I'm a big fan and been investing in crypto since 2016 and love to read proper arguments and critic against crypto. This was hella refreshing. I was stumbling upon Bens channel like 6 months ago and watched literally all of his videos in preparation to leave the crypto space altogether over the next 24 months and enter stocks. This video was the best critizicing content I've seen about crypto to date. Love your content Ben!
I love that views, opinions and thoughts were properly expressed in this video, Points and facts noted as well, Crypto is a vast uprising technology together with blockchain. DeFi truly expands to create more financial products making them available to users. I would love to add that Bonds is an addition that will do well too and DeBond is one of the pioneers pushing these assets to the lights with the use of ERC 3475.
Great discussion as always. It seems like you guys are getting better and better at this topic and questions around it--and as a listener/learner, I think that helps me. (Long way of saying "Thank you!"). I really appreciated the way Prof. Allen presented the cons/risks--she seems a lot less caustic than others (who I also respect), but I'm discovering that it's easier to get through my filters without the animation from the speaker. One nit: The idea that computer scientists just want to play with toys (block chain, etc.) is a little insulting (technologists have produced some pretty impressive, ...um, "toys"...I'm watching this on at least a few of them and typing too.) That said, maybe it's just that I'm not mature enough to admit that I enjoy toys as much as the next grown child. Ok, I need to make a call on another of those toys that regulators struggled with in the past.... Thanks again!
Good interview, and 2 episodes a week has been great. One bit of feedback, which you can take with a grain of salt. I've been watching a lot of Steve Paikin interviews lately, and really consider him the gold standard for interviewing as 1) I can never tell what his personal position is in any interview or debate he's moderating, and 2) he's able to politely play devil's advocate with everyone, which rather than seeming combative, can actually help people explain or clarify their points to make them more convincing. At 43:30 I could almost hear Steve Paikin interrupting and saying "How do you reconcile that point with the fact people have committed suicide because they lost money picking individual stocks and using stock options? Are you also in favour of banning those services for retail investors, as well, or why do you make a distinction?" Without that clarification it sounds like she's making a bad faith argument, holding crypto and traditional banking to completely different standards. Obviously you guys have your interview style and give the guests a lot of space to talk, but it struck me as a good example of where a little bit of push back and going off script for a moment would actually help your guest clarify their point, while also probably drawing more a positive response from viewers who are pro-crypto.
Respectfully, I disagree. Interrupting the guest will be interpreted by the guest (rightfully so) as disrespectful and lead to a more combatative environment that is less useful for relaying information to us. Furthermore, Ben and Cameron already have extensively discussed why people should not day trade or buy options. Minimizing the recent wave of suicides by people "invested" in crypto for balance is a bit ridiculous.
Not to mention that traditional financial entities holding assets for clients where the underlay assets decrease in value is not really comparable to the recent wave of crypto companies seizing the clients' assets regardless of the change in the underlying values of the securities to pay off their own debts.
@@kylelynch2315 Politicizing suicides and arguing for a ban of all crypto because of scams seems intellectually dishonest unless you also advocate for a global ban of gold mining stocks because of Bre-X.
So glad you guys are doing this series. When I was googling crypto in 2020 I couldn’t find any constructive criticism that satisfied me. I’ve shared this series with friends and family. I hope the word gets out so crypto doesn’t turn into another bubble.
Won’t get into crypto now but I do wish I had bought many years ago. But then I’d be taking advantage of the greater fools as I became wealthy at their foolishness.
@@Dwightchang443 Buying a productive asset has nothing to do with the greater fool theory. The greater fool theory is about buying something that only has value because someone else might buy it from you for a higher price. If bitcoin started at $1 per bitcoin and it always stayed at $1 per bitcoin. Would you buy it? If bitcoin started at $100000 per bitcoin and it went down the last 10 years. Would you buy it?
It seems those you label as foolish are the one getting more wealthy! 😂😂😂 In purpose of long term capital preservation for the last 10-15 years which do you think has improved purchasing power?😂😂😂
Crypto is still a relatively new concept/technology (compared to the legacy system) which makes it easy to criticize as there are a ton of issues. It’ll be interesting to see if bc it’s creating so many issues if it goes away forever or if it can keep evolving. Not a fan of Bitcoin/etherium for a lot of things mentioned here and on previous episodes, but hopefully other chains can improve and learn from these problems
Things I would like to see on the podcast if possible: 1) Fintech entrepreneur with a negative stance on crypto as a guest 2)A Discussion on China's Digital currency implementation (pro/cons) and if cryptocurrency poses a "threat" 3) Thoughts on physical cash being used at all (in developed countries) in the next 50 years 4) Thought on crypto being too ahead of its time being that it is a "solution to no real problems" 5) Follow up question to Q4^ - if you were to describe the financial system 1000 years from now what would be your best guess
With all due respect to the guest and interviewers, but I genuinely do not think that Prof Hilary has presented a balanced view despite what the video description says. This is my 2nd video in the series (first one being with Prof Campbell who is supposedly pro-crypto) and while I do intend to watch the other videos on the topic, the guests (so far) come across as too one-sided in their viewpoints. Also, it doesn't help that the interviewers seem to have an inherent bias towards the space which is evident by the expressions made whenever negative things are said about the space and also, their stance in the recent podcast with The Plain Bagel. This is not to say that the points raised by Prof Hilary aren't without merit/substance and they do exist. No industry is perfect, not least one that is only 1+ year old (Defi). The conversation can sometimes be abit nuanced. It would have been good if there were some 'pushbacks' to (some) of the points raised by Prof Hilary (and other guests). Also, I noticed that the podcast seem to be in favour of guests with academic background. In such a new and emerging space (defi), I'm not sure if one's background necessarily translate to having a good grasp of the space. Hope to see guests (with more diversified background) on the topic (pro-crypto or anti-crypto) if the series continues. Examples (off the top of my head) are: Jordi Alexander, Vitalik Buterin, Kevin Zhou, Mike Green, Polynya, Tarun Chitra and Andreas Antonopoulos. They are all excellent thinkers. Far more important than what their background is, imo.
She said Terra had no assets behind it at all, that was wrong even a algorithmic stable coin has a reserve not only did luna have that but it also had a 20 + billion market cap coins sole purpose to back it, that algo just got to big to fast and do kwon the head developer was a egotistical maniac, under better leadership Iuna would be fighting solona and bnb for top 5 status
I think she could explain things a lot better, but then she wouldn't be able to conflate Bitcoin with other crypto and with defi. I wish I had the time to pick her arguments apart, because she twists the truth (people say you can't ban Bitcoin, very few people say you can't ban defi) or throws sowhatisms out there (governance tokens are in the hands of a few people... So are companies... The main feature of defi is not decentralisation, but its algorithmic functionality). People want decentralisation of the monetary layer (BTC, ETH, SOL). Defi is the functionality... Lots of bad things here, of course, but she didn't point out the most important ones imo.
I'm a big fan and been investing in crypto since 2016 and love to read proper arguments and critic against crypto. This was hella refreshing. I was stumbling upon Bens channel like 6 months ago and watched literally all of his videos in preparation to leave the crypto space altogether over the next 24 months and enter stocks. This video was the best critizicing content I've seen about crypto to date. Love your content Ben!
+1
This is eye opening series and this episode is amazing! Prof Hilary perspective is highly needed now.
I love that views, opinions and thoughts were properly expressed in this video, Points and facts noted as well, Crypto is a vast uprising technology together with blockchain. DeFi truly expands to create more financial products making them available to users. I would love to add that Bonds is an addition that will do well too and DeBond is one of the pioneers pushing these assets to the lights with the use of ERC 3475.
Great discussion as always. It seems like you guys are getting better and better at this topic and questions around it--and as a listener/learner, I think that helps me. (Long way of saying "Thank you!"). I really appreciated the way Prof. Allen presented the cons/risks--she seems a lot less caustic than others (who I also respect), but I'm discovering that it's easier to get through my filters without the animation from the speaker.
One nit: The idea that computer scientists just want to play with toys (block chain, etc.) is a little insulting (technologists have produced some pretty impressive, ...um, "toys"...I'm watching this on at least a few of them and typing too.) That said, maybe it's just that I'm not mature enough to admit that I enjoy toys as much as the next grown child. Ok, I need to make a call on another of those toys that regulators struggled with in the past....
Thanks again!
A number of computer scientists have also come out against crypto, including some in the Rational Reminder Community.
Interviews are great but debates are better.
Good interview, and 2 episodes a week has been great.
One bit of feedback, which you can take with a grain of salt. I've been watching a lot of Steve Paikin interviews lately, and really consider him the gold standard for interviewing as 1) I can never tell what his personal position is in any interview or debate he's moderating, and 2) he's able to politely play devil's advocate with everyone, which rather than seeming combative, can actually help people explain or clarify their points to make them more convincing.
At 43:30 I could almost hear Steve Paikin interrupting and saying "How do you reconcile that point with the fact people have committed suicide because they lost money picking individual stocks and using stock options? Are you also in favour of banning those services for retail investors, as well, or why do you make a distinction?" Without that clarification it sounds like she's making a bad faith argument, holding crypto and traditional banking to completely different standards. Obviously you guys have your interview style and give the guests a lot of space to talk, but it struck me as a good example of where a little bit of push back and going off script for a moment would actually help your guest clarify their point, while also probably drawing more a positive response from viewers who are pro-crypto.
Respectfully, I disagree. Interrupting the guest will be interpreted by the guest (rightfully so) as disrespectful and lead to a more combatative environment that is less useful for relaying information to us. Furthermore, Ben and Cameron already have extensively discussed why people should not day trade or buy options. Minimizing the recent wave of suicides by people "invested" in crypto for balance is a bit ridiculous.
Not to mention that traditional financial entities holding assets for clients where the underlay assets decrease in value is not really comparable to the recent wave of crypto companies seizing the clients' assets regardless of the change in the underlying values of the securities to pay off their own debts.
@@kylelynch2315 Politicizing suicides and arguing for a ban of all crypto because of scams seems intellectually dishonest unless you also advocate for a global ban of gold mining stocks because of Bre-X.
So glad you guys are doing this series. When I was googling crypto in 2020 I couldn’t find any constructive criticism that satisfied me. I’ve shared this series with friends and family. I hope the word gets out so crypto doesn’t turn into another bubble.
Great interview, Ben and Cameron!
Won’t get into crypto now but I do wish I had bought many years ago. But then I’d be taking advantage of the greater fools as I became wealthy at their foolishness.
And your time machine is broken. So if you had; you probably would have chosen a coin that went to zero.
ya like the greater fools who bought the Netflix, Roblox, peloton, rivian, snap, etc top
@@Dwightchang443 Buying a productive asset has nothing to do with the greater fool theory. The greater fool theory is about buying something that only has value because someone else might buy it from you for a higher price.
If bitcoin started at $1 per bitcoin and it always stayed at $1 per bitcoin. Would you buy it?
If bitcoin started at $100000 per bitcoin and it went down the last 10 years. Would you buy it?
@@Ferdinand208 like I said, tell that to the guy who bought the top
whether productive or not prices are largely based on psychology
It seems those you label as foolish are the one getting more wealthy! 😂😂😂
In purpose of long term capital preservation for the last 10-15 years which do you think has improved purchasing power?😂😂😂
Crypto is still a relatively new concept/technology (compared to the legacy system) which makes it easy to criticize as there are a ton of issues. It’ll be interesting to see if bc it’s creating so many issues if it goes away forever or if it can keep evolving. Not a fan of Bitcoin/etherium for a lot of things mentioned here and on previous episodes, but hopefully other chains can improve and learn from these problems
Things I would like to see on the podcast if possible:
1) Fintech entrepreneur with a negative stance on crypto as a guest
2)A Discussion on China's Digital currency implementation (pro/cons) and if cryptocurrency poses a "threat"
3) Thoughts on physical cash being used at all (in developed countries) in the next 50 years
4) Thought on crypto being too ahead of its time being that it is a "solution to no real problems"
5) Follow up question to Q4^ - if you were to describe the financial system 1000 years from now what would be your best guess
6) If Cryptocurrency disappears how would cyberattacks (ransomware) look
or interviews with guys big in the crypto community (eg Benjamin Cowen, James from invest answers, etc) .. that would make this truly balanced
Thank you guys for giving us the interview with Ari Juels which addresses some of the above
With all due respect to the guest and interviewers, but I genuinely do not think that Prof Hilary has presented a balanced view despite what the video description says. This is my 2nd video in the series (first one being with Prof Campbell who is supposedly pro-crypto) and while I do intend to watch the other videos on the topic, the guests (so far) come across as too one-sided in their viewpoints. Also, it doesn't help that the interviewers seem to have an inherent bias towards the space which is evident by the expressions made whenever negative things are said about the space and also, their stance in the recent podcast with The Plain Bagel. This is not to say that the points raised by Prof Hilary aren't without merit/substance and they do exist. No industry is perfect, not least one that is only 1+ year old (Defi). The conversation can sometimes be abit nuanced. It would have been good if there were some 'pushbacks' to (some) of the points raised by Prof Hilary (and other guests). Also, I noticed that the podcast seem to be in favour of guests with academic background. In such a new and emerging space (defi), I'm not sure if one's background necessarily translate to having a good grasp of the space. Hope to see guests (with more diversified background) on the topic (pro-crypto or anti-crypto) if the series continues. Examples (off the top of my head) are: Jordi Alexander, Vitalik Buterin, Kevin Zhou, Mike Green, Polynya, Tarun Chitra and Andreas Antonopoulos. They are all excellent thinkers. Far more important than what their background is, imo.
She said Terra had no assets behind it at all, that was wrong even a algorithmic stable coin has a reserve not only did luna have that but it also had a 20 + billion market cap coins sole purpose to back it, that algo just got to big to fast and do kwon the head developer was a egotistical maniac, under better leadership Iuna would be fighting solona and bnb for top 5 status
I think she could explain things a lot better, but then she wouldn't be able to conflate Bitcoin with other crypto and with defi. I wish I had the time to pick her arguments apart, because she twists the truth (people say you can't ban Bitcoin, very few people say you can't ban defi) or throws sowhatisms out there (governance tokens are in the hands of a few people... So are companies... The main feature of defi is not decentralisation, but its algorithmic functionality). People want decentralisation of the monetary layer (BTC, ETH, SOL). Defi is the functionality... Lots of bad things here, of course, but she didn't point out the most important ones imo.