LOL. Let's not be overdramatic here. The total market cap of the S&P500 was $40T at the end of 2021. A $1T loss on that is a drop of about 2.5%. Would a drop of 2.5% cause chaos? No, it would be a big down day and might cause some concern, but Great Depression levels? *eyeroll*

Any implementation would use an L2 solution like Lightning network, which scales up to 100k tps. But you do you and just keep spreading your FUD.

Still better than the crap that passes for "modern art".

What makes you think cryptos won't do the same after they get out of their growth phase?

Some tokens are specifically for voting, other tokens carry voting rights that allow the holders to determine whether a proposed change to the protocol takes place. This has nothing to do with miners.

I've bolded the parts of your reply that I disagree with. The cryptoasset space is not about replacing currencies anymore. That may have been the original vision 14 years ago, but that's no longer the case. At this point, many cryptoassets represent usage / governance / rights-to-earnings from open, permissionless, distributed protocols. They are probably better compared to venture-stage companies (which explains their volatility), though that's not a completely accurate comparison. They represent a potential new asset class that blends characteristics of stocks, bonds, foreign exchange, and commodities.

I wish I had mod points to mod you (-1, uninformed luddite fudster), but in lieu of that...

Many stocks -- notably growth stocks -- don't pay dividends. Crypto is an emerging asset class, so it's reasonable that most don't pay dividends. That said, there are a number of cryptoassets that provide some form of passive income.

Cryptoassets are such a broad asset class that it's dangerous to generalize. Some cryptos don't offer voting rights, others do.

In a bankruptcy, creditors might get something but usually shareholders get wiped out and get nothing. If you own shares in a bankrupt company, try showing up at company headquarters waving your stock certificate and demanding your share of the office furniture.

Wrong again. Some cryptoassets (notably DeFi tokens) provide the ability for holders to collect proceeds from ongoing operations. And of course, for many cryptoassets, the coin/token is the right to use the network. As demand increases, the price will go up since supply is generally less elastic.

The main problem is that you have no idea what you're talking about. What you said may have been true 8-10 years ago, but the space has evolved a lot since then. Sadly, your talking points have not.

To be fair, he could just be completely ignorant. Lack of knowledge seldom stops people from acting like they have justifiable opinions.

That phrase is not nearly as clever as you think it is.

That's not what a Ponzi scheme is. What you described is typically called a pump-and-dump.

Swords will f*cking cut you wide open!. Never touch swords!

Not disagreeing with you, but all of that data is pre-Omicron. So it doesn't show what you claim it shows.

The loans I'm familiar with are over-collateralized. So you deposit your $X of BTC and can then borrow say 0.4 * $X of any coin you want, including more BTC. If the value of your collateral drops relative to the value of what you've borrowed, the collateral automatically gets sold to cover the loan.

Trading on margin works the same way -- the code is constantly evaluating your PnL relative to the value of your collateral and liquidating your collateral if necessary.

1.4^5 = 5.37. That's more than a quadrupling.

Nah, we're in a post-truth world. The narrative is more important than the facts. As long as you can defend your opinion, it's correct.

Are you talking about BTC or USD?

You're right that a single game company can support items across all of its games. But if you want to support items across games by different companies -- especially if one of those companies is now out of business -- then you need to have some kind of solution for that. A third-party centralized database that everyone agrees to use is one option, a decentralized database owned by the community is another.

For me, the hard part to get around is how the incentives work out so that everyone agrees to use NFTs (with "true ownership" (tm), tradeability in multiple open marketplaces) in games as opposed to something that gives them many of the same benefits (e.g. (fake) "ownership" across multiple games by the same publisher, tradeability in a single publisher-owned marketplace) but the publishers keep most of the control. Ultimately, I think this is going to come down to how good the NFT-based games are. Having true NFTs is a benefit over NFT-like features, but not such a huge benefit that you'd be wiling to play the equivalent of Tux Racer instead of Forza.