Well, if you acquire a decisive majority in a business you essentially also control the management. That is just how equity works. If you have the biggest say in a company financially, you can just fire the management if they don't act in the best if your interest. The management knows it, doesn't want to get fired so mostly they serve your interests. That is also duty by the way to some degree and that is also why there is the separation of management and control, which eventually boils down to management being controlled. By whom? By those who have a stake in the company big enough to substantially raise their voice and take influence.

Right and even though there are some self-proclaimed gurus who suggest that you can achieve stable income with trading, the truth is that those guys might also have been lucky for a period of time and those who lost big time simply don't show up on Youtube and tell you about it. No ugly faces on Instagram because there are no ugly people? No broke traders on Youtube because there are no broke traders?

Risk is everywhere but I think one of the major problems of those meme coins that are in top 20 is the distribution. Of course you could say that if a few people own a lot they have an incentive to grow the coin further. However, it also means that they can flash dump those coins to literally zero. That wouldn't be a smart move, but thinking about the fact that one of the big guys could destroy the whole market cap because of one beer too much and a fat finger, that is quite concerning.

There is no general answer to that question what criminals prefer. It does depend on a whole lot of factors, not least the geographic circumstances of a criminal transaction. If you make a big deal with someone from another continent, what do you prefer? Payment in Monero or a couple of big bags with cash? It is just a question of the requirements and conditions concerning a specific transaction.

Basically you are right that cash is the most anonymous form, but the bigger the transaction gets, the harder it is to do with cash.

But it is still government issued digital money, which in m opinion is the worst of version of any digital money we can have. They can check every single step you do, know about every single item you buy, where you buy and when you buy, how much you spend or day and any behavior that can be deducted from your consumer behavior. I am not so sure if that is really a good version of digital money. They definitely won't make it anonymous.

Which is still quite difficult to pull off because imagine you hold such a meme coin and it starts pumping hard. What are you going to do? If you hold and it dumps heavily you call yourself a fool. If you sell way too early you also call yourself a fool. It really needs a lot of courage and balls of steel to hold a currency like Shiba until it makes you a millionaire.

"The hype of DeFi has waned down already"... That is an interesting observation. I am also relatively well involved with DeFi and NFTs, financial success of these digital assets is not only about hype, it is about fundamental development, innovation and progression that will pay off in the long run. There was no hype around Bitcoin every now and then, but where is Bitcoin now? Did NFTs take away attention from Bitcoin? If yes, how?

DeFi is growing at an incredible pace and so is the NFT space. No need to talk one down in order hype another one up. These fields will continue to grow.

Yes and even if it doesn't end up as a rug pull, how on earth could someone predict a moon flight like Shiba did? I really didn't believe that to happen ever.

It is certainly manipulation, but yes I know that is what you have to take into account trading cryptos anyway. Still though one would wish for some rationality because that would make analysis more valuable. Then again you could argue that I should just change my style and way of analysing coins. Shiba went so crazy that I am still shaking my head!

With the reason being that both Binance Smart Chain as well as Solana are way more centralized than Ethereum if I didn't miss anything. As far as I understand Solana increases decentralization over time, but even then it probably is not as decentralized as Ethereum is and will be.

This doesn't mean that BSC and Solana aren't great platforms. In fact they are outstanding projects. Right now BSC is kicking it, there is no question about that and we will see what happens if Ethereum finally manages to scale. That is by far their biggest bottleneck.

The issue with centralization is true, but that is the trade-off right? They are smooth to use, efficient, cheap. If you take algorithmic stable coins there is risk involved, you are usually subject to volatility and also to a required collateral.

I have never had a problem with USDT (TRC20) either and I also like BUSD just because I think that Binance is too big to fail and extremely profitable so why should they scam their users.

Bitcointalk username: vabchgent
Bitcointalk link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=256292
Rank: Sr. Member
Current Post count:1179
BSC Address: 0xdDED8dE4a01831BC24dCF3c9f75fafF0d8dF9126

Sorry I forgot!

What kind of project can definitely guarantee you to return the money you invested? What kind if investment is that even? There is no such thing as a guarantee unless you are financing a company that has signed contracts and partnerships and only needs money to realize those plans. In that case that business would most likely go to a bank anyway. Investing means fostering risk-related entrepreneurial efforts in expectation for a success dependent return.

Wasn't the problem for the hacker that they couldn't access the coins securely? I don't know if someone maybe whistle blowed and the other side had some information about them and they made a deal not to disclose the info if the hackers return the coins or something like that. I guess that we only know half the truth is probably right. The hackers might have been surprised themselves that it worked out, overwhelmed by the success they decided to pull it off and then realized that this is going to put them in jail forever if they made a mistake and didn't completely destroy any trace that might lead investigations to them.

He generalized his statement too much, but the point he is trying to explain is probably that the stock market with real companies backing the stock is a safer investment in that there isn't all too much you have to do if you invest in companies like Amazon or Google. Well established companies with dividends and a proven track record. In crypto that is indeed quite a bit different as things can turn around very quickly. Just take the crash of this year as an example. You wouldn't really have to expect that to happen when you buy Amazon or Google stocks, but with crypto that is possible anytime.

Nokia was a pioneer in developing small phones. Just do some research on how many pioneers paved the way for others to be successful but went bankrupt themselves. That is absolutely no argument to invest in Ethereum. It doesn't matter what you did in the past if you stop delivering at some point in the future. What makes Ethereum attractive as an investment are the existing prospects it has because there is ongoing and vibrant development. If that wasn't existent, Ethereum would still be a great investment for you because it is what you call a pioneer?

Thanks for the correction, noted!!

Anyway, yes sometimes it does have influence because there might be a huge backlash from stolen cryptocurrency. For example if they steal a billion dollar worth of Bitcoin, there is a good chance the might convert it to Monero and dump it. Or any other coin that is likely to be converted. I know it is not like the whole market should suffer, but it can definitely have an impact on other coins as well if hacks are of a certain magnitude.

But still when you lock up your coins for staking on Pancakeswap isn't there immense risk that the volatility of the coins you are staking will eventually undermine or even destroy any gains you make if you are unlucky? It is not 100% safe to stake, is it?

Maybe they don't even have to move to another country. What if they set up a company with a partner in a country where it is allowed to publish the code or make a deal beforehand with someone who publishes the code in their own name in a country that does not prohibit people from publishing the code? I think there are a lot of ways around it if that turns out to be a problem. I don't see a realistic way for government to crack down on people who write code and hand it over to someone who is allowed to publish. There is a similar problem with ghostwriting. If a ghostwriter writes a thesis and argues that he didn't know it was for academic purposes or abuse, there is nothing you can do against the ghostwriter unless the court can prove otherwise, and they can't if there isn't somewhere a written note that states exactly what the court needs.

Legal harmonization will be a big problem not for us, but for regulators. They can't really prohibit anyone from writing the code, but only from publishing it, but what would happen then if exactly as you say go to a country where it is allowed and publish it there? Even if you return, on what legal grounds are they going to sue you? It's is going to be almost impossible for them to forbid writing code.

I have only used BSC so far but never looked precisely into the validator structure. Is it known who the validators are? Is it also known that there is a good chance Binance themselves controls most of them? Could they easily roll back the chain if they wanted or are there any security measures in place to prevent that from happening? I think so far a lot of users haven't really looked into how BSC is really designed because everyone trusts Binance, but that might change quite a bit if some of the rumors going around about Binance turn into reality and cause them some trouble.