The reason why Ada will hit 10,000 $ and much higher


Right. So there are two types of currencies: fiat currency (acts as an intermediate for a transfer of value) and commodity currency (I like to think barter system).

Anyways, the point I am saying is yes it does matter how ADA is classified. Whether it is a “currency”, commodity, security, equity, etc. each classification abides by different rules, regulations, and taxes.

Until the governments define how they classify it, we cannot really argue too much.

Edit: But once it is classified, then we can argue whether or not we think the governments are right or not.


Russian government just passed the law that defines cryptocurrency as a commodity and prohibits its use as a currency on the territory of the country.


Currency != money. Currency is a small set of the umbrella set Money.

Commodity != commodity money. Commodity, Security and equity are different things.

That’s the issue there is no standard definition of money (though there are some classifications), so they can smoke around however they can.

There are Fiat money (legal tender trough by fate by government i.e. monopoly power) and Commodity money (money substitutes e.g gold or s debit card, checking account balance etc.).

Money is defined by their functions and not their form:

  • medium of exchange
  • store of value and
  • unit of account.


Interesting thoughts about Bitcoin being a ponzi scheme. I’ve watched every interview I can find with Charles on YouTube. He is an early enthusiast of Bitcoin and refers to it as the thing that started the collective delusion (his words) that crypto currency has value. He sometimes follows up on that notion by talking about Rai stones which were the main form of currency on the island of Yap in the South Pacific.

Although I can’t speak for Charles it seems like he comes down on the side of if people think something has value it has value.

With all that said I think a case could be made that Bitcoin has intrinsic value based on the amount of work (mining) that is needed to maintain the blockchain and the fact that it solves the double spend problem and maintains an immutable record of transactions and ownership. To my knowledge it is the first thing that man has ever created with those properties.


Charles has in many interviews, called other projects Ponzis, specifically because the token had no use-case, other than speculative.

Like steem, I believe.

and he is completely right in that assessment.

The exact same logic and standard has to be applied to Bitcoin aswell, It is just because he has a bias that he cant apply his own logic to Bitcoin aswell.

If Bitcoin could maintain value without any use-case so could any other token then aswell - so he cant have it both ways - I just think he has been blinded, by seeing Bitcoin being around for so long, and he has a built in bias that something “real” is actually going on, while it is just a ponzi he is looking at, and even though he should know - because obviously he can point it out, when it comes to other projects.

Its the same with Bitconnect… Because it didnt fail, even smart inteligent people who should know better, gave it the benefit of a doubt… Even when they thought it was a ponzi, they would say, but I dont know and for now its working etc etc… and thats how gulible and easily tricked people are, by seeing something that seems to be working (but was always just a ponzi and 100% doomed to go to 0)

I could look at Bitconnect and in less than 10 seconds complete with 100000% accuracy deduct it was a ponzi, its simple math.


Is a piece of art a ponzi scheme? Some “art” sells for millions of dollars that I think looks like a 3 year old drew it. Why is a man made diamond less valuable than a “natural” diamond when they are chemically identical?


Nope a piece of Art is not a ponzi scheme, at worst, its just a bad buy, but not necessarily

and you actually get something you can look at, you can put in a home, and enjoy, something you can do something with.

These are non fungible items, with sentimental value, and cannot be compared with fungible items like a token which carries no sentimental value.


Because they are not the same yet. There are natural structures in natural diamonds not found in chemically induced diamonds. But yes over time this will change.

But also the history of a natural diamond and the history of that specific gem stone comes into play too.


Were Rai stones currency or non fungible items or both?


One sec I will take a look.


The first problem is that Rai-stones are not a fungible item, it has no definable intrinsic value except for sentiment and subjective opinion of the specfic Rai-stone which

Rai Stones are a great example of failed money, because it does not what it takes to be money. It has no real marketable intrinsic value.
might change from person to person, and from country to country, and from generation to generation.

The other problems are of course divisibility, but even we look apart from that…

Rai-stones had no use for anything other than being a medium of exchange, and hence Its intrinsic value was actually 0, which is exactly where it went.

Of course some collectors might buy it etc. But you get the point.

Which is exactly why it failed, and it was always going to fail. It could never ever have worked in a free market. Unless there was a government forcing you to use rai-stones as money…

They were never money, but simply acted as a medium of exchange, due to a faulty perception of it being money. It was never going to store Its value, but because there was a faulty perception, people went a long with it and eventually, anyone holding these things, had nothing. Great for those who made them I guess. It was a probably a innocent scheme.

It is the exact same situation with Bitcoin right now… We can use it as a medium of exchange… While it has value… But it will end like Rai-stones…

Because just as Rai-stones, nobody actually wanted or needed a raistone and thats apart from all the other faults of why it was terrible choice of money.

If you had a roman gold or silver coin laying around from 2000 years ago, you could still buy stuff today… Not only because of production and industry, but because want gold and silver to wear it, and make things out of it. There are properties only Gold and Silver has.


I definitely see your point of view. But I do think there is more to value than pure utility where humans are concerned at least. Maybe our robot overlords will feel differently in 100 years.


Yes there is more to value from a subjective sentimental stance of unique items.

But not when it comes to fungible items, like money or commodities. These are not priced upon subjective opinions - and you have no relationship to these items, because one is the same from one another.

Thats why you cant compare it with a unique art piece, its a collectible, it could never serve the economy as money. I think Rai-stones would be comparable to using collectibles as money, sure it can work for some time, but eventually bag-holders get rekt.


There are some commodities that have both utility and sentimental value. Maybe Bitcoin will be one of them.


There is not.

Yes it is true like Gold has utility and sentimental value in terms of people wanting to wear it etc. But that is not the sentimental value I am talking about when it comes to collectibles. It does not matter what gold you have, its the same anywhere, before you obtain the gold, you have no relationship to it.

Now you can have a sentimental value to a specific watch that maybe your father gave it to you, and then it as a specific value to you… But again, this will not reflect in the gold market.

Bitcoin could never have a sentimental value, because there is nothing you can do with a Bitcoin - and it definitely cant have sentimental value like a piece of art, because again, its fungible, there is no relationship to a specific Bitcoin as they are interchangeable.


Also I think it’s possible Rai stones value got diluted by an invading culture that did not value them that usurped the existing culture that did.


Again, this is what will happen when Bitcoin goes to 0… There will be a story… but trust me story had nothing to do with it… It is just easier for people to comprehend the stories… That the actually mechanics… Just wait and see when it happens… There will be a X reason why… and it wont be the one I have just outlined…

Money is one of the most misunderstood topics in human history when you take into account that it is something we all use every day, and it has a huge impact on our lives.


The emotional attachment to Gold to me goes beyond a sentimental value in the sense of a story that goes with its acquisition. It somehow triggers something in our lizard brain. I’m honestly not sure what that is about but gold fever is a real thing.


Yes I agree…

There is something special about gold… But the thing, this is a real demand… People want gold, just for gold… Not necessarily because they want to use it as money or speculation… Just the fact that it is Gold is enough… and that is a important demand, that is a real demand…

And that is just one out of many “demands” that people want gold.

But you see, Bitcoin doesn’t even have that… Nobody wants Bitcoin, just for the sake of Bitcoin.


It seems you try to force some 20/21st century’s definition to something that’s existed for several thousands of years.

Money simple means energy and it based on trust.
If that trust is lost in the social/local/global economy then the money will be depreciated.