Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 1951. (Read 3314330 times)

Aye, there is. But by then, the pie will be much bigger. The real economies of both BTC and XMR will be much more than a small handful of enterprises.

There is a pretty good chance that monero will take over a good portion of what you are calling the "real economy" of btc.

My Long-Term Outlook:

Bulls are unable to protect $300 BTCUSD or $1 XMRUSD price levels. Now XMR and BTC must look to their "real economies" (non-speculative uses) as baseline support. Because XMR and BTC both have double-digit supply inflation, their real economies must expand at a triple-digit rate to safely overcome supply inflation. Let's look at the real economies.

XMR's real economy is driven mostly by Crypto-Kingdom.
BTC's real economy is driven mostly by Silk Road's descendants. (NOT Coinbase, Bitpay, Dell, Microsoft -- they don't soak up supply. They juggle bitcoins and then throw them back onto the market.)

Silk Road's descendants are not transparent so it is difficult to measure this economy's expansion. We can see that the number of listings has increased, but not at triple-digit rates. Crypto-Kingdom is more transparent. Its growth is good, but maintaining a triple-digit growth rate of players and economy will be difficult. Without the bulls on our side, we have to prepare for a long, drawn-out decline to baseline support, where almost no one wants BTC and XMR except for Silk Road users and Crypto-Kingdom players. Where they are the only people standing between oversold price levels and oblivion.

In 2021, the inflation situation will be reversed. Bitcoin and Monero's supply inflation will be down to single-digits (closer to 2-3%), but their real economies will likely be expanding at double-digit rates. Sometime between 2015 and 2021, the pin will drop. We don't need to defeat the bears. We only have to survive them.

It's interesting that the orderbook always has so much more liquidity on the buy side than the sell side even in times when clearly supply and demand are clearing with each other rather equitably (such as over the last couple weeks where we have been hovering in a 0.003-0.004 range). If there were really so many more buyers than sellers than we would not be trading in a range we would be going up. So the sellers are out there, they are just not accounted for on the order book. Any idea why?

Enough eMunie unless there is an actual (open source) product to examine or at least a paper to read. Otherwise it is irrelevant to
Monero. Zero posts deleted

You might want to recheck the assumptions as the theory in its essence is that there should be just enough supply to meet demand and no more.  Therefore, the goal of the system isn't to manipulate demand through supply, but merely to meet the needs of demand dynamically so as to produce a fairly stable price level and, accordingly, dampen as much as possible the price volatility. 

With pretty much every crypto you have 2 levers you can pull:  Price or Volume.

Bitcoin and pretty much all others use a fixed volume method (albeit with a programmed inflationary model)

eMunie uses a (relatively) fixed price model (with cavets) and senses the volume needed to allow business to be conducted.

There's obviously more to it than the above, but this is the economic method in simplistic terms.   

I haven't even begun to articulate the blockless transaction-forest model and how it is a supremely monumental innovation.

What I mean is the notion that when demand falls supply must increase is flawed. Supply can be so low that demand actually falls. In the context of supply chain management where you operate within a most times rather simple system compared to the world economy, sure you can manage it. My objection is to apply it to what we are talking about here. The notion that in an economy you can manipulate demand through supply is flawed. Just look at the QE happening. It is supposed to stimulate the economy, but it doesn't reach the goal because there is not a lot of confidence. You are ignoring other factors.

That doesn't mean I do not appreciate the efforts undertaken in trying it out.

I have a degree in Supply Chain Operations and 20+ years of experience.  I don't think that managing it is broken.  There's a whole world out there that's been doing it for decades.  You should check out APICS and their knowledge on the application of it.

We agree on the premise that up until now implementation of it has been flawed. But I conjecture you fail to see that you will fail too. Why? Because humans! Don't see yourself above that...Supply/Demand is broken too.

That is part of the concept in Nassim Talebs Anti-fragility. You must have these natural swings of volatility. If you suppress it it causes a major boom, instead of several smaller self-correcting ones.

Stable prices as a goal is extremely myopic.



Well that came crashing down quick with intervention.

Lost of discussion on eMunie. What would you like to know?

As for the inference that MV=PQ is broken and/or pseudo-science, that's not the entire the story. 

The theory is sound, but all prior implementations have been flawed.  Why?  Humans!   The only way to efficiently and accurately control supply prior to emunie was to have a central governing body analyze hundreds of reports on the economic health and these reports are generally delayed in their ability to provide "timely" information (e.g. months or quarters old since it takes a while to collect and distribute).  Accordingly, these delays add a whipsaw/bullwhip effect when utilized for monetary policy since they are acting with imperfect information. 

With a systemic method of monitor/response the ecosystem can maintain the supply/demand balance much more rationally.

In a way, because the economy was so successful that the banksters went desperate in their foment for war, and succeeded.

Cf. now - Internet and knowledge economy is such a success that there is no other way than go full berserk using the main bankster tool USA as the main terror engine.

Mankind as 10% of the Europeans and 10% of USA?

Also i am not sure if i would like to imitate it since arguably that economy lead to WW1...

what about

The golden age of mankind in my understanding was about 1870-1912. The prices were not stable, there were +/- 30% moves annually based on natural factors, but the trend was that money (gold) gained purchasing power about 0.5% per year.

Since that is pretty much the only period in history when money has gained purchasing power, and I also happen to hold it as the best and most worthy of imitation, I also support the idea that money should increase in value.

It of course increases in value only if the economy using that money grows faster than the money supply.

Not only holding values constant, it's a too simplistic observation that doesn't take into account other variables. Such as confidence in the government, or in p2p world confidence in the dev team or community. We see it in central banking. We have seen QE in USD for a long time now, and people keep screaming for hyperinflation but miss the context that it's a reserve currency, and the largest debt market. Money flow in and out of countries and currencies. It's not about the supply as much as it's about confidence. (and note the 'supply' of use is mainly through debt which has to be repaid).
If you can't make inferences from it, does it have any use?

As to the actual emunie, you can't know all variables within the economy at all times. It is hubris and disingenuous claiming so. The goal of price-stability being worthwhile is highly debatable, as that exactly doesn't take into account all other variables. Price stability over what? A day? A week? A month? 10 years? 1000?

Even? There is just as much pseudo science here as anywhere else.

There is nothing wrong with MV=PQ. It is a tautology though. The issue comes when people try to make inferences using it, often holding values constant when they should not be.

Well, actually I don't know, but it would make a lot of sense. I wonder if there is one equation that fits ? How would you take into account economic reality is distorted and manipulated by "the vile maxim of the masters of mankind" ?   

Aren't we just in these days worldwide witnessing that the equation is rather stupid and doesn't fit? It is pseudo science (and wrong at that even).

Why is this simplistic economic equation MV=PQ so popular, even among many bitcoiners ? It's pseudo science in my opinion.