Is crypto a zero sum game?

At this point in time it does not apply to Crypto. Overall marketcap growth is well above the rate of inflation. What we can infer then, us that more money is coming in, than going out. This will be the state for the better part of a decade, more or less. This is a burgeoning industry, meaning even competitors can both win, looking at you VEN/WTC, because, money will come from outside the cryptosphere. This will not become zero sum for many years. IMO

sum ting wong?

For what? How many coins are out there that actually entitle you to anything the company owns? In America that kind of backdoor issuance of securities is going to get you taken down by the SEC.

Money/cash is not wealth in the sense that only goods and services can be wealth.

Money is a piece of paper that says you own a certain amount goods and services.

A stock certificate is a piece of paper that says you own a certain amount of goods and services, specifically the ones that make up the company.

The company doesn't need to liquidate for you to get the money, the stock says that you already have the money, just holding the stock is like holding money.

This is wrong, if the market cap was always the same, adjusted for inflation, that would be zero sum, but that isnt the case. The entire market is growing, therefore, not zero sum.

well if the coin is the product then you own part of the product but obviously its not any legal ownership like with stocks

Companies with big cash flow will never go bankrupt, its pretty much free money
If they offer high dividends and have large cash flow, you should just buy and hold until otherwise

With bonds going down, I really dont know where income investors will turn to, dividend paying stocks or riskier fixed income?

It's not zero sum, the price of cryptos (not in $, but in ability to purchase products) is unlimited.

Even with full adoption everyone could win, given productive growth.

Only situations of zero sum are short term trades, long term is not zero sum at all.

The law of conservation doesn't apply in finances if that's your question. The conservation law for money is violated by fractional reserve banking and central banks. The central bank is the source of money, it is amplified by fractional reserve lending at the banks, and there are several sinks, which consist of assets that drop in value, most spectacularly, a loan default. The economy just moves money from the sources to the sinks, and the rate at which it moves the money from player to player determines the income of the players. This would apply as well to the crypto market because it is strictly tied to the real financial market.

No, the stock market and investing in general is not a zero sum game. Some types of trades are zero sum because of the nature of the trade. But someone isn't necessarily losing when you gain in the sale of a stock or other security.

The stock itself has no connection to the company's actual assets in that scenario up until the point that they go bankrupt. The only thing that was added to his accounting of value in that scenario was that the company, not a party to this transaction, has $50. You do not necessarily have a real full ownership claim to their $50 profit, in most cases it is very likely that you would have a relatively small ownership claim on it. I could just as easily trade a note that says it carries the value of my neighbor's bank account with other people. We could all effectively make bets on the fluctuating value of my neighbor's earnings, but if his earnings suddenly crash and he becomes homeless the last person holding the note is going to incur those losses on the worthless bet ALONG WITH my neighbor.

We are a team of highly dedicated members hell bent on capturing the cryptocurrency scene. Be a part of it or miss out big time,.

discord dot gg/TEADGGw

>The stock itself has no connection to the company's actual assets in that scenario up until the point that they go bankrupt.

You could also say that Money itself has no connection to actual goods until the point you actually buy something.

>We could all effectively make bets on the fluctuating value of my neighbor's earning

Yeah, money is also like a bet you are having with the whole world.

Money is a derivative of physical goods and wealth, stocks are a derivative of money, options contracts and synthetic funds are a derivative of stocks. They are all bets places on the next underlying representation of wealth.

Saw the video, he ignores the fact that proper allocation of wealth does make society as a whole wealthier.

Would putting millions of dollars into a company that digs holes and fills them up again make people richer?

What if instead we put all those millions of dollars into a company that offers cheap clothes/food due to great management, infrastructure and know-how of the industry?

If you only consider the side-effect of stock ownership, as I said here even full adoption would lead to purchasing power growth due to productive improvements in society, but if you consider how important proper allocation of wealth is then stocks are not only not zero sum, they're the most relevant economic invention in history.

>It'll be another 2-3 years before this is more widespread and this mentality of "cashing out" will kindly fuck off forever
Lmao

lets say you go on vacation to europe and then come back home with some euros
when you convert it into USD, do you call that action "cashing out"?
no.
it will be the same

By the way in addition to my post :
Let's suppose we don't tie the crypto market to the real financial market.
Let's say A got a bitcoin via mining and it has a worth, for example the used electricity to mine it. Now A wants to sell it at an exchange, but accidently sends it to a wrong address. The bitcoin is forever lost. Still its price would theoretically stay the same as coinmarketcap and the whole community only know how much coins got mined. They think the market capital is that of mined coins * the mining cost. In fact it must slightly be higher to due deflation, but because nobody knows it and it is not recoverable the price doesn't change. However A lost the mining cost. As you can see the whole outcome would be negative instead of 0.

companies use profits to pay dividends and do buy-backs, so no its not zero-sum

Lmao. Do you also think people buy stocks to "support le company" instead of selling later at a higher price.

People do it for self-interest but they do make society better through it.

When people buy stocks they're banking on the company making good use of those resources to serve society with their product/services, almost nobody invests in something they know for sure it's not going to help anyone because that is worthless.

>You could also say that Money itself has no connection to actual goods until the point you actually buy something.

Sure, but money isn't an investment. Investments are things that can produce value through profits. A profit for any isolated economic entity involve money exogenous to the closed system they might represent coming in to cover their costs. If you take the stock market as the closed system, if everybody's profit is another person's cost then you're defining a zero sum game. It doesn't matter if it goes on indefinitely, though that would probably imply that people have been losing continuously in the process. If everybody has been profiting, the market would also by definition be always rising.

>almost nobody invests in something they know for sure it's not going to help anyone because that is worthless.
that's not true at all
companies that exploit some people and the environment to make a profit are some of the best investments
it doesn't even matter if what they produce may or may not help some other group of people

Wow, an actual response (kind of). No, I don't. Stocks have always been a speculative instrument although there are people who hold individual stocks over indexes for various reasons.

Crypto represents an entirely new economic platform that has never existed before. That is global, decentralized, trustless, and secure. I know most of you don't even know what a blockchain is or how economies have shifted over history so ignorance on the subject isn't at all surprising. Black Swan events are only obvious after the fact.

> fiat deposit 10% fees
> exchange fees for orders and withdrawal
> fiat withdrawak 10%
Actually, crypto is a negative sum game

BTW, this does also mean the economy itself would be a zero sum game if the money supply was absolutely fixed, because somebody's savings would always be somebody else's loss. Ultimately the costs of consumers fueling profits of companies comes from the companies paying consumers as workers. To some extent monetary flows can increase the effective power of 1 unit of currency to generate profits for multiple different economic actors.

The only reason it isn't is because either the domestic economy has a current account surplus, or because the government is printing money, or because private credit is expanding.

How do they make profit if not by serving society?

Does Inditex use cheap labor in Cambodia? Yeah. Does that make my clothes cheaper than if they were made in Stocholm? For sure. Is the Cambodian sewing "yolo" on a shirt earning more than teachers and public workers in Cambodia, and is he better off thanks to this factory than he was before when all he had was a farm to work 18hrs in getting his back destroyed? Yes.

Environmental abuses are not a good investment btw, at least not when known, multiple evidences of this.

>Crypto represents an entirely new economic platform that has never existed before. That is global, decentralized, trustless, and secure. I know most of you don't even know what a blockchain is or how economies have shifted over history so ignorance on the subject isn't at all surprising. Black Swan events are only obvious after the fact.

>How do they make profit if not by serving society?
maybe they make expensive widgets for rich people
maybe they sell insurance to people and never pay out claims because it's more profitable that way

all fossil fuel extraction exploits the environment, but that's quite a profitable industry

...

>maybe they make expensive widgets for rich people
When I say serve society I don't mean serving society as a whole, but serving people in general, making them better off by offering them something they want/need at the most competitive price possible.

Offering burgers for 1$ is a huge advance for society when compared to famines 3 centuries ago, even if you don't eat hamburgers you can appreciate that.

>maybe they sell insurance to people and never pay out claims because it's more profitable that way
Would you get an insurance that never pays out claims? Would you invest in an insurance getting fudded for never paying out claims?

Don't get me wrong, there's opportunities to make money in these sort of quick scams, but it's absolutely irrelevant in the scope of the market.

>all fossil fuel extraction exploits the environment, but that's quite a profitable industry

And they provide cheap energy to millions of people in the world. They're not profitable for exploiting the planet, they're profitable for serving people. The alternative would be expensive energy which would increase the price of all products which would make us all more poor.