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
Are you sure you weren’t in Manchester?
I have serious doubt about this. Currently it is true, institutional investors are looking as second option of investment on ETH and some capital is flowing there. Mostly because they are believing Vitalik fairytales about ETH 2.0.
Unfortunately, if you see more in dept you realise that ETH 2.0 will be available - my raw guess - not sooner than 2026 - 2028. There is near to zero development to date, they even didn't finished phase about specifications of next development.
Many people don't know, ETH 2.0 is not about "updating" of ETH by removing PoW. No, it doesn't work that way. ETH 2.0 will be basically completely new blockchain, completely new code.
Now, in this rapidly growing industry, 5-6 years of development is ages. Until then, other smart contract blockchains will eat the industry (Solana, Polkadot, maybe Cardano).
So i really thing in upcoming years, Ethereum will slowly fade away.
It will be interesting to see something (anything) escape Bitcoin's long Mr. Tickle arms.
Last week, as Bitcoin fainted, Ethereum immediately rushed to mop its brow, and to whisper sweet nothings. Who does number 2 work for? Cardano was the only one that I noticed put up much of a fight for independence. A lone green chart in a sea of red, for a time. The heartless sod. For context, the drop happened at a point where Cardano's star was rising, and I'm sure that must have come into it.
I imagine that with a few more years' big money steeped in Ethereum, and enough momentum during some future Bitcoin stumble, it could indeed strike out on its own. Trap us all in a sticky web and cocoon us for later.
Also, Bristol's lovely but I've heard that Plymouth's a hotbed of drunken fisticuffs. A friend out there had a portion of chips smacked out of his hands before being punched in the eye for no reason, by a complete stranger. He told me. Although I imagine it's a rather nice place in the daytime. Watching the boats in the harbour, Dartmoor on your doorstep etc.
That's smalltown England full stop, from Rochdale to Catford. But having the army or navy stationed nearby certainly adds an edge.
I used to live near Exeter when I was a teenager. Pretty as a postcard in the day, a warzone when the pubs closed. I felt safer living in Moss Side as a student.
Unlikely for now :-)
My favourite chart aka "signal vs. noise"
I spent my teenage years in Reading and I imagine it was much the same back then. Although I don't remember feeling unsafe - even though I did get punched in the face a few times. Mostly it was annoyance and despair at the dominant townie culture and some of the more abrasive personalities you'd run into. Plus, it's embarrassing when your friends come to visit and the first thing they see walking out of the station is a man shout-singing and taking a piss in the middle of the road.
I suppose the magic ingredient that makes Plymouth "Rough as fuck" (according to my mate - he's from Exeter, as it happens) must be the navy thing. As you say. Men off boats letting off steam. In a concentrated pattern of blows to the face.
Yes, I've seen this one. The top 10 would be more useful imho, but I get why you like it
I'm excited for todays events, if they do come to pass. Expecting a bit of turbulence.
No it can't have been Manchester. The rain was falling vertically, not horizontally.
This is one thing I really like about living in China vs the UK. None of this kind of crap, at least not in the city I live in, but growing up in Northern Ireland, you had to constantly keep your wits about you on the streets round closing time.
It's not quite as bad as it used to be to be fair. We seem to have become a little more civilised in the last 20 years or so.
I did think of you Gav, in the midst of this. The troubles were at a whole other level.
This destroyed me down to atoms 🤣😂
"If Bitcoin suceedes we're all gonna die"
It's technically correct.
Hyperbole no doubt, but it’s clear as day that Bitcoiners don’t understand deflation at all. I’ve never read an account of how an economy is supposed to work if it’s inherently deflationary.
Oh yeah man, when you had to be afraid of the police as well as of hooligans, 😂
just because Keynesians are repeating this like parrots it doesn't mean it is true 😂🤣 back in days people used to believe sun is center of universe.. or even earth.. 🤣
But ok, back to serious discussion. I really don't believe and don't expect Bitcoin to be global currency. Global store of value, replacing gold, real eatate and bonds ? Definitely...
Sure, but your statement doesn’t actually offer any analysis, it’s just ad hominem.
“Keynesians” are not an individual, so it’s just a broad brush statement. It’s technically not an ad hominem.
A post about deflation:
Let's make a simple model of a market economy, there are two participants: me and you (this isn't directed at any one individual, it's a generic you).
Every year I sell you $100 of potatoes, and you sell me $100 of cabbages.
My annual income is $100, and so is yours ($100).
Now let's say I decide to save some of my income, so instead of buying $100 worth of cabbages from you, I only buy $90 worth, and I save $10 for a rainy day.
Well, your income has just shrunk by 10% - bad luck!
But of course in the following year you no longer have $100 to spend on potatoes, you only have $90, so you can only buy $90 worth of potatoes from me. So now my income has shrunk too!
If I decide to keep saving, I now have to account for my reduced income. Let's say I decide to keep saving $10 every year, this means that in the second year of saving I only spend $80 on cabbages.
Now your income has shrunk again, wtf? You're getting poorer every year due to my desire to save.
This is known as the paradox of thrift: what is good for the individual (saving) is not good on aggregate, because more saving necessarily means less spending in the economy. The more people save, the less businesses are able to earn.
And this also illustrates the dangers of a deflationary economy: deflation incentivises more saving because your money will be worth more tomorrow than it is today.
If an economy enters into a deflationary spiral because everyone is hoarding their money, the economy shrinks as businesses lose sales and individual incomes dwindle. Eventually businesses lay people off, and the increase in unemployment further strengthens the downward cycle.
Enter the Keynesian argument:
One way to mitigate for the desire to save (and its impact on spending) is for the state to offer a safe asset for savers, in exchange for dollars that are then spent back into the economy.
So let's add a third person into our market economy: The Central Banker (cue sinister music).
The Central banker is willing to exchange my saved dollars for an interest-bearing bond. Fantastic I can earn interest on my savings! I buy the bond, and the banker takes the $20 I saved and spends it back into the economy by buying $20 worth of cabbage from you.
Great, your income has gone back to $100, hurrah! And that means you can increase your spending next year and buy $100 of potatoes from me, so my income will bounce back as well.
As long as the Central Banker is willing to offer a bond for sale and spend the resulting dollars back into the economy, my desire to save can be met without a reduction in total income.
But that requires an elastic money supply: because the bonds that the Central Banker creates out of thin air are a financial asset that is equivalent to the dollars that are taken in exchange. The bonds are less liquid than dollars, but are worth the same.
So when I swap $20 in cash for $20 in bonds, and the Central Banker spends my original $20 back into the economy our money supply has increased by $20: the original $200 plus an additional $20 in the form of bonds.
So by deficit spending, the Central Banker can accommodate my desire to save while preventing a deflationary cycle in the economy. And by swapping liquid cash for illiquid bonds (which are much harder to spend) this also protects the economy from unwanted inflation, because the money that is saved is not liquid enough to spend.
However one consequence of this is that the store of bonds increases over time, and that alarms some people who say the Central Banker is taking on too much debt. But of course as the issuer of currency the Central Banker can never run out of dollars or bonds, since both are created out of thin air by fiat. The Central Banker cannot default, but he can issue too many dollars into the economy and cause inflation.
If we have a set amount of potatoes and cabbages that we produce each year, but the Central Banker spends a greater amount of dollars into the economy buying these from us, prices go up even though production has not changed. This is inflation. So while the Central Banker cannot default in the currency he issues, he can create inflation by overspending.
And this is one pretty compelling reason to issue bonds rather than to monetise the deficit directly: bonds are illiquid and thus far less likely to be a driver of inflation. They mop up saving in the economy and lock it up in illiquid assets.
And if one day the Central Banker decides that he has taken on too much debt he can impose a tax, and take some dollars from you and me. He can then redeem those dollars for the bonds I bought and hey presto the banker's debt goes down. But that also means that the total financial assets in the economy go down as well, because as a bond is redeemed it is extinguished - the banker pays me $20 for my bond, I get the dollars and the bond disappears, so the money supply shrinks by $20.
So it's worth considering the cost of reducing the national debt: doing so necessarily means that the quantity of bonds is reduced, which in turn means that there are fewer overall financial assets in the private sector.
Your posts are very well written @richardyot. I don't have much to add, but I thank you for them.
Thanks! I'm glad to hear it
I would say, society which sustainable existence inherently depends on everlasting growth of production and consumption (which is basically essential premise on which is built whole keynesianism) is utterly wrong and deserves to extinct. From all living forms on earth, it reminds me mostly virus.
which is not problem because by removing thise 10% from circulation you essentially increased value of rest circulating suppy...
Which is essentially same absolute amount of potatoes like previous yesr, because now those $90 have same purchasing power like $100 previous year
Yet you can afford to buy same amount of goods for it.
And no, this will NOT end in spiral, at end of which nobody buys nothing because you always need to buy SOME potatoes otherwise you starve to death.
So deflationary currency basically tends to push society from endless wasting and increasing of comsumption into saving and spending just on really important things they REALLY need.
Now let's translate you potato example tomcurrent system.
Those $100 are losing it's purchasing power every year, because The Bank prints every year new $. So next year i need 102$ to buy same amount of potatoes from you, year after next year 104,...
Problem is. We both have stored money in The Bank. And you're friend with The Bank CEO, so he prints every year new money and just adds them to your account. Which means next year you have 102$ but i have still just $100. So i can't afford to buy same amount of potatoes from you.
But you're ok, you got additional free money from The Bank, so you can pay me 102$. Looks ok - i bought less potoes from you for same price than previous year, but then i got more (102$) by selling you cabbages. So in theory next year imcan again buy same amount of potatotoes, yes ?
Problem is. Next year The Banks adds again new money to your account. So value of all money again decreased - you have now 104$ and me only 102$ and i can again buy less potatoes from you for those 102$.
And it continues to infinitty. You're richer and richer because you're friend wih The Bank CEO, i'm poorer and poorer. I have no motivation to save money because i can buy less and less for them every year (i even haven't anything to save because i spend all my money for potatoes) - so i'm more and more dependent(*) on The Goverment which controls The Bank.
(*) because at some moment i will be not able to buy enough potatoes, so i will ask The Goverment for help. Funny fact is, in that moment Goverment applies taxes on you, takes away some money from you, leaves some of them for own emoloyees and small part gives to me)
That's real world you're fighting for Richard.
There's a few things to unpack here, but let's start with this:
Where do you get this from? It's just plain conspiracy theory. Show me an example where this wasn't considered criminal.
OK this is fundamental: growth is driven by productivity increases, which actually means that you do more by using fewer resources.
I will repeat the example that I used in the previous NFT thread because I think it illustrates the point perfectly:
200 years ago if you wanted to build a road you would need 200 men equipped with shovels and pick-axes. The process would take years.
Today if you want to build a road, you can do it with 20 men using bulldozers and diggers. The process will take months.
Technology allows us to do more with less. Fewer people are required to build a road than in the past because we have technology that allows us to be considerably more productive. 20 people can do the work of 200
This is why we are materially richer than we used to be.
But these kinds of productivity improvements are driven by firms investing in technology in the hope of achieving sales. Apple isn't going to pour a ton of R&D into a new phone or iPad unless it expects to sell them. In a deflationary economy (where people are hoarding money) firms are starved of sales and so they invest far less, and as a result productivity stagnates. This is driven (mostly) by capitalism, by supply and demand. In a flat economy you get flat growth.
So here I'm afraid you're missing the point: by spending less, you bought fewer potatoes, some of my inventory went unsold.
The only way your scenario can happen is if I (and everyone else in the economy) agrees to lower their prices, and we know from history that is not what happens. Firms will lay people off first, rather than lower prices and cut into profit margins. So deflation always causes an increase in unemployment and that then makes the problem worse because it reduces the spending power of the economy even more, and you enter into a spiral of recession/depression.
Oh yeah man, when you had to be afraid of the police as well as of hooligans, 😂
Yes thanks Richard always enjoy your contributions here, that was a fantastically clear argument
it was oversimplification like your example. In reality new printed money are NEVER distributed equally to all players, they are always given to some (typically private banks but now also to big private companies) and only then they slowly leak to rest of market. So somebody has always advantage of being first.
that's problem with oversimplifications.. in real world there are not 2 players. You always find somebody who will buy rest. In keynesian world you're the winner, you got new money first.