Your mistake is valuing cryptocurrency purely as a currency. In reality BTC and other cryptos have combined properties of currencies, commodities, securities, as well as unique elements that can't be found elsewhere. Crypto is its own asset class and trying to value it using old models of other assets is bound to fail.
This is a fallacy, similar to thinking that a portfolio should be invested into the worst performing stocks because "they have the most room to improve".
There is a certain brand of person who is obsessed with redistributing resources from the most productive to the least productive. They don't see how allocating the best teachers in the world to students who are disabled or borderline disabled is not beneficial to society.
>But everyone notices when every aspect of their society is led by people of one race.
I didn't go to China and become resentful when I noticed their leadership was Chinese. But I did immigrate to America, then eventually become resentful when I noticed white people & asians were discriminated against out of some twisted sense of fairness.
>Can someone explain this in logical, non-political, terms.
Probably not, because it's ultimately a political phenomenon. In left-leaning circles it's popular to deny that there can be significant statistical differences between demographics for any reason other than discrimination. Based on that logic they view all unequal gender ratios as problems that need to be solved.
James Watson had evidence on the subject, he was stripped of his titles and harassed by ideologues who are convinced everyone should be exactly equal. Scientists have realized it's not worth it to sacrifice their career when the general public simply isn't interested in knowing things that might be considered racist.
All he said is that some ethnicities are less intelligent than others. What is the statistical likelihood that 100% of ethnicities, which have evolved in drastically different environments across the world, have all developed perfectly identical intelligence on average? It's just not how evolution realistically works. People shouldn't close their eyes to how the world actually is whenever it doesn't match up with how they think it should be.
History has shown that this does not happen in crypto. Even for coins like Bitconnect and Confido that plainly turned out to be scams, there were still buyers long after the news was revealed. People like to bet on dead cat bounces, or some kind of news after the fact that redeems the coin.
>I’ve been shorting a few bitcoin-related public companies on the theory that in a run on Tether they will have to liquidate large bitcoin holdings
I doubt a run on tether would even cause a 50% drop in BTC price. Hope your account doesn't blow up when Bitcoin inevitably reaches 1 million per coin ;)
>Consider cryptocurrency to be the newest version of Beanie Babies, and act accordingly.
I find it hilarious that people can seriously equate a 2.6 trillion dollar industry with Beanie Babies. Beanie Babies did not allow for the creation of a decentralized financial network.
At one point Pfizer paid out the largest health care fraud settlement in history of 2.3 billon (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-...). It's a shame many people would consider me a conspiracy theorist for not placing my full trust in the company.
>1) no benefit in the meantime for the holder (such as a dividend
There is no fundamental difference between an asset paying dividends or simply appreciating in value. At the end of the day all an investor cares about is ROI. Holding BTC's lack of dividends against it while it's gained 371% in the past year strikes me as odd.
I've taken all my other vaccines. But because I don't want to take one vaccine with unknown long term side effects for a disease that I've already had, I'm suddenly an antivaxxer? I disagree.
Massive amounts of Selegiline, probably.