NFT's are Fundamentally a MLM-Type Scam Designed to Get You to Buy Crypto

I agree on a few of his points, the Bitcoin miners over purchased asic’s based on the generation of new currency and not on the number of current transactions per second. Due to the value a Bitcoin indicates being lower they will keep losing money and fold.

I really enjoyed that video actually, the creator was right about a lot of things.

Martti Malmi who also started Silk Road. Like you would say “It’s not a crime to sell things online?” :smiley:

This is the shady silk road drug part of it, I’m talking about the “Buy BTC and get rich” part

Craig Wright basically lies the moment he opens his mouth. If you want to watch a truly sociopathic leech on society in action, you should seriously study this man.

@Karak_Terrel the creator has views similar to yours, good video this.

The perpetrators lobbied to remove laws that would have stopped this from happening, this is crazy.

It seems most banks don’t understand that they are simply there to hold customer money and charge them fees based on that action. They shouldn’t be allowed to invest customers money irresponsibly which is almost the same problem in the crypto world.


I’m actually a little scared in all honesty, our privacy is definitely going to be infringed on a major level when CBDC is rolled out. This video explains the logic of it, no conspiracy here at all this is real possibilities based on 100% fact.

Bitcoin seem to be the almost opposite of CBDC where ones privacy is protected, If I think about this we are only talking about the transfer of value for a goods/service, In that case Bitcoin seems to be a good option for transferring value or transferring a token that indicates a fiat/cbdc value.

A SHELF LIFE ON MONEY!!! COME ON MAN!!! - so people on government assistance will be given £500 for the month, that £500 in CBDC form could well have an expiry date, and also disallow transactions like tobacco/leisure type purchases. this is actually a possibility, crazy.

Obviously they will not start out with this stuff. They will roll this out in a way that will make people think it’s a benefit, and where people have no choice than to accept it this way, like for example social help.

The dystopian stuff will only happen after the system has been accepted by the masses. Not because the governments are evil, simply because it’s an easy fix to certain problems and the solution is just one click away.

It’s simply a kind of power no one should ever have.

But anyway, I’m still highly skeptical if we will see this at all for several reasons. There are a lot of people who are aware and wary of the dangers of something like this, so there will most likely be push back and public debate where this issues get brought to attention to an even bigger audience.

Also it’s government software, have you ever seen one of those? Nuff said…

1 Like

Okay so…

  1. The banks are here to provide loans , that is to invest into production activities. You create an activity that produces value, you need money to start, here comes the bank. Note that loans are mostly never repaid : it’s more interesting to restart a new loans at the end of the first one to pay that first one. Basically companies only pay interests, which mean that they need to make more benefit than their interest. You make benefits, you pay the bank its interest, they are paid to bank people who can they purchase your goods.
  2. To receive money from a bank you need an account. Now if you have more money than zero on that account, the bank can evaluate that this money could be spent in other companies. They therefore purchase shares when a company emits them and they assess their value good enough. It’s good because banks already are supposed to understand the economy and assess the value of an activity, since 1.
  3. Now the bank can also need cash, so they may need to sell those shares. This can also be done in the secondary market. So they sell and purchase financial products, typically insurances, futures, etc.

So no, the banks are not here to hold customer money. They are here to help the economy, by lending money, and investing a part of the money they hold.
I’m not saying it’s good or bad. I’m saying it’s not as simple as you think it is.

1 Like

Ok, I definitely understand your perspective of you not thinking it’s good or bad, I have questions.

Isn’t this in it’s self a massive ponzi scheme? They lend account holders money and give the illusion the economy is growing naturally to gain more investment. The businesses they invest in fail due to the apparent slow economy, then due to the slow economy the account holders need there money and…the bank doesn’t have it, so they dip into the taxpayers money and problem solved.

I think there needs to be some logic, if crypto exchanges are being forced to remain in a state where they can afford 100% asset withdrawals from customers then should the exact same laws exist for private banks?

The issue is they don’t understand how to do business, if anyone bothered asking I would actually have no problem paying for my bank account as mandatory instead of it being free and them being able to access my savings and “gamble” with it. I’d have no problem paying around £5 to £8 per month for my bank and savings account which would create a good income for the bank if the fees are applied to all customers. They can use this Fee based income to gamble with and limit the exposure of their customers if the loan fails.

Part of the issue in the UK is they like to pretend everything is free when it’s not. Banks must charge customers a couple of pence when they use their debit card, they could charge a tiny fee for setting up direct debits, and transfer fees, all my life I have had the perspective that these services are free when they are not.

There were 1.8 billion debit card transactions in UK in February, so if £0.01 was charged each time then £18m could have been generated for this month, obviously this example is the minimum possible fee for just one of the many “free” services a bank offers. I think most people would come to accept these charges if it meant their money was safe and the economy grew in a realistic way as a result of this.

TLDR: Charge all bank account holders small/tiny fees for services and use those fees to gamble with Instead of gambling with account holders savings/assets.

You have to understand a ponzi scheme.

First, ponzi is only about investment. And by investment, you need to understand “you are asked for value and will be given that value back with interest after a time”. If something is not an investment, then it can’t be a ponzi. Typically, banks produce money, they don’t ask to invest anything. So the term ponzi just does not fit.

Secondly, a ponzi is defined by the interests received being the entry fee of new investers. This means that the underlying activity does not produce value, ie the value of the activity invested in is null. This can happen eg when a genuine activity is actually badly accounted and therefore actually produces a loss of value, so while the original term of ponzi refered to an purposely ill-intentioned scheme, it now loosely refer to the accounting status of an investment - because then it does not need to infer hypothesis on the intentions of the creator(s).

So now you may refer to banks as an investment (because otherwise it can’t be a ponzi). Following the same definition, if you invest in a bank, what is the interest you gain ? Well a bank is paid for selecting which activities profit the more to the economy(=lending money+investing deposits). So they are supposed to have an analysis work. Which in itself is value.

Why ?
First, they are not the same thing at all. Crypto exchanges can’t create currencies. That’s the issue with deflatory currencies : you can’t regulate them. Exchanges are NOT banks.
So while a bankrupt condition for an exchange is the usual one, that is when the losses overweight the gains too much so that it total value becomes negative, the bankrupt condition for a bank is not the same : they go bankrupt in central money, when a customer asks them to transmit money to another bank (eg as a payment) but they don’t have the central money to transmit to that bank. Banks have a lot of mechanisms to prevent that but those can still fail, typically if the changes are so abrupt they can’t abide without huge losses (because if you sell too fast you will plummet the value of what you sell, resulting in an accounting loss based solely on the pressure).

But it is. Holding your deposit is free. They already have all the infrastructure since they are supposed to hold the money they lend you. So banks actually are paid for investing deposits, it is part of their mandate, which is why you can even be paid for this.

Again, many people disagree with that model and I’m not saying this is the universal truth. I’m saying, that’s what bank are supposed to do within that model.

1 Like