That's not true for all altcoins however
Pretty much everything other than bitcoin, monero, and dogecoin are running proof of stake these days anyhow, so it kind of doesn't matter.
Readit Newsscyclow commented on Monero appears to be in the midst of a successful 51% attack twitter.com/p3b7_/status/... · Posted by u/treyd
> their price stays the same.
TerraUSD enters the chat
You're right that they aren't speculative in the financial sense of "hopefully gaining value over time", but you do speculate (in the more general sense) on the fiat-pegging mechanism(s) to work to preserve the value you are storing in them...
There are different flavors of stablecoins though. There's the ponzi scheme flavor that is propped up based on hand waving alchemy, and there's the boring (and now regulated) flavor that's actually backed by real money.
All stablecoins (at least popular ones) has the same underlying problem -- it's regulated and controlling entity can freeze any funds because it wants so
Yeah, but so can PayPal and Visa and Mastercard. The issue here is that payments is essentially a duopoly. Itch doesn't have any alternatives because they're locked into traditional payment rails. Stablecoins at least let someone else decide "Hey, you know what, I'm going to create a coin that can be used as payment for porn games." And executing on that is fairly straightforward.
There are a lot of people mentioning crypto as a possible solution to this, and a lot of people responding that crypto is a ponzi scheme, and they're not interested. But congress recently passed stablecoin legislation that could possibly fix this problem. Recipients would have a straightforward way of receiving money, and they wouldn't need to gamble on the price of bitcoin. Most people would probably still use a third part payment processor to handle the rough edges of managing money on the blockchain. But if any of them try to pull something like this it would be incredibly easy spin up a new processor and migrate accounts.
scyclow commented on Visa and Mastercard: The global payment duopoly (2024) quartr.com/insights/edge/... · Posted by u/bilekas
Which acts are you referring to? Care to elaborate?
Look at the GENIUS Act https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/394...
scyclow commented on Some arguments against a land value tax (2024) lesswrong.com/posts/CCuJo... · Posted by u/danny00
That's assuming you actually own the mineral rights, which are not necessarily the same as the land ownership itself. These are quite often separated and held by different entities. In practice, the extraction of oil under a parcel of land has almost no relation to what the land is being used for.
Sure, so I guess if the owner of the land doesn't own the mineral rights then they have no incentive to look for oil with or without a LVT.
scyclow commented on Some arguments against a land value tax (2024) lesswrong.com/posts/CCuJo... · Posted by u/danny00
Do LVT proponents believe economic activity that requires minimal land ownership relative to the profit should be untaxed?
E.g.
* Offshore oil drilling
* Tech companies
* Fully remote CPAs
* Electricians
* etc
It seems very weird large sections of the economy become virtually untaxed, requiring a MASSIVE tax burden on the others. The simplicity of the LVT plan kinda hides that it implies a huge restructuring of the economy.
LVT proponents also typically advocate for pigovian taxes (tax things you want less of to disincentivize it) and taxes on rent-seeking activities. So, offshore drilling would probably be hit with something like a carbon tax (directly or indirectly) and tech companies might get hit with a tax regarding their monopolies or IP. The CPAs and the electricians would get off easy, though.
scyclow commented on Some arguments against a land value tax (2024) lesswrong.com/posts/CCuJo... · Posted by u/danny00
LVT should be incorporated with an occupancy tax, it's the only fair way to fund government services. If I own a farm, and my neighbor sells their farm to turn into a housing estate with 99 single family homes, then it is fair to say that my land is now more valuable and I should pay more to keep you it, but it isn't fair to say that my taxes should rise to cover half of the local budget just because I own half of the land in region
Let's be real: if this scenario unfolded today, your land would be worth more as housing/infrastructure/commercial/etc. than as farmland, some real estate developer would buy it from you, and you'd make a lot of money without having to do anything. If there was a 75% LVT then you'd just make less money.
scyclow commented on Some arguments against a land value tax (2024) lesswrong.com/posts/CCuJo... · Posted by u/danny00
The first two arguments he makes here miss the point of a LVT entirely
> An LVT discourages searching for new uses of land
> An LVT implicitly taxes improvements to nearby land
If I find oil on my land, or if someone builds a park across the street from me, then I should be taxed more. The land is more valuable to me! At a 100% LVT I essentially break even. Anything less then that, and I still come out on top.
The only valid arguments in here are the last two. If people buy a piece of property with certain assumptions and the government turns around implements a 100% LVT, then I can understand why they would be upset.
So sure, there are some practical considerations to implementing a 100% LVT immediately tomorrow with no exemptions, and it probably wouldn't raise enough revenue to eliminate all other taxes. But the government could still raise a ton of tax revenue with minimal deadweight loss by phasing in a 75% LVT over 30 years with a handful of common sense exemptions.
It's certainly a way to keep the network secure. At best it's marginally better than POS. At worst, it's a ticking time bomb security budget cliff.