gold-backed | praveenperera wrote: | 1. No it isn't, not if bitcoin can be a replacement for | gold. | | 2. You didn't read my link | amznthrwaway wrote: | BTC wastes more power as it becomes more valuable. | | This is the opposite of other major currencies. | | BTC is an environmental travesty. | dd36 wrote: | Bitcoin is already terrible and it's structured to get ever | more terrible. | eloff wrote: | I think we've given this proof-of-work experiment plenty of | room to run, and it's time to end it as a failure through | governments making it illegal. | | The algorithm sort of worked, but the costs are too high. In | the end those high costs led to efficiencies of scale leading | to a few large miners controlling the whole blockchain. So it | never lived up to the decentralized dream anyway. | | Now it mostly serves to fuel rampant speculation and crime. It | enabled a whole new category of crime through cyberlocker | attacks (well not new, but made it so, so much more | successful.) | | The harm well outweighs the good. If it continues unabated | proof-of-work crypto could double the energy requirements of | the planet in just a few decades. It's not worth that. Kill it | now before the consequences get worse. | the_local_host wrote: | Bitcoin can only be _demonstrably_ free of government controls | by continuing to operate after being made illegal. I wonder if | its creators actually intended to make it a target for legal | sanction by building in conspicuous environmental costs. | | Could there be an equilibrium where energy efficiency is | achieved because miners have avoid using a noticeable amount of | electricity to avoid legal trouble? | [deleted] | thesausageking wrote: | Bitcoin mining uses less energy than video gaming. And because | mining can happen anywhere, it tends to use clean energy or | energy trapped at power plants that would otherwise go to | waste, so it's CO2 footprint is much, much less than video | gaming. | | Other things that contribute more to global warming than | Bitcoin include: the meat industry, Christmas lights, and the | mining and supply chain around gold. | RazTeve wrote: | Worse externalities than the fiat standard which brought us | genocides, nuclear war, and mass murder? Bitcoin could | eradicate democide. | px43 wrote: | Why are you so worried about cryptocurrencies, and seemingly | not worried about energy companies who actually are the ones | who are creating the carbon emissions? | | Using electricity and emitting CO2 are only loosely correlated, | and in the case of cryptocurrencies are even _less_ correlated | because cryptocurrencies are dis-proportionally mined with | energy from hydroelectric dams. | | All of these articles about the ecological impact of | cryptocurrencies only exist to divert public and regulatory | attention away from the energy companies that are actually | doing all the damage. | | Oil companies did the same thing in the 70s when there was | public outcry about plastic pollution, so they funded the | "reduce reuse recycle" campaigns, and the crying Indian | commercial etc, all to divert responsibility from the companies | manufacturing the plastics to the consumers who use them. | | There is a documentary called "The Story of Plastic" which | covers this strategy, and how successful it has been for them | in the past. | tim333 wrote: | I was thinking of trying to make a coin/token that would fight | global warming to help counter that stuff. Basically if you buy | it the money goes into a fund some of which goes to carbon | capture / anti warming causes, some is retained for buying back | coins for liquidity. Anyone think that's a good idea? | CFA178B wrote: | I feel the similar. There are innovations out there and things | that change the world and improve the way we think and, work | and develop together, and there is this world of essentially | greed, where we all just want to get out of where we are - | because, why? We have to sell someone else the ticket out, to | get richer ourselves. | | Thankfully, this is a bonafied bubble and in a few months, | it'll all tank again. | RazTeve wrote: | did you dismiss this one already? | https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/could-bitcoin-solve-oil-... | fossuser wrote: | I'm skeptical of proof-of-stake, proof-of-work seems like the | main innovation of cryptocurrencies that differentiates them | from the standard financial industry? | | If you swap out POW for POS (or worse clearing house type trust | orgs like Stellar) then aren't you just putting trust into some | incentive based system no different than existing financial | systems? Just instead a government you're trusting some other | entity. You get faster throughput and less energy waste, but | you lose the mathematical guarantee that was kind of the entire | point? | | I think climate change is a serious issue that would lead to | change (likely bad), but I'm not sure it's a true e-risk or | that cryptocurrency POW changes the tide that much. Feels like | an irrelevant (somewhat identity-ish/political) side debate to | me? (see Matt Yglesias' comments in this: | http://rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/show/episode-251-the- | ca...) | | Happy to think about arguments that would change my mind. | greg7mdp wrote: | I don't see any reason to be skeptical of proof-of-stake. The | ethereum beacon network has been up and running fine for | months. And POS negates the power usage objection to POW. | cwkoss wrote: | I don't think anyone debates that POS is more power | efficient than POW. The controversy over POS is whether the | game theory incentives of POS will be sufficient deterrent | for bad actors at scale. | mikkel wrote: | The biggest argument is the other coin networks that have | been running for years in production without proof of work. | Nano and EOS have interesting consensus models. Nano manages | to remove all inflation and transaction fees and is just a | base level currency. EOS has an account fee and you have to | rent resources but can do code execution on transactions | (smart contracts). They both rely on accounts voting for | representatives and have had similar problems with spam. Nano | has been running for > 4 years and EOS for > 1 years. | sireat wrote: | I am surprised a workable IPv4 based POS coin has not been | produced. The consensus protocols are already using IPv4 | | That is one IPv4 address -> one unit of vote | | Difficulty adjusts based on how many IPv4 addresses | participate | | Sure, it gives advantage to Apple, MIT or anyone with /8 | block and disadvantages citizens from some countries with | very small allocations but otherwise it could be scaled to | whole world while staying truly green. | | I suppose the hard part is figuring out the stake when | multiple people on the same IP address want to participate. | kruxigt wrote: | I guess one problem is that everyone has an IP, while only | ones that really care puts in proof of work. | Paradigma11 wrote: | The staking rewards for block generation are inflationary. So | you are penalized by not staking and it does not matter how | long how stake your tokens your share of the blockchain does | not increase. You also have to pay taxes for staking rewards | in most countries so you have to sell at least that much. In | the context of a bc with smart contracts you are basically | owning and operating a share of a cloud for financial | services. Those customers pay fees which get distributed with | the staking rewards. | | This does sound a lot saner to me than having some cabals | operating giant computer farms and hydroelectric dams to | generate new blocks. Their interests are different than those | of token holders and having to pay for all those gpus and | electricity is just stupid. | | What mathematical properties are you losing? | stormbeta wrote: | And this is exactly why I'm so skeptical of cryptocurrencies | in general. There doesn't appear any viable way to make them | work as currencies that doesn't either have horrendous | externalities, simply replicate what existing currencies | already do (often poorly and with many downsides), or often | both. | | I don't think it's a coincidence that even a decade plus | later, the primary use cases for crypto still seem to be | grey/black market deals, speculative investments, and pyramid | schemes. | Moodles wrote: | Not to even mention the even more useless buzzword | application of blockchains to business to pump up stock | prices. I'd go as far to say that cryptocurrency is the | most "useful" application of blockchain to date. And even | then, it appears only truly useful for dark web | transactions and pyramid schemes. Why else would we use a | wildly fluctuating currency that takes 20 minutes to send a | payment? | fossuser wrote: | I remain cautiously optimistic about the underlying idea | and core technology (even if there's a lot of pyramid | scheme snake oil surrounding it). | | Interesting applications do exist: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24242005 | | Its applications are more interesting in countries that | have unreliable governments and inflationary currencies | (for now). | | It also does provide something new (one way 'cash' | transfers across a decentralized network). | abecedarius wrote: | > way ... that doesn't either have horrendous externalities | | The CO2 emission externality need have nothing to do with | Bitcoin or any other proof-of-work chain. Tax carbon at | whatever level makes sense and Bitcoin will adjust. (As I | understand it, even currently Bitcoin mining mainly uses | renewable energy, because it's cheaper; and it's trending | cheaper still.) | | The externality is at the _power plant_ , not the use. | Banning a use is like basing your server's security on | client-side Javascript. | jsiepkes wrote: | > Tax carbon at whatever level makes sense and Bitcoin | will adjust. | | > The externality is at the power plant, not the use. | Banning a use is like basing your server's security on | client-side Javascript. | | How would that work? Applying the same carbon tax on | farming as on bitcoin? You always need to differentiate | on use. Otherwise we could also just have a single income | tax and be done with it. However taxing food as much as a | Ferrari doesn't really make sense. | abecedarius wrote: | The whole purpose of taxing carbon is to _reduce carbon | emission_ to the efficient level and _shift energy | consumers away_ from uses that are not worth the cost in | carbon emission. | | Say you're a bitcoin miner powered by a coal plant. A | carbon tax is imposed. The price of your power goes up. | Your competitors, powered by solar, are unaffected. Maybe | you keep going at the higher price; more likely, if the | tax was set at anything like the genuine externality, you | shut down. Possibly you keep going for a while, winding | down your ops at this location but moving any new ones to | find affordable power. Sucks to be you if you didn't | anticipate the tax (which seems implausible, they won't | announce it effective next Monday), but Bitcoin itself | will hardly notice. | | Say you're a farmer also in coal-plant-land. Aren't | farmers powered more by internal-combustion engines than | grid power? That should be carbon-taxed too in this | world, and that's good: you want farming, where it's | climatically most expensive, to shift to less-CO2-costly | methods and crops. Farming spends energy on a much wider | set of tasks, some of them more essential to the output | than others, and some outputs more inelastically demanded | than others. For some of them you adjust, for some you | continue and pay the higher price. The ones you adjust | were _not worth the carbon cost_ ; the ones you don't | _were_. You have to charge your customers some amount | more, depending on how essential the coal turns out to | be. Maybe, like the bitcoin miner, you stop farming, or | shift to some sort of less-intensive organic farming; | maybe you don 't. Either way, it's more likely the right | decision for the planet! We stopped pretending that | dumping carbon is free. | | You don't "differentiate on use" by politicians and | bureaucrats deciding what's naughty or nice. They don't | even know! It's an incredibly complicated problem! They | further have no real incentive to do it even vaguely | right, rather the opposite: any competent politician can | look to the public like they're public-spirited while | favoring concentrated interests. Was the FDA just stupid | for banning the J&J vaccine the other day? No, they're | fundamentally misaligned with the public interest. | | Re painting cryptocurrency as a nobody-needs-it Ferrari, | see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26654767 | cwkoss wrote: | Dollar hegemony has many horrendous externalities as well. | danimal88 wrote: | While that -might- be true, the question is whether the | dollar, the RMB, the CAD, and every other currency have | anything like the -direct- pollution cost of bitcoin, | which my understanding is that they do not | meowkit wrote: | Can you share how Bitcoin has a direct pollution cost? | | Last I checked BTC primarily uses excess electricity in | the cheapest regions of the world. What if BTC only ran | on solar power? | cwkoss wrote: | Of the estimates I've read, it seems like BTC uses about | 60% green energy. Which is about double the 'green-ness' | of the broader energy economy, but it's still a | significant amount of 'direct pollution' from carbon | sources. | cwkoss wrote: | I think the dollar undoubtedly has several orders of | magnitude lower direct pollution costs, but also have | several orders of magnitude higher indirect costs. | | It's a pretty tangly web, so hard to know what to lump in | as a comparison but in the superlative case consider: the | federal reserve, many bank/FI departments tasked with | securing and transferring money safely, auditing (public | ledger has many benefits for transparency and reporting), | money transfer industry, international relations, | lobbyism, US military dominance, etc. | | Bitcoin has zero employees, probably only thousands of | people working on Bitcoin-interfaced systems. The network | uses a large amount of electricity, but that's kind of it | - there are few other costs to account for. All of those | industries above collectively employ millions of people - | should we account for only organizational energy | consumption or do we also account for salaries and thus | private energy consumption of all of the individuals | necessary to support dollar hegemony? | | I think it would be really interesting to find a number | for "for each dollar in existence, how much is spent per | year preserving the dollar's position as the global | reserve currency?" How does this number compare to | inflation? If it is greater than inflation, does that | mean that dollar hegemony is unstable and its fall is | inevitable? | jtsiskin wrote: | For the uninformed, what mathematical guarantees does POW | have that POS doesn't? | jude- wrote: | PoW is open-membership, because the means of coin | production are not tied to owning coins already. All you | need to contribute is computing power, and you can start | earning coins at a profit. | | PoS is closed-membership with a veneer of open-membership, | because the means of coin production are tied to owning a | coin already. What this means in practice is that no | rational coin-owner is going to sell you coins at a fast | enough rate that you'll be able to increase your means of | coin production. Put another way, the price you'd pay for | the increased means of coin production will meet or exceed | the total expected revenue created by staking those coins | over their lifetime. So unless you know something the | seller doesn't, you won't be able to profit by buying your | way into staking. | | Overall, this makes PoS _less_ resilient and _less_ | egalitarian than PoW. While both require an up-front | capital expenditure, the expenditure for PoS coin- | production will meet or exceed the total expected revenue | of those coins at the point of sale. So, the system is only | as resilient as the nodes run by the people who bought in | initially, and the only way to join later is to buy coins | from people who want to exit (which would only be viable if | these folks believed the coins are worth less than what you | 're buying them for, which doesn't bode well for you as the | buyer). | jacoblambda wrote: | One important difference in favour of PoS that isn't | brought up often is the financial cost to pull off an | attack. Pulling off an attack in most PoS protocols | results in coin slashing for the attacker ("deletion" of | coins used in the attack) and on top of that can (and | likely will) result in coin devaluation as well. This | makes a successful attack against a PoS system very very | expensive. The resource is spent and actually burned. | | With PoW however the GPUs or ASICs don't disappear or | lose value after the attack (caveat that the ASICs can | lose value if networks switch away from the algorithm it | is built for). The hardware can be used to attack | "competitor" networks or used again in another attack | against the network or other networks in the future. | | In this sense, I suspect that PoS networks are able to | properly recover from successful attacks far easier as | well as dissuade attacks from the offset. | jude- wrote: | It's far easier to break a PoS chain -- you simply knock | the coin-holding nodes offline. Knock enough offline, and | you can no longer reach quorum. If offline nodes' coins | get slashed in order to reach quorum and restart block | production, and the system permits forking, then why | would offline nodes rejoin the original fork? They're | incentivized to only consider forks where they're not | slashed. If the system does not permit forking, then the | system breaks once the attackers (1) stake a nominal | amount of coins, and (2) knock enough other nodes offline | such that they are the majority staker. | jacoblambda wrote: | This isn't really an attack unique to Proof of Stake. If | a node goes offline they can lose rewards or even in rare | cases have their coins slashed to some extent but that | isn't inherent to a Proof of Stake overall. A decent | number of Proof of Stake systems instead place reward | penalties on pools/nodes that go offline. The idea being | that it is a penalty for not maintaining sufficient | infrastructure while also not being so severe that it | could be leveraged in such an attack. | | Most PoS algorithms I've seen instead reserve stake | slashing as a penalty for malicious behaviour. Going | offline isn't by any means inherently malicious. There | are however plenty of actively malicious actions that can | be detected and reacted against. Often for the more | severe penalties it will require some level of community | involvement in the recovery stage to limit opportunities | for abuse. | | Additionally, it shouldn't be easy to take a block | producer offline and Stake Pool(or node) Operators should | be preparing for these types of attacks. I've been | watching some of the work being done in the Cardano Stake | Pool Operator community and the various SPO guilds have | decently sophisticated architectures. "Nodes"/"Pools" are | broken up into Relays, Producers, and sometimes | additionally Key Generators. Key Generators produce the | periodically expiring KES keys and pass them to the | Producers on a schedule (to minimise potential attack | surfaces). The Producers actually engage in the consensus | using the keys provided by the key generators and | communicate through the relays. The Relays handle the | throughput and communication. This allows the producers | (and by extension the key generators if used) to be | largely shielded from the open net. This also allows | producers and relays to have a certain amount of | redundancy/failover. An architecture like that may cost | more (and eat into rewards a bit more) however they are | far more difficult to DDoS or compromise. | | Since the barrier for the hardware is so low, a 1x2x2 or | 1x2x3 (keygen x producer x relay) architecture can still | be more than profitable (retaining 25% to 75% of the SPO | rewards as profit). Additionally this has the advantage | that various other income streams can be integrated in | (state channel operation, compute nodes, storage nodes, | etc) over time and the operation can be scaled up without | compromising security or requiring a significant re- | architecture. | | Proof of Stake can be just as secure as Proof of Work but | it requires that the incentives be structured properly | and sufficiently hedged against potential risks. | jude- wrote: | Okay, so instead of knocking your nodes offline, the | attacker only has to commandeer them for just long enough | to commit a slashable offense. That's usually easier | anyway. | | This is fundamentally a double-edged sword -- the harsher | your penalties are for bad behavior, the easier it is for | someone to use a zero-day and kill your staking coins. | But the laxer your penalties are, the more damage a buggy | or malicious node can do with impunity. | | Either way, the resilience of PoS comes down to the | resilience of the majority of its staking nodes, because | once you lose _that_ , the system is dead. Once you | control majority stake, it doesn't matter how many other | offline coins exist -- you, as the majority staker, | simply never mine their transactions. | | This isn't true for PoW systems. A PoW system can always | be brought back to life, even after an arbitrarily long | amount of inactivity, and even if all the previous miners | cease mining. All you need is one miner, somewhere, that | has a copy of the chainstate, and the system makes | forward progress. | Paradigma11 wrote: | Staking rewards for new block generation is inflationary, | so you are just not losing value by staking. Additional | value is generated by fees and store of value. | | With PoW coin you are constantly devaluing your share of | the blockchain by paying some third parties operating | giant gpu farms and hydroelectric dams. | jude- wrote: | > block generation is inflationary > store of value. | | I stopped reading at this point. | Paradigma11 wrote: | Good to know. | melolife wrote: | Open membership is arguably a worse problem than stake | requirements, as PoW participants do not have a vested | interest in preserving the integrity of the chain. | Ethereum 2 actually throttles validator entries and exits | for exactly this reason. | | As an example, any sufficiently powerful entity can | temporarily and affordably commandeer computational | resources with the intention of disrupting the chain. | | Under PoS doing so would devalue your (presumably | enormous) stake, so participants are at least | incentivized to act in the interest of the chain. | jude- wrote: | Open membership means that the chain stays alive as long | as anyone in the world wants it to. This isn't true for | PoS chains -- you must to acquire tokens to keep the | chain alive. | | > As an example, any sufficiently powerful entity can | temporarily and affordably commandeer computational | resources with the intention of disrupting the chain. | | A sufficiently powerful entity can DoS enough staked | nodes that quorum can't be reached, and thereby force a | PoS chain offline indefinitely for far less energy. If | they're clever, they'll buy some PoS coins first, so that | once the offline nodes all get slashed, they'll be the | majority staker. | sibeliuss wrote: | It's worth investigating Algorand's Pure Proof-of-Stake | model and seeing how it compares to other POS | implementations: https://algorand.foundation/algorand- | protocol/about-algorand... | jude- wrote: | If the means of coin production require owning coins, you | have these problems that PoW does not have. Definitely | true for Algorand. | sibeliuss wrote: | Owning coins is a means of validating the network and | appending to the blockchain, not producing new coins. | jude- wrote: | Try reading the paper: | https://people.csail.mit.edu/nickolai/papers/gilad- | algorand-... | | You have to own coins to produce blocks. | sibeliuss wrote: | > If the means of coin production require owning coins, | you have these problems that PoW does not have | | Producing blocks != coin production | jude- wrote: | If you're producing blocks, you're getting paid | (otherwise what's the point). If the probability you get | picked to produce a block is proportional to how many | coins you own, then you're getting paid proportional to | how many coins you own. | | I don't care for Algorand's shell game of trying to say | that all tokens have been minted already, and are just | being distributed. If it's the case that nodes who stake | more coins are getting paid more coins, then all of my | analysis holds. | sibeliuss wrote: | > If it's the case that nodes who stake more coins are | getting paid more coins, then all of my analysis holds | | Thats fine, but it's an important clarification. All the | tokens _have_ been minted already, and _are_ just being | distributed. The mechanics are different. Owning 1 coin | is one potential vote in a lottery to determine the | validity of a proposed block. This is not the generation | of new coins. | | In any case, regarding nodes and payment, that process is | being phased out by their new governance model which was | just released the other day: | https://algorand.foundation/the-algo/algo-governance. | jude- wrote: | I'm glad we agree, then, that Algorand is just as | vulnerable as all the rest of the PoS systems. | dlubarov wrote: | It seems like your contention is that PoS coins are | priced based on discounted cash flow, correct? I think | that's a reasonable model, but it's hardly unique to PoS | coins, and it doesn't really seem problematic. | | > the system is only as resilient as the nodes run by the | people who bought in initially | | This point applies to any assets that generate cash flow, | like stocks, yet they seem to have plenty of trading | volume. And looking at some numbers on CoinMarketCap, it | doesn't seem like PoS coins have lower trading volume | than PoW coins. As one example, XTZ seems to have ~double | BTC's turnover in the past 24h. | | > these folks believed the coins are worth less than what | you're buying them for, which doesn't bode well for you | as the buyer | | This could be said about most assets, even ones without | cash flow like PoW coins. In practice there are other | reasons for selling, like wanting to offset gains/losses | for tax purposes, or wanting to buy food. | jude- wrote: | > It seems like your contention is that PoS coins are | priced based on discounted cash flow, correct? I think | that's a reasonable model, but it's hardly unique to PoS | coins, and it doesn't really seem problematic. | | It's very problematic if the system's liveness is tied to | owning a coin. If I can knock PoS nodes offline, I can | not only cause a quorum failure, but also I can cause the | offline nodes's coins to get slashed (which is usually | how PoS chains deal with this problem). Moreover, there's | no recovery from this -- the temporarily-offline nodes | are forever slashed, even if they come online later. | (EDIT: I'm not limited to knocking nodes offline -- if I | can commandeer them through a zero-day, the effect is the | same: I make your nodes commit a slashable offense). | | Contrast this to PoW, where even if you manage to knock a | majority of miners offline, you ultimately have to _keep | them offline_ in order to prevent them from later | generating and broadcasting a better chain than the one | you want to exist. Even if you can _physically destroy_ | the majority of miners, the chain still lives on, and new | miners can be built and brought online elsewhere. | | > This point applies to any assets that generate cash | flow, like stocks, yet they seem to have plenty of | trading volume | | Trading volume is easily faked in crypto-land -- a whale | just sends coins to themselves. I'd like to see some hard | evidence that the volumes are not from wash-trading. | Also, this isn't relevant at all to the system's | resilience. | | > In practice there are other reasons for selling, like | wanting to offset gains/losses for tax purposes, or | wanting to buy food. | | I didn't say you don't sell coins. I said you don't sell | enough of them that the buyer can use them to increase | their rate of coin production. | RhodoGSA wrote: | Thanks for this little tangent, it was pretty | informative. what's your opinions on nominated proof of | stake? | SkyMarshal wrote: | PoW is anchored in some real-world value, the cost of | electricity. PoS is not. Most of PoW's security and tamper- | resistance advantages derive from that characteristic. | yokem55 wrote: | Ultimately, proof of stake has the same property. The | value of the network that the stake protects is rooted in | some kind of real world value. The tokens from the | network can be traded for fiat money that is worth | something. So, unless the value of the network being | protected falls to zero, the stakes themselves are worth | something. An attack on a proof of stake network still | requires the resources to procure the attacking stakes. | So, you still have a direct relationship between the item | being protected and the cost of the protection. | yokem55 wrote: | I would add - by focusing on using the economic value of | electricity and stacks of special semiconductors to | secure your network, you actually are making the network | vulnerable to folks that can effectively create arbitrage | on those specific narrow resources. In contrast, proof of | stake can leverage a much broader range of economic | resources that have far fewer arbitrage opportunities. | fossuser wrote: | This is the best (and also approachable well-written) book | on the topic that I've found: | https://bitcoinbook.cs.princeton.edu/ | | My (possibly incorrect) understanding is that POW is | computationally expensive because that large investment of | computation is what creates a chain of successive blocks | (the blockchain). This prevents someone from rewriting | history of transactions on the public chain (which would | allow them to 'double-spend' or to take their money back). | | POW currencies are guaranteed to prevent this kind of abuse | unless any individual entity is able to get more than 51%. | There's an incentive in addition to this because corrupting | the integrity of the network would also devalue the | currency. Larger networks (like BTC) are harder to do a | hostile take over of because it's harder to get that much | compute (though mining centralization is a risk). | | POS relies on some variant individuals 'staking' coins to | enable transactions, this means putting them up in escrow | sort of in the network (they are paid small fees for this | based on how much they stake) and if abuse is attempted, | the system takes those staked coins away. There are no | mathematical guarantees outside of this incentive. | | POS is not as standardized across different currencies so I | may be missing important bits in my understanding. | plokiju wrote: | > POW currencies are guaranteed to prevent this kind of | abuse unless any individual entity is able to get more | than 51%. There's an incentive in addition to this | because corrupting the integrity of the network would | also devalue the currency. Larger networks (like BTC) are | harder to do a hostile take over of because it's harder | to get that much compute (though mining centralization is | a risk). | | Couldn't this be re-written as: | | > POS currencies are guaranteed to prevent this kind of | abuse unless any individual entity is able to get more | than 51% of the staked currency. There's an incentive in | addition to this because corrupting the integrity of the | network would also devalue the currency. Larger networks | (like ETH) are harder to do a hostile take over of | because it's harder to get that much stake (though | validator centralization is a risk). | | My (non-expert) interpretation is that staking is just an | abstraction of mining, and they are secured by the same | incentive system | fossuser wrote: | This comment above does a better job than I did at | explaining why the staking incentive is somewhat flawed: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26810686 | plokiju wrote: | > PoS is closed-membership with a veneer of open- | membership, because the means of coin production are tied | to owning a coin already. What this means in practice is | that no rational coin-owner is going to sell you coins at | a fast enough rate that you'll be able to increase your | means of coin production | | It seems to me like they're arguing that PoW is more | egalitarian/decentralized, which may be a fair point. But | using the same argument, attackers being forced to buy | stake in the open market should make PoS even more secure | against 51% attacks than PoW. | | I think this is a good post explaining the tradeoffs: | https://vitalik.ca/general/2020/11/06/pos2020.html | jude- wrote: | Why would they need to buy 51% stake? Just buy x% and | then knock the remaining staking nodes offline so that | less than 2x% stake remains participating. That's often | much cheaper. | skybrian wrote: | Well, "direct listing" apparently. I don't think that counts as | an IPO since there's no offering? | | It seems not to be trading yet, or at least Google and Yahoo | don't have it. | tenaciousDaniel wrote: | Fidelity doesn't have it yet either. It gives an error, | something about not being able to purchase it until its on the | secondary market. | thefourthchime wrote: | I came here with the same question. When is this thing | actually going live? | _u wrote: | Precise timing isn't clear yet. MarketWatch hints to 1:30PM | Eastern Time as a possibility | teddyg1 wrote: | It's live now (as of 1:40pm Eastern). | unreal37 wrote: | "early afternoon" is when people expect the first trades to | hit. | Hnrobert42 wrote: | "Additionally, it's worth celebrating that Coinbase was always a | good business, i.e. it always made money." | | Why is that worth celebrating? A company made money. That is what | companies are created to do. I suppose if you invested in | Coinbase, you could celebrate it. Otherwise, who cares? | dang wrote: | It's a big internet cliche to boo companies that don't (yet) | make money. The flip side would be to yay companies that do. | | Not that many humans are consistent in that way, but someone | out there must be! | Hnrobert42 wrote: | I also don't care about companies that don't make money. | endisneigh wrote: | It will be interesting to see how Coinbase performs compared to a | weighted average of the top 3 cryptos directly. | | Anyway, Coinbase is a good case study on how UX/UI makes all the | difference. I'll definitely study them in the future. | ignoramous wrote: | I believe Karri Saarinen was the founding designer at Coinbase, | and here's a relevant blog entry from them: | https://karrisaarinen.com/posts/designing-coinbase/ | | See also: Metalab's showcase of their collab with the Coinbase | design team: https://projects.metalab.com/coinbase | enraged_camel wrote: | A friend of mine knows several "movers and shakers" in the | crypto space, and he says they're all going to invest heavily | in COIN stock because they understand that everyone else views | it as a proxy for crypto in general. | | edit: why the downvotes? | hanniabu wrote: | Can't wait for another 100 P/E ratio stock /s | sowbug wrote: | I didn't vote, but I would guess that the downvotes are | because your post is indistinguishable from pump-and-dump | posts on trading forums. | exdsq wrote: | I imagine it should be tightly correlated. Saying this, the | stock market is a lot more regulated and has a different type | of investor so I think it will end up being much more stable | and less correlated. | capableweb wrote: | I predict a slow, constant increase in value over time, not | even going down when cryptocurrencies are going down, as people | still want to buy/sell cryptocurrencies when prices go down, so | Coinbase will still make a killing as a company no matter what. | cj wrote: | > as people still want to buy/sell cryptocurrencies when | prices go down | | Is this true? | | If you look back at the price graphs, there's typically a | huge run up every 1-3 years, followed by a crash, followed by | another run up 1-3 years later. We're in the middle of a run | up. | | The run up is when people get excited and buy. After the | crash, I would guess that enthusiasm about crypto will | lessen, until the next run up. | | I think this is somewhat supported by the fact that | Coinbase's most recent quarter brought in an insanely higher | amount of revenue compared with previous quarters before the | latest run up. | capableweb wrote: | > Is this true? | | Yes. Go here: https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/ and select | before February this year (big spike in volume) and look at | the transaction volume chart below the price chart. | Steadily increasing rather than jumping, going down and | jumping again. I'm guessing transaction volume for Coinbase | looks the same way, as people need fiat money for | cryptocurrencies and others place fiat money in | cryptocurrencies no matter if the price goes up or down. | blockchainman wrote: | Congratulations to coinbase and the team ! Crypto and blockchain | technology are the 800 pound gorilla that will disrupt everything | in society ! We are coming ! ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-04-14 23:00 UTC)