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
I'm a skeptic. Cryptocurrency is detached from things of value. A farmer grows crops, a factory stamps out new cars, a carpenter builds a house, and there exists a thing of value that did not exist before. Ordinary currency exists to simplify the exchange of things of value -- rather than trading bushels of corn for the house, dollar bills provide fluidity. The value of the dollar bill is not in the paper -- it's for the things you might trade it for.
Crypto looks a lot like a Ponzi scheme to me. Some people are putting money in to a bucket, others are taking it out. The ones taking it out are encouraging others to put more money in. While the money is in the bucket, it's not being used to create anything of value -- no crops are being grown, no factory stamping out cars, and so on. It's not a stock market investment, where the cash facilitates the creation of things of value. Crypto trading is just shuffling money around, with new people putting money in, in the hopes that more money will fall out later.
I see gambling the same way. Go to Las Vegas, and you can play the slot machine, and maybe win a bunch of money. But the math does not work where everyone is a winner. For every winner, there has to be a bunch of losers. Making matters worse, the casino is going to get their cut before everyone else. IMO, the only way to really win is to not play (or own the casino).
The only way a crypto asset can go up in value is for more people to buy it at a higher price. But on top of that there is a significant leakage out of the metaphorical bucket every single day because of the energy costs which need to be converted into fiat and leave the system. So it's worse than a zero-sum game where no value is being created, it's actually negative-sum.
The statistical reality is that for every winner there has to be multiple losers.
Initially it was literally supposed to be a digital implementation of cash, that’s all. Not an alternative to gold, not something to invest in and never touch, not a thing to watch go up and down. It was only supposed to be cash, done digitally. The existing digital implementations of cash had problems which the Bitcoin protocol went some way to solve. (The Bitcoin protocol is not the same as BTC, mind – BTC uses the Bitcoin protocol, of course, but as it is open source, so do a lot of other coins, including for eg Dogecoin).
Here’s the original paper that started it all: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
And as I say, initially it only had a remit of being a digital cash. Somehow it got conceptually gamed and turned into the thing we see now.
If anything I would suggest Ethereum has a stronger long term future, because of additional utility such as smart contracts, dapps and DeFi. It’s similar to how gold is not just a store of value, it also has legit industrial uses. Bitcoin has no other use other than what was in the original white paper, of being digital cash. Eth actually does have proper uses outside of being just a transactional digital cash.
Sell
I find a very high correlation between Bitcoin evangelists and gold bugs. In fact, both are practically irrelevant to the economy (I’m being kind to Bitcoin with the “practically”). Bitcoin is a concept by which we measure our pain - it’s a conspiracy theory, a board game, a complete abstraction from the impossible job of actually analyzing the economy and its companies, investing and trading. It’s rife with ideological manipulation and fraudsters, a pump and dump. If you have gains and are waiting to be the last one out, you’re a sucker. You can always buy back in later with a disciplined investing strategy like they use in the real world, and just give up a fraction of gains. Saying “Never get out or you’ll miss out” is what bernie madoff told his victims.
Q: Has any ass wandered in here and asked for such a topic to be removed because it’s “annoying or impolite” or did they successfully ignore this off topic post?
/s
Not yet 😀
The disagreements are all civil so far.
People have been warning investors for about a year about Bitcoin crashing any day now:
And Etherium not taking off:
I'm glad I listened and kept my money in the S&P 500:
The numbers on the left axis tell the tale. But as with all investing... the rearview mirror tells you what the best strategy is. Predicting the future
requires a leap of faith.
I was talking about banning bitcoin itself .. not about arresting of criminals who robbed people of their money ..
I like Peter Schiff, but he’s basically wrong about everything on cryptos. He is too invested in gold to say anything positive about crypto.
Sounds like you might follow Michael Saylor’s strategies. I agree. He has benefitted greatly from putting his crypto where his mouth is (to coin a phrase) and even though he has arrived to the Bitcoin game late, he is still considered an early adopter by corporate standards. I think Elon Musk must also follow him since soon after MicroStrategy bought BTC, Tesla bought $1.5 billion worth.
Excellent post. Especially the last paragraph. I think there is promise in Etherium blockchain as it evolves. I think there's high risk / short term promise in Etherium itself but I don't trust at all in that. My tiny investments in crypto are weighted toward Etherium, and a few companies related to the technology. (So far the related investments aren't working out so well, but I expected that and am going to hang in there.)
We're talking chump change on my part here though.
(Praying that Bitcoin doesn't crash and burn dramatically though 'cause at this point that would take everything else down and also have ripple effects on markets as a whole. A dramatic Bitcoin event is going to hurt a lot of people, whether they have investments in it or not.)
It doesn’t bother me too much if Bitcoin crashes and burns. My 82 pence worth of BTC earlier today is now worth only 78p, which is a disaster, but I’m prepared to lose it all if I have to. If everyone else holding BTC loses theirs, then we all have zero. I can handle it, no problem, I’m mentally prepared.
Michael Saylor says Bitcoin is the new gold for people and companies to hold for the next 100 years. I agree it’s a smart long term hold (“hodl”).
Do you mean the Michael Saylor who told his employees a year ago that COVID was not a health crisis -and still seems to believe that - who said that social distancing was worse than the disease?
20 years ago he paid something like 8 $million in fines for fraudulent filings.
He is now up to his eybeballs in bitcoin -- so, he is not a disinterested commenter. He has a vested interest in others valuing it even more highly than he does. It doesn't make him wrong, but it should cause one to recognize that he is biased
I'd be hesitant to treat the 100-year forecast of someone sooo wrong about the pandemic -- who has continued to be on the wrong side of the analysis. While lots of people may have been wrong a year ago, continuing to downplay the pandemic's seriousness is, imo, a sign that someone is not a brilliant thinker.
I have 0 idea if bitcoin is viable longterm, but this Saylor's opinion is suspect.
He’s being taken seriously now. Because you disagree with him for his other past (or current) opinions isn’t relevant.
I think it is very relevant how wrong he was about things in the past. Pundits' reputations rest on their track record of analysing data and make predictions.
Ed's comment that he is not a disinterested spectator is also very valid. There is this problem with bitcoin where people who have already bought in have a vested interest in making others buy in so it is hard to trust them. That said, I am getting very very tempted to invest in bitcoin finally. It's a bit / a lot risky yes, but without wanting to go into details, unfortunately I am at a point in my financial journey where I feel I need to take a bit of a risk.
So I am following all opinions from both sides on this thread with great interest, keep it coming folks 😜
I guess I should make it more clear that Saylor is listened to now because he took a risk and made a good bet. People are willing to overlook a lot when someone very publicly wins or makes a prediction which pans out.
Now Bitcoin has a 12 year track record, longer than Saylor has been involved in it. It’s only reaching critical mass. People should feel free to ignore Saylor, but Bitcoin and other innovations involving blockchain (and many others which expand on the original ideas) are here to stay. Why? Because the math supports it and there is a lot of money invested in this space now.
I preface all of the following comments with the disclaimer that I do not give financial advice to anyone and I’m not responsible for investing decisions made by any individuals...
The best time to get in was 10-12 years ago, but it’s still within the realm of possibility that Bitcoin will rise much higher since it’s being widely adopted by corporations as a hedge against inflation. Unrestrained money printing as a politically driven reaction to the economic damage done by COVID shutdowns is causing rapid devaluation of fiat currencies. And it does not look like the political class is willing to stop with this recklessness either.
Again, I am not encouraging or discouraging anyone from investing or even investigating cryptos. Everyone must do their own homework and they should be responsible for all gains and losses. Personally, only a fraction of my money is currently tied to cryptos, but I’m quickly moving more into a mix of them.
@NeuM: someone being completely wrong in their ongoing analysis of COVID should make one question their brilliance. Having gone all-in on bitcoin doesn’t make him wrong...but it gives him a vested interest in stoking people’s enthusiasm. You can choose to ignore it, but I suggest that it is a fact that people heavily invested in bitcoin need people to remain enthusiastic... because enthusiasm for the it is the basis of its value.
As I said in a prior post, Bitcoin predates Saylor’s appearance on the crypto scene. He shouldn’t be seen as a nuts and bolts expert, but he is very influential right now. Yes, people should be aware of whose interests are being served when anyone goes around touting the latest, hottest investment.
Being influential is independent from being justifiably influential. Being an influencer is not a qualification just a social fact.
Do you have any comments or thoughts on cryptos? What is your experience?
I don't get it. Who gives a crap who said something and why? Anyone's opinions are either backed up by analysis or they're not not. If not, then they're worthless except as indicators of something someone might want to research on their own. If they are backed up by analysis, then they're still worthless unless one verifies said analysis and ends up agreeing.
The day I take someone's advice based on who they are without digging in to see if I agree is the day I deserve to lose my shorts.
I agree.
Sure AND if someone posts that “so-and-so says Bitcoin is the future” (as if that should increase one’s confidence that Bitcoin is the future) then It is relevant to consider whether so-and-so is someone whose analysis should carry weight.
As for whether it is relevant what some expert has said: what real experts have to say about a topic where one doesn’t (and lets be honest none of us here has expertise enough about the topic to be considered expert) have expertise should be relevant as one weighs the arguments ... none of which are going to be complete.
What is YOUR personal experience with Bitcoin or any other crypto?
As for me, at last count I have positions in about 25 different cryptos and my investments are worth (on paper) roughly twice what I’ve invested. In other words, I’ve managed to outperform my other investments by a huge percentage by accepting greater risk. I’ve only been in the market since the last quarter of last year and I finally jumped in because of the complete disregard of politicians for the economic damage they’ve been doing with their absolutely terrible policies.
And for the record, I hold no DOGE.
Business guys seem to be blowhards who don't respect boundaries (both people and subject matter, which is kind of a good thing for biz deals I guess). False confidence, blah blah. Anyway, the ones I know will confidently throw their opinion around on tons of subjects, but it is where they put their money that is their real bets / thoughts and opinions that they take seriously and literaly invest in. Covid babble? I am sure he just threw that around with little thought or care. I don't know much about the dude, but he seems like a typical biz shark type, his opinion on Covid was probably more to do with an arrogant immortality complex and wanting to keep his employees from freaking out.
I would advise extreme caution about investing in Bitcoin at this point in time, because this has all the characteristics of a bubble:
And to reiterate: the only way the price of Bitcoin can increase is if more people are willing to buy in at a higher price, at some point you run out of such people.
And unlike real estate or stock and shares, Bitcoin does not produce yield in the form of revenue, rent, or dividends - it is a purely speculative asset (in the sense that you can only profit if the price goes up). If you make money from Bitcoin that money can only come from other people buying into it. And because the energy costs are a net drain on the entire system, statistically there will be more losers than winners.
Warning - long post, skip if you're not interested in economics.
One recurring theme you will hear from Bitcoin advocates is that we are headed for hyperinflation, this has been the case since the very beginning - at the time that Bitcoin was first created we were in the midst of the 2008/2009 financial crisis and governments were running large deficits as a result of the crisis.
There were many warnings from inflation hawks that the world was heading for high inflation, and these became almost hysterical when central banks started their various QE programs. Of course we all know that this inflation never materialised, and the next decade was in fact defined by low growth and low inflation, as a result of the early turn to austerity that was caused by this fear of inflation.
People have short memories, if the inflation hawks were wrong then, why should they be right now?
The reason that they are wrong is simple: they believe in the Quantity Theory Of Money: the more money created by governments and banks, the higher inflation will be.
The Quantity Theory Of Money is simply wrong, it's a naive and simplistic view of inflation that has been repeatedly disproved by history. Central Banks all over the world have engaged in large-scale QE programs that have significantly increased overall bank reserves with hardly any impact on inflation. Governments have run increasingly large deficits, for example the Trump tax cuts, with very little impact on inflation.
Why? Because it's not the quantity of money that drives inflation: it's spending. If money is created but not spent (for example by giving tax cuts to the already wealthy) then the inflationary impact is negligible.
Imagine the following situation: there is a construction boom, property prices are going up and there is a lot of building work going on. This means that people working in the building trade will find jobs easily and unemployment in the building sector is low. Suppliers are doing well, and raw materials are at capacity.
What would happen if the government was to embark on an infrastructure-building program in this situation? Well in order to hire people who are already working in the private sector it would need to offer higher wages. Then to acquire raw materials it would need to outbid the existing private sector firms. Suppliers would become stretched, raw materials would become more expensive as demand rises.
This is called demand-pull inflation, and in this case the government is competing in an already booming sector and causing prices to rise, inflation is the expected result.
Now imagine a different set of circumstances: rather than a construction boom, there is a slump. Building firms are very quiet, demand is low. Construction workers find it hard to get a job and unemployment in the sector is high. If the government was to embark on an infrastructure building program now the results would be very different. Because it is not trying to out-compete the private sector prices are far less likely to rise. The state can hire workers at existing rates because there are many unemployed construction workers. Suppliers are not stretched, so they can meet the rise in demand without needing to increase prices.
In this second situation the government can deficit spend without increasing inflation. So here the benefits of creating new jobs and improving infrastructure come without an inflationary risk. This approach is the basis for Keynesian economics, which places demand at the centre of its analysis, rather than the quantity of money.
The economy is made up of many sectors, construction being just one of course, so the bottlenecks can occur in some places but not in others.
So, will the current policy approach of large deficits cause inflation? Yes, it could - especially as we near full employment. But it's not because of the amount of money being created, it's due to the risk of demand bottlenecks. Lumber prices in the US for example are rising, partly due to chronic staff shortages at lumber mills.