MISC Crypto Crew (MCC) Vol: XII: Retirement plans and exit scams

[Horse86]

10k in sight boyos

[img]https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3b/bf/7e/3bbf7ecc782afdaefc493b5a353291aa.jpg[img]

I'd imagine if it breaks 10k the news will be all over it and we'll get a nice pump.

[jamalfudge]

If NEM Brah makes an appearance in the next day or two, bull run confirmed.

[Horse86]

or KennyPowers "the financial advisor"

[Parkerscott]

Wut m8? it's #30 and barely got back to where it was 3 months ago. It did fuk all compared to others, ICX for one, this past week let alone month.

yeah but whos holding a big bag of icx waiting for it to pop off? Whos to say that a BAT run wont rival all of those other in due time also?

[Horse86]

I mean BAT is down 90% from its ATH so there are plenty of BAT bags around. Still waiting for Bat to do something...anything....for the last year. It still hasn't recovered half of what it 52 week high was. ICX has....

[wickedman]

I mean BAT is down 90% from its ATH so there are plenty of BAT bags around. Still waiting for Bat to do something...anything....for the last year. It still hasn't recovered half of what it 52 week high was. ICX has....

BAT all time high - $0.97 = down 73% from all time high.

ICX all time high - $12.43 = down 96% from all time high.

BAT is one of the lightest bags one can be carrying from the last bull run. Saved a ton of money dumping all my OMG, OX, IOTA trash into BAT on the way down.

[SleeveStretchin]

We all still alive? Haha, could this be the true start of the next insane run?

[ghostfacedup]

lol @ proof of work failing because of "the environment" ...lol no one cares.

[jamalfudge]

lol @ proof of work failing because of "the environment" ...lol no one cares.

Yeah the energy use meme for POW is way overblown.

[Horse86]

BAT all time high - $0.97 = down 73% from all time high.

ICX all time high - $12.43 = down 96% from all time high.

BAT is one of the lightest bags one can be carrying from the last bull run. Saved a ton of money dumping all my OMG, OX, IOTA trash into BAT on the way down.

in the grand scheme of things everything went down 75-95%. At the end of the day its all bags. But if you bought in the past year you are out of the hole for ICX....Bat still well underwater. I've also DCA'd along the way

I'm just taking my profits...same as I did when Link went parabolic and no one believed.

[PimpMasterC]

lol @ proof of work failing because of "the environment" ...lol no one cares.

Thats one of the reasons, yeah. Many actually do care. One could argue very well that pos is much more substainable in the long term, and that the economic model of bitcoin is not ideal. Most crypto investors invest based on their gut feeling though, so not expecting too much from the crypto community. Many agree that bitcoin has to have block rewards. So what will happen when there is no more block rewards left to the miners.

"These rewards need to come from somewhere. In the case of proof-of-work, they come primarily from the issuance of new coins, diluting the supply. They are thus ultimately paid by the holders of the currency, and largely end up in the pocket of electricity producers. In a proof-of-stake system like Tezos, they come from the creation of new coins as well, but this creation is not dilutive since block creation rights are assigned roughly in proportion to coin holding.

In order to abide by its 21 million bitcoin limit, the design of Bitcoin assumes that, over time, the block reward can be replaced with the transaction costs paid by users to be included in a block. However, as explained in section 1.2.2 of the Tezos position paper, this creates a tragedy of the commons where users are encouraged to push their transactions off-chain and delay settlements so as not to be the one sucker paying the tab to provide security for the whole network. Paying for network security through inflation is incentives compatible, paying for it with transaction fees is not."


Another thought of the day. Ethereum 2.0 scares institutions from using ethereum, because of the drastic change it will have. A lot of problems are likely to pop up when making such a big change, it´s viewed as pretty risky. Therefore, going with a platform that wont make such a big change is a safer bet. However, a little bit of change is good, just not too often, it´s a fine line. You still want the platform to integrate new important tech, but not so often and drastic that companies using the tech has to spend an enormous amount of resources to keep up with it.

At the end of the day, I think devs and investors will migrate to blockchains that are actually going places. Bitcoin has had very little innovation since the beginning and soft forks are frowned upon, and the lighting network seems like a disaster. Ethereum are having some problems trasforming to ETH.20 and who knows how long it will take, + all the other problems with eth like the lack of on chain governance and formal verification. People will eventually be fed up with the chains that are moving forward in turtle speed, while other chains are moving much faster. The economics of bitcoin are also vastly overrated imo, "but hurr durr there are only 21 million btc and never more". Whenever I hear this, I assume I´m not speaking to the brightest person.

[Contribution05]

The sad part is everyone really should have been on the 4chan bandwagon with Link. That place was shilling/fudding Link like no other, and damn crypto is up 250% from when the crypto bubble bursted and everything else in same time is down 50-99%.

[broseidon]

The sad part is everyone really should have been on the 4chan bandwagon with Link. That place was shilling/fudding Link like no other, and damn crypto is up 250% from when the crypto bubble bursted and everything else in same time is down 50-99%.

Only reason I have surpassed by Jan 2018 ATH. It looks pretty due for a pump soon

[PimpMasterC]

Geez watching some crypto youtubers. My jimmies are getting rustled by how dumb they are. Promoting useless chitcoins and bad arguments, but the sheep eat it up. I miss the bear market. Apparently not enough chitcoins died. A few good youtubers like Ivan on tech, but most youtubers with "investor" in their name are retarded. I´m the best

[Grinners]

Geez watching some crypto youtubers. My jimmies are getting rustled by how dumb they are. Promoting useless chitcoins and bad arguments, but the sheep eat it up. I miss the bear market. Apparently not enough chitcoins died. A few good youtubers like Ivan on tech, but most youtubers with "investor" in their name are retarded. I´m the best

PimpMasterC, in all honesty, from your posts you seem to be the quintessential Dunning Kruger:



I hope you realise this and don't get hurt too much financially.

At the very least, proceed cautiously with your allocations to 'cryptocurrency'.

[Parkerscott]

BAT all time high - $0.97 = down 73% from all time high.

ICX all time high - $12.43 = down 96% from all time high.

BAT is one of the lightest bags one can be carrying from the last bull run. Saved a ton of money dumping all my OMG, OX, IOTA trash into BAT on the way down.

Just compare an all time BAT chart vs the all time Icon chart. One looks like a textbook dead stock and the other looks like one that hasn't had any real attention yet.

[Bleachway]

What sh!t coin have you guys loaded up on for the next run?

[Serenadium]

"These rewards need to come from somewhere. In the case of proof-of-work, they come primarily from the issuance of new coins, diluting the supply. They are thus ultimately paid by the holders of the currency, and largely end up in the pocket of electricity producers. In a proof-of-stake system like Tezos, they come from the creation of new coins as well, but this creation is not dilutive since block creation rights are assigned roughly in proportion to coin holding.

This doesn't make sense at all.

Under POW consensus, it is true block rewards are earned by miners but it is mined with an irretrievable sunk in the form of energy costs and hardware capital. The mined POW cryptocurrency is often then sold on the market, however, the price is pegged to the cost of investment (to a degree). Why would a miner sell their bitcoin for less than their investment?

With Bitcoin the existing supply may be diluted but the overall supply is fixed and block rewards trends towards 0.

Under Tezos staking, those that stake and earn block rewards will then sell it on the market (like POW) thereby increasing the supply, how on Earth is this not ‘dilutive’?
Whoever wrote this is an idiot.

In order to abide by its 21 million bitcoin limit, the design of Bitcoin assumes that, over time, the block reward can be replaced with the transaction costs paid by users to be included in a block. However, as explained in section 1.2.2 of the Tezos position paper, this creates a tragedy of the commons where users are encouraged to push their transactions off-chain and delay settlements so as not to be the one sucker paying the tab to provide security for the whole network. Paying for network security through inflation is incentives compatible, paying for it with transaction fees is not."

See graph of Bitcoin fee % over time below – it has remained relatively constant. This means transactions fees are increasing to compensate for the decrease (halving) of block rewards over time. Clearly the market is willing to pay transaction fees.

I also do not understand why users would push their transactions “off-chain” and delay settlements.
Most settlements require an immediate exchange of goods or services. How does delaying settlement help?
Also every person that makes a transaction pays a transaction fee, how is there one sucker that pays the fee to secure the whole network? This is very confusing and I do not understand what the write is trying to get at. I am going to assume the writer paraphrased it very poorly.

At the end of the day, I think devs and investors will migrate to blockchains that are actually going places. Bitcoin has had very little innovation since the beginning and soft forks are frowned upon, and the lighting network seems like a disaster. Ethereum are having some problems trasforming to ETH.20 and who knows how long it will take, + all the other problems with eth like the lack of on chain governance and formal verification. People will eventually be fed up with the chains that are moving forward in turtle speed, while other chains are moving much faster.

Bitcoin implementations are “slow” for good reason. Proposals are reviewed and tested in detail. This is a network that has lasted 10+ years and hasn’t been fundamentally compromised.

Distributed protocols that are able to make large implementations quickly have one or more of the following characteristics:

• They are centralised – this defeats the whole purpose of “cryptocurrency” in the first place.
• They have a small community of voters/nodes who are not able to critically assess implementation proposals – this opens up the protocol for buggy or fundamentally flawed proposals.
• They implement changes through a ‘backdoor’ in the protocol.

All of the above make for a poor cryptocurrency that I would not put money in.

The economics of bitcoin are also vastly overrated imo, "but hurr durr there are only 21 million btc and never more". Whenever I hear this, I assume I´m not speaking to the brightest person.

Of course the economics of Bitcoin is not as simple as its supply cap – its just one of the factors. Bitcoin is valuable because:

• It is secured by proof-of-work. The only consensus mechanism that has been tested at scale for a period of 10 years and has remained fundamentally sound.
• The inability to compromise the network through robust built-in monetary policy (both disincentives and incentives).
• It functions on the longest chain rule.
• Fixed supply
• It’s first mover advantage and its (prime) position to establish itself as the dominant non-sovereign store of value.
• It’s ability to fork to gain desirable characteristics (i.e. second layer solutions).
• The ability for anyone to join the network and make transactions.
• It is scarcity, portability, durability, divisibility and fungibility.
• Proven store-of-value since its inception. If you invested at any point in time there is a 94% chance you would have retained or increased your position.

[Horse86]

Just compare an all time BAT chart vs the all time Icon chart. One looks like a textbook dead stock and the other looks like one that hasn't had any real attention yet.

or one that hasn't really done anything yet.

[Horse86]

I'm just taking my profits...same as I did when Link went parabolic and no one believed.

The sad part is everyone really should have been on the 4chan bandwagon with Link. That place was shilling/fudding Link like no other, and damn crypto is up 250% from when the crypto bubble bursted and everything else in same time is down 50-99%.

Only reason I have surpassed by Jan 2018 ATH. It looks pretty due for a pump soon

and another 10% pump overnight. It's like I'm single-handedly calling the market

[PimpMasterC]

This doesn't make sense at all.

Under POW consensus, it is true block rewards are earned by miners but it is mined with an irretrievable sunk in the form of energy costs and hardware capital. The mined POW cryptocurrency is often then sold on the market, however, the price is pegged to the cost of investment (to a degree). Why would a miner sell their bitcoin for less than their investment?

With Bitcoin the existing supply may be diluted but the overall supply is fixed and block rewards trends towards 0.



Bitcoin implementations are “slow” for good reason. Proposals are reviewed and tested in detail. This is a network that has lasted 10+ years and hasn’t been fundamentally compromised.

Distributed protocols that are able to make large implementations quickly have one or more of the following characteristics:

• They are centralised – this defeats the whole purpose of “cryptocurrency” in the first place.
• They have a small community of voters/nodes who are not able to critically assess implementation proposals – this opens up the protocol for buggy or fundamentally flawed proposals.
• They implement changes through a ‘backdoor’ in the protocol.

All of the above make for a poor cryptocurrency that I would not put money in.



Of course the economics of Bitcoin is not as simple as its supply cap – its just one of the factors. Bitcoin is valuable because:

• It is secured by proof-of-work. The only consensus mechanism that has been tested at scale for a period of 10 years and has remained fundamentally sound.
• The inability to compromise the network through robust built-in monetary policy (both disincentives and incentives).
• It functions on the longest chain rule.
• Fixed supply
• It’s first mover advantage and its (prime) position to establish itself as the dominant non-sovereign store of value.
• It’s ability to fork to gain desirable characteristics (i.e. second layer solutions).
• The ability for anyone to join the network and make transactions.
• It is scarcity, portability, durability, divisibility and fungibility.
• Proven store-of-value since its inception. If you invested at any point in time there is a 94% chance you would have retained or increased your position.

Slow is good and all, but I think me and many others think bitcoin is way too slow. It should be valuable because of it´s long run time and proven security. I´m not hating on that part of bitcoin. I am very against centralized crypto currencies, but Tezos is not one of them. Changes are made every year on tezos after a few months of voting and testing. And these changes carry "true legitimacy", unlike changes made to protocols without on chain governance.

Proof of work is the best tested and fundamentally sound so far, but this can very well change. It´s not set in stone, as proof of work has yet to defeat some of the biggest tests/weaknesses. I will link to where this is discussed in more detail (yes, im a tezos fanboy and think arthur is one of the smartest guys in crypto). I don´t btc is the best store of value, gold is better for example. Btc is a decent sov at most imo, but that could be argued. As for the other points you wrote, they are not too impressing. It has first mover advantage and brand recignition, sure. But other cryptos will get huge brand recignition in the future too, likely. A fixed supply is not necessarily a good thing. The macro economic effects can poosible be very bad, and there is higher chance of so, than an infinite supply imo. I like bitcoin and think it deserves the number 1 spot, for now. I predict btc will not have the number 1 spot in 10 years tho.



People will in the future likely prefer to make off chain transactions on bitcoin since it will be cheaper and faster. If you don´t you are paying for the secutity of those who do don´t. It assumes that many transaction will in the future be moved to side chains on btc, and people will use it because its faster and cheaper. From what I understand bitc will never scale unless transactions are moved to a sidechain. This will likely create a tragedy of the commons scenario.



Because if you stake your coins, which anybody can do, you counter the inflation + an extra %. Therfore you receive more coins than are minted in %. Inlation is around 5.5%, while you get a % of the block rewards (6,5 % of your stake annually) if you stake and help secure the network. Securing the network is rewarded. In pow you can´t get a piece of the block rewards because miners need all of it to justify mining. Therefore there is higher inlation in one sense in bitcoins pow, than in the tezos pos. You get a piece of the new coins inflating the supply in tezos, but you dont in bitcoin. Everyone can participate in securing the tezos network, not everyone can in bitcoin. You get a piece of the cake in tezos if you stake which is as easy as keeping it on coinbase. You dont get a piece of the bitcoin cake unless you own expensive gear and run a full time operation. The founder of tezos wrote that and he is extremely smart.
"In a proof-of-stake system like Tezos, they come from the creation of new coins as well, but this creation is not dilutive since block creation rights are assigned roughly in proportion to coin holding."

Source
https://ex.rs/on-supply-caps/

[PimpMasterC]

1.2 Shortcomings of Proof-of-Work
The proof-of-work mechanism used by Bitcoin is a careful balance of incentives
meant to prevent the double spending problem. While it has nice theoretical
properties in the absence of miner collusion, it suffers in practice from severe
shortcomings.

1.2.1 Mining Power Concentration
There are several problems with proof-of-work as a foundation for crypto-currencies.
The most salient problem, which is all too relevant as of 2014, is the existence
of centralized mining pools, which concentrate power in the hands of a few
individuals.
The proof-of-work mechanism is decentralized, which means that users do
not need to explicitly trust anyone to secure the currency. However, implicitly,
Bitcoin has yielded a system where all users have to trust the benevolence of
one or two pool operators to secure the currency.
A conspiracy of miners holding more than 50% of the hashing power is
known as 51% attack[7]. It allows the attackers to prevent transactions from
being made, to undo transactions, to steal recently minted coins and to to double
spend[8].
A centralized mint signing blocks would be just as secure, and far less wasteful, as a miner controlling 51% of the hashing power. If a centralized mint is
unacceptable to Bitcoin users, they should not tolerate de facto centralization
of mining power.
The concentration of mining power is no coincidence: large mining pools
face less variance in their returns than their competitors and can thus afford to
grow their operation more. In turn, this growth increases their market share
and lowers their variance.
To make things worse, the large mining pool ghash.io has hinted at a business
model where they would prioritize “premium” transactions submitted directly
5
to them. This means that large miners would earn proportionally more than
smaller miners. Sadly, p2pool has had trouble attracting hashing power as most
miners selfishly prefer the convenience of centralized mining-pools.
Many have argued that fears of market concentration are overblown. They
are generalizing hastily from the real world economy. Real businesses compete
in a rapidly changing landscape where Schumpeterian creative destruction exercises constant evolutionary pressure on incumbents. Real businesses need local
knowledge, face organizational issues and principal agent problems. Bitcoin
mining is a purely synthetic economic sector centered around hashing power, a
purely fungible commodity. It would be mistaken to hastily generalize and think
that such a sterile environment is endowed with the same organic robustness
that characterizes a complex, fertile, economy.5
Furthermore, the economic argument generally holds that natural monopolies have few incentives to abuse their position. The same could be said about
a Bitcoin miner — after all, why would a dominant miner destroy the value
of their investments by compromising the currency? Unfortunately, this still
creates a huge systemic risk as such miners can be compromised by a dishonest
attacker. The cost of executing a double spending attack against the network
is no more than the cost of subverting a few large mining pools.
There have been proposals intended to address this issue by tweaking the
protocol so it would be impossible for pool organizers to trust their members not
to cheat. However, these proposals only prevent pools from gathering mining
force from anonymous participants with whom there is no possibility of retaliation. Pooling is still possible between non-anonymous people: organizers may
operate all the mining hardware while participants hold shares, or organizers
may track cheaters by requiring inclusion of an identifying nonce in the blocks
they are supposed to hash. The result of such proposals would thus be to increase variance for anonymous mining operations and to push towards further
concentration in the hands of mining cartels.
Proof-of-stake, as used by Tezos, does not suffer from this problem: inasmuch
as it is possible to hold 51% of the mining power, this implies holding 51% of the
currency, which is not only much more onerous than controlling 51% of hashing
power but implies fundamentally better incentives.

1.2.2 Bad incentives
There is an even deeper problem with proof-of-work, one that is much harder to
mitigate than the concentration of mining power: a misalignment of incentives
between miners and stakeholders.
Indeed, in the long run, the total mining revenues will be the sum of the all
transaction fees paid to the miners. Since miners compete to produce hashes,
the amount of money spent on mining will be slightly smaller than the revenues.
In turn, the amount spent on transactions depends on the supply and demand
for transactions. The supply of transactions on the blockchain is determined by
the block size and is fixed.
Unfortunately, there is reason to expect that the demand for transactions
will fall to very low levels. People are likely to make use of off-chain transaction
mechanisms via trusted third parties, particularly for small amounts, in order
to alleviate the need to wait for confirmations. Payment processors may only
need to clear with each other infrequently.
This scenario is not only economically likely, it seems necessary given the
relatively low transaction rate supported by Bitcoin. Since blockchain transaction will have to compete with off-chain transaction, the amount spent on
transactions will approach its cost, which, given modern infrastructure, should
be close to zero.
Attempting to impose minimum transaction fees may only exacerbate the
problem and cause users to rely on off-chain transaction more. As the amount
paid in transaction fees collapses, so will the miner’s revenues, and so will the
cost of executing a 51% attack. To put it in a nutshell, the security of a proofof-work blockchain suffers from a commons problem[9]. Core developer Mike
Hearn has suggested the use of special transactions to subsidize mining using a
pledge type of fund raising[10]. A robust currency should not need to rely on
charity to operate securely.
Proof-of-stake fixes these bad incentives by aligning the incentives of the
miners and stakeholders: by very definition, the miners are the stakeholders,
and are thus interested in keeping the transaction costs low. At the same time,
because proof-of-stake mining is not based on destruction of resources, the transaction cost (whether direct fees or indirect inflation) are entirely captured by
miners, who can cover their operating costs without having to compete through
wealth destruction.

1.2.3 Cost
An alternative is to keep permanent mining rewards, as Dogecoin[11] has considered. Unfortunately, proof-of-work arbitrarily increases the costs to the users
without increasing the profits of the miners, incurring a deadweight loss. Indeed,
since miners compete to produce hashes, the amount of money they spend on
mining will be slightly smaller than the revenues, and in the long run, the profits
they make will be commensurate with the value of their transaction services,
while the cost of mining is lost to everyone.
This is not simply a nominal effect: real economic goods (time in fabs,
electricity, engineering efforts) are being removed from the economy for the
sake of proof-of-work mining. As of June 2014, Bitcoin’s annual inflation stands
at a little over 10% and about $2.16M dollars are being burned daily for the
sake of maintaining a system that provides little to no security over a centralized
system in the hands of ghash.io.
The very security of a proof-of-work scheme rests on this actual cost being
7
higher than what an attacker is willing to pay, which is bound to increase with
the success of the currency.
Proof-of-stake eliminates this source of waste without lowering the cost of
attacks — indeed, it automatically scales up the cost of an attack as the currency
appreciates. Because the thing you must prove to mine is not destruction of
existing resources but provision of existing resources, a proof-of-stake currency
does not rely on destroying massive resources as it gains in popularity.

1.2.4 Control
Last but not least, the proof-of-work system puts the miners, not the stakeholders, in charge. Forks for instance require the consent of a majority of the
miners. This poses a potential conflict of interest: a majority of miners could decide to hold the blockchain hostage until stakeholders consent to a protocol fork
increasing the mining rewards; more generally, they will hold onto the hugely
wasteful system that empowers them longer than is economically beneficial for
users.

Source:
https://tezos.com/static/position_pa...6650152fb4.pdf


News:
Coronavirus shuts down Chinese Bitcoin mine
Leading Bitcoin mining pool BTC.Top said that Chinese police closed the mine to stop the spread of coronavirus.

The government can easily shut down big mining operations. It highlights one of the problems with POW.
A profitable POS operation is much more difficult to shut down for the authorities

[Parkerscott]

or one that hasn't really done anything yet.

What do you mean hasn't done anything yet? Brave has over 12m users, 400k+ publishers, and the ad campaigns are growing daily. Tab page ads were just added today as well.

So far i have also earned $140 in BAT from just ads alone. The project is blowing everything else out of the water when it comes to actual development, but nobody in crypto wants to touch it. Blockmesh hypercitites with solar powered IOT nodes is all anyone seems to care about. Those projects are never going to ship.

[Horse86]

What do you mean hasn't done anything yet?

I'm referring to the coins price....

It's great its got a product and I know you are all aboard...but frankly, in crypto, I couldn't give 2 chits if a coin has a product or not. It's proven to be irrelevant, case in point. I'm here for profit, not projects.

[lolimgood]

I'm referring to the coins price....

It's great its got a product and I know you are all aboard...but frankly, in crypto, I couldn't give 2 chits if a coin has a product or not. It's proven to be irrelevant, case in point. I'm here for profit, not projects.

BAT is one of the best cryptos out there today. If you're looking for a quick pump and dump bullchit coin, this is not for you.

If you're interested in investing in a real company with monumental potential, BAT is in a league of few.

BAT has barely lost any value compared to others, unless you invested at the tippy top around 90 cents. But most smart people got in around 30-40 cents. Barely lost anything.

[Horse86]

BAT is one of the best cryptos out there today. If you're looking for a quick pump and dump bullchit coin, this is not for you.

If you're interested in investing in a real company with monumental potential, BAT is in a league of few.

BAT has barely lost any value compared to others, unless you invested at the tippy top around 90 cents. But most smart people got in around 30-40 cents. Barely lost anything.

I already know the legitness of BAT...not disputing that. Ive said it a few times here, BTC and ETH are my main main...these others are for the lottery moon shots. There is only one BTC....the rest are chit coins as far as I'm concerned. This is my sandbox. I routinely max out all my investment/retirement avenues so this is really just shot at earlier retirement....I'm not looking at a "safe bet" play or "barely lost any value" I'm here for the homerun....like the Link play I capitalized on. The smart people got on Link at .30 cents

[JuicedMayhem]

Everything looks like it’s about to tank

[ghostfacedup]

Pretty discouraging that people are starting to pump and shill their bullchit projects AGAIN; not a good sign overall for the health of the market and BTC. Don't think BTC,ETH, and the legit stuff will ever go on a massive run unless the crap is separated and ground into dust tbh. I don't believe in this rally anymore.

[broseidon]

Lol the bear market has done a real number on you guys. People getting exciting that their coins are like 90% down from ATH instead of 95% doesn't mean the market isn't healthy. Everything is matching up perfectly to meme halving charts that have been around for years. Looks good to me.

[PimpMasterC]

Pretty discouraging that people are starting to pump and shill their bullchit projects AGAIN; not a good sign overall for the health of the market and BTC. Don't think BTC,ETH, and the legit stuff will ever go on a massive run unless the crap is separated and ground into dust tbh. I don't believe in this rally anymore.

Lol the bear market has done a real number on you guys. People getting exciting that their coins are like 90% down from ATH instead of 95% doesn't mean the market isn't healthy. Everything is matching up perfectly to meme halving charts that have been around for years. Looks good to me.

I´m good, Tezos is at an all time high. I´m 300% up
I agree that it´s pretty concerning that so much crap is pumping, like Tron and NEM