John Palmer 💡
@john
I'm finding the "positive sum" language around coins really misleading. It's literally the opposite. If the way users make money from their content is when other users buy it, it's literally zero sum, financially. Not everyone can be making money, unless external capital is being injected from a another source (which is losing money).
15 replies
5 recasts
96 reactions
John Palmer 💡
@john
Not to mention that trading any coin on a DEX is quite literally PVP against the other traders. It’s defined by en equation. Plus there’s a fee to the DEX / client on most interfaces.
3 replies
0 recast
26 reactions
sean
@seanhart
How is this different than any other form of trading in the economy? The item being traded can have different value for different parties. This is the entire point of trade. Agree with you on ponzi memecoins, but this generalization is a stretch
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
John Palmer 💡
@john
If you can't figure out the difference I'm not going to explain it. Your reply is actually the generalization.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
sean
@seanhart
The way you stated it could apply to how any modern trading medium works
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
John Palmer 💡
@john
Sure, but...I'm responding to a specific instance of people celebrating something as "positive sum" when it's not accurate. If I saw the same language being applied en masse to another form of trading with the same mechanics, I'd post about that instead. And there are obviously huge mechanical differences between coins on here vs something like stocks, but that's not even the point.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
