New study detects lottery-like behavior in cryptocurrency markets
It makes sense.<p>In my experience the primary goal for most crypto holders is to be a part of a new elite. This is why the most popular currencies have a fixed supply. That way, if they&#x27;re popular earlier adopters get to be a part of the elite. With such a premise it makes sense to treat crypto like the lottery as the gain&#x2F;loss likelihood is very similar to say, Mega Millions.<p>I do see value in a crypto that&#x27;s pinned at a weighted average of every single currencies&#x27; worldwide weight. That way you get the advantage of crypto, but it&#x27;s a perfectly stable currency. Needless to say, <i>very</i> few people at least on HN have bragged about owning an inflationary crypto currency. Why? Because they&#x27;re not getting rich nor is there an opportunity for them to be a part of the techno-elite.<p>My biggest concern is a fixed-supply currency gives no government the ability to provide stimulus if necessary. Many advocates argue that governments shouldn&#x27;t provide stimulus but history shows that&#x27;s generally a terrible idea (the gold standard, for example, contributed in some ways to The Great Depression).<p>EDIT: I don&#x27;t feel like responding individually, but I will say that I&#x27;ve read both the Bitcoin and Ethereum whitepaper and there&#x27;s nothing about grievances of traditional governments usage of printing of their currencies.<p>I feel that the &quot;that&#x27;s a feature&quot; is more a post-hoc rationalization that allows one to say they&#x27;re in the right while simultaneously benefiting early adopters. Regardless, every government in world history that&#x27;s pinned their currency to something that&#x27;s relatively fixed has had a severe depression with some part of that depression being contributed to said pinning. It&#x27;s just not good economics. Feel free to respond with a contrary example if you&#x27;d like.