The graphs show that, with the possible exception of the Centralized exchanges, there's more revenue out than in. On the protocol level (though I didn't see the Centralized exchange protocols in the graphs), on the Decentralized exchange level, etcetera.
Basically all of crypto except the goldpan and pickaxe sellers, and some rare gold miners and gold traders, are as deeply in the red as Charlie Javice's startups.
Not mentioned in the article of graphs is that if this ever isn't the case it becomes more and more likely that a Sybil attack would become worthwhile. To protect against a Sybil attack you need to keep the value of the coins needed for a Sybil attack at greater than the total value of each protocol. I guess this is also the case for regular companies, with P/E greater than 1, and a marketcap greater than the liquidation (not enterprise) value of the company.
But it also means that people can't all cash out at once, only at a trickle. For publicly held companies a larger company, or a billionaire, can buy out all shareholders at the current share price. But for crypto most of the value of the coins or tokens are that other people are willing to buy them at the current price. If someone buys out all of the tokens for a protocol it automatically loses its value. If crypto ever is used primarily as a currency maybe you don't need to cash out, but that's a big IF.
These charts showed me that publicly held crypto really is a ponzi-like scheme.
I think the original author's point is that there is still quite a bit of activity and apparent unique users on most of the protocols. However I'm not sure how they validate that apparent users are actual users. Regardless, the actual activity isn't being faked as long as the blockchains are functioning as blockchains. So at a minimum you're still getting a certain amount of fees (in terms of internal crypto tokens) generated daily for the protocols.
> For publicly held companies a larger company, or a billionaire, can buy out all shareholders at the current share price.
That's not accurate, most shareholders aren't selling at the current price (or this price would be lower), that's why buying another company means paying a premium over the current share price.
Basically all of crypto except the goldpan and pickaxe sellers, and some rare gold miners and gold traders, are as deeply in the red as Charlie Javice's startups.
Not mentioned in the article of graphs is that if this ever isn't the case it becomes more and more likely that a Sybil attack would become worthwhile. To protect against a Sybil attack you need to keep the value of the coins needed for a Sybil attack at greater than the total value of each protocol. I guess this is also the case for regular companies, with P/E greater than 1, and a marketcap greater than the liquidation (not enterprise) value of the company.
But it also means that people can't all cash out at once, only at a trickle. For publicly held companies a larger company, or a billionaire, can buy out all shareholders at the current share price. But for crypto most of the value of the coins or tokens are that other people are willing to buy them at the current price. If someone buys out all of the tokens for a protocol it automatically loses its value. If crypto ever is used primarily as a currency maybe you don't need to cash out, but that's a big IF.
These charts showed me that publicly held crypto really is a ponzi-like scheme.
reply