pull down to refresh
maybe they have to get out of their country with their wealth or they want to send money to someone in a different jurisdiction and it is really the best way to do that or they've been debanked
This is a niche use-case, propagated mostly through NGO fart-huffing.
As long as there are people trading things there is a need for money, perhaps more importantly, countries trading things across security zones. Bitcoin is the best money.
The best money is the best black market money, it is not exclusively black market money.
Bitcoin is said to have lost market share in the black market for stablecoins.
Now is that a good or bad thing?
Most headlines are fake, so I default to it being neutral. Nobody actually knows.
Also, who defines what a black market is?
That said, it's entirely rational for a number of reasons.
- Criminals need access to dollars to buy stuff obviously, so even if they did use Bitcoin along the way, they still end up with at least a portion of their illicit proceeds in dollars.
- Even if Bitcoin has a larger market cap vs. stables, it's float is still smaller. Stables have a much higher trading volume = bigger anonset = more "DeFi" exchanges for tumbling, etc.
- The use-case for criminals has always been a dumb argument for Bitcoin, it's literally a transparent ledger so governments can track flows extra-judicially across borders to keep an eye on each other. Why Bitcoiners would wear that use-case as a badge of honor, instead of mocking the idiots that make such claim in an effort to FUD, is beyond me. The sooner people realize what Bitcoin is and what it isn't, the better. The fact most Bitcoiners don't even know is why it feels like Bitcoin is in purgatory right now.
The important question is where are criminals storing their wealth? It ain't in dollars.
Why Bitcoiners would wear that use-case as a badge of honor, instead of mocking the idiots that make such claim in an effort to FUD, is beyond me. The sooner people realize what Bitcoin is and what it isn't, the better. The fact most Bitcoiners don't know isn't promising.
I'm confused... What are you talking about exactly?
If it were true that the black market prefers stables over Bitcoin, how could Bitcoiners consider that a bad thing?
To consider it a bad thing, you'd have to view the counter-factual of Bitcoin being used by "criminals" as a good thing.
If the black market prefers stables over bitcoin... Then we IMO are not educating people well enough.
That is the problem and the lack of education is IMO the most likely shortcoming.
Stables can be and are turned off at any time - sure they are 'a dollar' but they aren't even crypto they are a glorified spreadsheet maintained by one company.
If the black market prefers bitcoin over stables, then we are not educating people well enough.
Bitcoin is a transparent NSA ledger where flows can be tracked extrajudicially across borders, wtf would criminals use it other than to store their wealth?
The state can turn YOU off at any time, stables being turned off while they're being tumbled through "DeFi" exchanges is the least of their problems.
Also, we know that banks love to be partners in crime, stables are the perfect tool for banks to keep laundering funds for foreign adversaries while maintaining deniability. DEniability FInance.
Which begs the question: why don’t criminals skip the middleman by using any of the supposedly anonymous shitcoins?
Bitcoin is a transparent NSA ledger
I don't believe this
I don’t understand it either. Maybe the way this dataset is sourced is biased against smart criminals who don’t get caught? I have no idea.
Black markets are a reaction to white, regulated markets, and in that comparison, they will always be smaller; once the majority becomes the black market, there’s no longer a reason to call it that. Just as agorists will simply be individuals trading with one another without it being a counter-economy in a zone where regulation doesn't apply.
I hadn't heard of a tontine before.
I don't know that I have the analytical brainpower to think through all of humanity, but here's how I do think it through:
Bitcoin exists right now in the world and there are some number of people who really need it and know they need it: maybe they have to get out of their country with their wealth or they want to send money to someone in a different jurisdiction and it is really the best way to do that or they've been debanked and can use bitcoin to fix some aspect of their financial dealings.
Whatever their specifics, there is some group of people who see bitcoin as useful and the way to get something done that they cannot otherwise do.
There is no guarantee that this group will be large. If governments continue to turn the heat up slowly so that most people aren't aware that their freedoms are being removed, perhaps the vast majority never wake up to wanting censorship resistant payments. Perhaps punishments are draconian enough that most people never bother transgressing (and we are quickly getting to the point where transgression cannot be achieved with government money).
As Voskuil says, it's black market money. I don't know that the black market necessarily has to be bigger than the white market. In fact, it is very possible that it remains smaller.
I don't see that all goods have to be traded on the black market. Neither does it seem like all people will be pushed into the black market. So, why should we expect bitcoin to eat all things a la ∞/21M?