Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.
What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.
Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.
Download on the App StoreLoopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.
Off-Topic discussion about Bitcoin and cryptocurrency.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Thomas Jefferson was bitcoiner :-)
Why is “build(ing) anything real in the physical world” more important to you? You do realize that music is also an intangible (getting back to the reason most of are here for one moment)? Music that is committed to an easily distributed and sold form is digital. Just like cryptos. Imagine that.
Come on, man. This quote is quite obviously fabricated. "Inflation" and "deflation" were not in use as economic terms until well after Jefferson's death.
What a weird thing to lie about.
Probably yes. I'm sure Forbes is behind this hoax, how typical.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2011/11/06/thomas-jefferson-warned-the-nation-about-the-power-of-the-banks/
(just to make things clear, previous post was joke, this one is irony/sarcasm)
Best advice I can give anyone getting into seriously investing in crypto is to not talk about it online. Unless you understand the ramifications and have a solid plan for storing it, too much risk of attracting the wrong attention.
Storing crypto securely at home is not a task for casual weekend investors. It’s an often complex ritual and involves using long passwords, air-gapped hardware and/or a vault. It’s literally like holding large piles of gold or cash if it’s not properly secured.
For my purposes, I keep my crypto with the exchanges, even though there’s always a risk they somehow get breached since they are under continuous attack by hackers large and small. If I had millions worth of crypto, I’d take the extra measures and keep my crypto on a Trezor or air-gapped computer. I know some people who do need to go the extra mile and I don’t envy them for all the extra security measures they must take.
Trezor is actually very easy to use.. i think it makes sense even if you have crypto worth if 3x or 4x of Tresor price :-) It's not that complicated, you need store just your seed (12 or 24 words) and then you can even lost Trezor itself :-) You can even memorize those words if you want to keep them in most safe place on planet - inside your head :-))
That’s good advice. It reminds me of something my first dog Lucky used to say, when we growing up on Skid Row Street. Curiously, my mother’s maiden name was also Skid Row. How we’d laugh about that! I remember one day in particular, February 2nd 1961, when my first/best Teacher Dr. Feelgood said that I should be a drag car racer when I grow up. From that moment on, I always wanted it to be my career. Also, my PIN is 5555.
I love hackers. Hackers are sexy.
What's your porn star name?
The difference between building and speculating, to my mind at least, boils down to this: building is a positive sum game, whereas speculating is zero-sum.
By investing in a company that creates actual stuff, investors are contributing to the economy in a positive way: the companies they fund create goods and services that are useful to their customers. The sales generate profits that can create jobs and the whole economic pie grows as a result. This in turn makes us all richer by increasing productivity and growing the economy. This kind of investing is positive-sum.
Speculative investments, like say in art or wine, are zero-sum because no new goods or services are being produced. The only way to make a profit is to sell the investment on for more money to someone else. This does nothing to grow the economy or to increase productivity.
Crypto investments are actually in fact mostly negative-sum, because not only are no new goods or services being provided (the only way to make a profit is to sell the tokens on to someone else for more money) but the system itself is very expensive to run due to the high energy costs. In Bitcoin for example the energy costs are paid for by people buying new Bitcoin. There is only one input into the Bitcoin economy, which is people buying Bitcoin, but there are multiple outputs (energy costs, transaction fees) and every penny of profit also has to come from new buyers. With these competing pressures it seems very unlikely that Bitcoin can ever be sustainable economically.
Statistically there will have to be more losers than winners because someone has to bear all the costs, from energy and mining to early adopter's profits. It's mathematically impossible for everyone to win.
An industry that builds actual stuff doesn't have this problem because the costs are accounted for with sales.
You can say exactly same thing about whole financial market, especially FOREX, and various derivatives used by banks like CDO and so on..
Wait, ETH, ADA, DOT, MATIC are just some examples of companies offering coins with tangible products and services. They are attempting to foster in a new type of network for the globe to tackle specific problems.
What was said about Yahoo and Google when they were garage projects can be said of these companies as well…no one can imagine what the future holds, but the future is coming and being architected by these great minds.
I don’t think it makes much sense to lump all Crytpo currencies in the argument that they provide no goods or services.
I think it helps to be specific and not broker generalities in order to win an argument.
An NFT is just as real as a Cool Skin in Fortnite you paid 60 VBucks for. 🤔 it’s just as real as a collection of Patches for Zeeon and Moog Model 15. What one does with the digital goods is up to them on how they want to enjoy it.
I know that I’ve personally taken some patches i paid money for and created a song which is on an album i made which brought me cash, and that patch was never given credit or a cut of the royalties.
Should it?
Should it be acknowledged in the meta data of the track.
Should i easily be able to look up who made it and when?
Information is king.
Who holds said information rules over all.
Question now is: who has the right to own and distribute that information?
Somehow part of me says that the owner of that piece of content should be able to decide how they want that piece of digital product to exist and evolve in the ecosystem as it moves around as bits and bytes on the internet.
Indeed, on that we agree 😀
This is an interesting video (once you get part the basic beginning, and also the blonde woman’s voice audio is unintelligible, so I didn’t understand whatever it was she said).
It’s an irrelevant comparison. What is an auction? It’s people bidding against each other on a thing to determine its value. Doesn't matter if that thing is a work of art, a building or a cryptocoin. Price discovery is the market determining value, instead of a central authority.
Also, you persist in using the debunked argument about wasting electricity. Why?
I don't think you've actually addressed my argument
Could cryptos “bankrupt banks”? Of course not. They’re in the game of propping up fiat currencies backed by nothing. The banks are already holding an illusory asset.
You are using arguments based on false assumptions, so I don’t know what you’re looking for from me.
@NeuM : National currencies aren't backed by nothing. Their value not being linked to something specific and tangible like gold does not make them backed by nothing.
The US Dollar used to be backed by gold. It’s now backed by… debt? Debt to the tune of nearly $30 trillion?
You're right. They are backed by worse than nothing. They are backed by self-interested governments saddled with debt, addicted to borrowing, with no accountability for balancing a budget, and ever expanding expenses. No creditor would ever back an individual or business with that behavior, and anyone running a business that way would be thrown in jail.
Scares the shit out of me, more even than Crypto does (and that is plenty).
(Sorry - that's just me venting. I'm not going to enter into a debate with anyone over the subject.)
@NeuM : I guess if the notion you have is that modern currencies are backed by nothing, it isn't really very possible to discuss this topic. I guess the point of view that currencies are backed by nothing is the equivalent of believing that a promise means nothing or an agreement between two parties means nothing.
Our fiat currency in the US is literally backed by debt.
https://mises.org/library/our-money-based-debt
Fiat currencies are backed by the strength of the economies that issue them. The more productive an economy is, the stronger the currency.
Balancing the budget is not necessary, and in fact for nations that are net importers like the US it's in fact impossible. Why? Because there is always two sides to a balance sheet: for every asset there is a corresponding liability, which means that when you have a trade deficit with the rest of the world the exporting nations accumulate financial assets in your currency, which in turn means you have to run continuous deficits to account for these.
This framework is based on sectoral balances:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectoral_balances
The problem with comparing a government budget to a household one is that this always ignores one side of the balance sheet. If a government runs a because that would mean that households spend more than they earn) the only way that any government can run continuous surpluses is if they are a net exporter of goods, such as Germany. Countries such as the US or UK that are net importers have to run continuous deficits, which is exactly what they do.
Government debt is equal to private sector assets. Those bonds are assets to the people and institutions that hold them. They can be taxed away, and that would get rid of the government debt, but the private sector would then be poorer as a result. It's mathematically impossible for it to be any other way, because there are always two sides to the balance sheet.
And what happens to this debt-based economy when it’s shut down by politicians in response to a virus? Oh, and did I mention that same government has been flooding markets with multi-trillions of fiat dollars in an effort to stave off complete economic collapse?
That article on Mises.org is in fact slightly inaccurate, because there is no fractional reserve requirement in modern banking. Banks do not lend out any fraction of deposits (they can't, a deposit is a liability to the bank which they can't lend out). All the money that banks lend out is created as credit by the bank.
If you take out a loan or a mortgage then the bank expands its balance sheet upwards (ie it creates the money out of thin air) and issues a new asset and a new liability. The money deposited in your account is an asset to you, backed by the debt which is a liability to you. From the bank's POV it works the other way around: the deposit is a liability but the corresponding debt is an asset (to the bank). The Bank Of England paper explains this in detail:
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy.pdf
Reserves are just there to settle interbank differences at the end of the day.
Some people argue for full recerve banking, which would mean that banks would not have this money creating power. There are pros and cons to this but it's worth considering that the current system work with supply and demand, people take out loans freely when they need them, and that access to credit can be very beneficial, for example when people take out mortgages to buy a house. The alternative would be to make credit less accessible, but that could mean it's harder to middle-class people to buy property for example.
If this has prevented economic collapse as you say, then where's the problem?
FWIW one of the main reasons the Great Depression was so bad was because of the Gold Standard. Without a lender of last resort many viable and solvent banks and businesses went bust because their assets were tied up in other institutions that were failing. We avoided this in 2008 and 2020 thanks to fiat currency.
I daresay you’re repeating falsehoods you’ve been told since childhood. Let’s see what this economic historian and economist have to say about it: https://tomwoods.com/ep-1847-the-truth-about-the-great-depression/
I'll take a look tomorrow, but I'm guessing that's from an Austrian economist
Markets flooded with fiat money make that money worth less. If you do your own shopping, you will have noticed this in a very real way.