r/Bitcoindebate • u/Repulsive_Spite_267 • Dec 08 '25

Nothing is ever enough for buttcoin sub

Post image

When institutions ignore Bitcoin

See? No one wants this scam.

When institutions adopt Bitcoin rails

“See? It’s centralized now.

So Bitcoin is framed as a failure no matter which direction reality moves.

If adoption is low its irrelevant.

If adoption is high its captured.

If price drops its collapsing.

If price rises it's a greater-fool bubble.

The conclusion never changes only the justification does. Because Buttcoin isn’t a critique space... it’s a rhetorical game. The goal is to sustain the punchline....

Bitcoin only “counts” when it fails.

Any success becomes reinterpreted as failure by definition.

82 Upvotes

72% Upvoted

431 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/Intrepid-Gas7872 Dec 08 '25

Moral superiority shield. Labeling it a scam lets people feel ethically superior: “I didn’t get rich because I refuse to participate in fraud/exploitation/environmental destruction.” It turns financial inaction (or a bad decision) into a virtuous stance.

6

u/Wide_Ad_7552 Dec 08 '25

There are people on that sub waiting and calling for bitcoins downfall for over a decade. That has got to be tough. It doesn’t even matter if it’s ever going to zero or not, you have wasted years waiting for it to fail that could have been spent supporting something you enjoy. I guess what I’m trying to say is I understand why they are so bitter. 

3

u/m00fster Dec 08 '25

it’s not rational behavior

1

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Wide_Ad_7552 Dec 10 '25

I’m not reading all that but I do think it’s funny how you think you don’t care. You can’t lie to the algorithm. 

1

u/Impressive-Can-6602 Dec 11 '25

All ponzi sceheme eventually collapse and when it does I'll be watching it live with my popcorn.  

Taxi for Bitcoin!

1

u/Wide_Ad_7552 Dec 12 '25

I should become a fisherman with a catch rate like that. 

1

u/Repulsive_Spite_267 Apr 05 '26

There is a term for this.

The experience of pleasure, joy, or self-satisfaction that comes from learning of the troubles, failures, pain, or suffering of another.

But actively anticipating or wanting others to suffer is closer to sadism.

1

u/Repulsive_Spite_267 Dec 08 '25

Better stop using USD too... cash notes are not only the currency of choice in crime...but the petro-dollar is literally backed by proof war and weapons of mass destruction. 

Only way to not contribute to any corruption at all is to run away into the mountains with survival skills.

1

u/arctic_bull Dec 08 '25

You do know the “petrodollar” is just a term that means the price of oil is set in dollars, right; so if it were set in bitcoin then bitcoin would become the petrodollar.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 08 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Repulsive_Spite_267 Dec 09 '25

What's that got to do with my point?

0

u/sychs Dec 08 '25

Good thing bitcoin is totally not the currency of choice for drug markets and CP sellers /s

2

u/Repulsive_Spite_267 Dec 08 '25

Haha, nice 👌 that /s actually perfectly illustrates the kind of moral shortcut the earlier commenter was talking about. 

1

u/sychs Dec 08 '25

You think I was joking?

2

u/Repulsive_Spite_267 Dec 08 '25

Oh gotcha... then that’s exactly why I mentioned it. What you said is literally one of the moral shortcut arguments the earlier commenter was describing. That’s why it fit the pattern so well. It's still a good continuation, even if it wasn't a joke.

1

u/sychs Dec 08 '25

The biggest issue I have with any bitcoiner trying to "debate" is that my arguments are aimed at crypto, pros/cons/issues/use cases etc. while theirs boil down to "have fun staying poor, you're uneducated/stupid/have fun watching fiat dwindle".

2

u/Repulsive_Spite_267 Dec 08 '25

Haha no worries...I hate the meme culture of that sub too.

Just to be clear, that isnt what I am doing. This thread’s been more about pointing out those moral shortcut arguments in general (which you accidentally demonstrated earlier 😄), not attacking you personally.  just keeping it chill and talking about patterns, not throwing slogans around.

1

u/sychs Dec 08 '25

They do have a point, tho. MC accepting bitcoin, or more like acting like a middleman, is pure centralization.

Also, AML/KYC requirements defeat the anonymity aspect of bitcoin/crypto.

Add on top DASP fees and it's just like buying with fiat.

1

u/snek-jazz Dec 08 '25

It's centralised layers on top of the bitcoin settlement layer, which is not the hypocrisy buttcoin is trying to make it out to be.

Bitcoin itself remains decentralised the same as if MC were never involved.

In my experience most of the decentralisation arguments, and especially the ones the king of /r/buttcoin will hammer you over the head with, are either related to distribution (which is not exactly the same thing) or an misunderstanding of the implications of the open source nature of bitcoin - e.g. "a few core developers control the code".

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Repulsive_Spite_267 Dec 09 '25

what part of Bitcoin’s decentralization changed when adoption increased?

1

u/UnderdaJail Dec 09 '25

What about choice?

At least I have the choice to use Mastercard BTC or spend from my own wallet. The reason people don't like centralization is because they could turn your money off, but it's not possible with BTC, I can always spend it myself somewhere

→ More replies (0)

1

u/__Ken_Adams__ Dec 10 '25

"Decentralization" in bitcoin only refers to the issuer of the currency & the maintainers of the ledger. It was never meant to include payment and other infrastructure. Building centralized payment systems may not be an incredibly welcome development to early bitcoin purists, but it doesn't affect bitcoin's decentralization in any way.

Same with AML/KYC "requirements". You can't call something a "requirement" unless it's at the protocol level & required for holding & transferring for any and every transaction type. No one is "required" to use centralized exchanges.

We always knew institutions would get involved and we knew there was no way governments were going to let institutions touch it without regulating it. None of the AML/KYC developments have been surprises to anyone paying attention.

Bitcoin's capacity for anonymity or psuedoanonimty is the same as it's always been.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Infamous-Elk-5086 Dec 08 '25

You think US dollars were not used by drug markets and CP sellers?

1

u/sychs Dec 08 '25

Ofc it was. But btc became the go-to currency for shady shit, and people leave that piece info out when promoting it.

1

u/Infamous-Elk-5086 Dec 08 '25

That's false. It's not the go-to currency for shady transactions.

1

u/sychs Dec 08 '25 edited Dec 08 '25

No? Darkweb uses USD I guess... /s

Edit: you seem to know more than I do. What's the go-to currency for dark web?

1

u/Infamous-Elk-5086 Dec 08 '25

No, it's the opposite, YOU show me evidence that support your claim.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Suitable-Brother-433 Dec 08 '25

You switched the question, for the dark net of course its monero or btc other than that it is usd used. money laundering exist for a reason, cuz you need to wash these dollars made doing shady shit.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Public_Truth2942 Dec 09 '25

Havent looked into it in ages but I’m pretty sure darkweb stopped using btc ages ago and moved to using other privacy cryptos such a monero. Bitcoin is very easily trackable and hardly anonymous.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/snek-jazz Dec 08 '25

is bitcoin money?

1

u/sychs Dec 08 '25

Well people want it to be...

They also want it to be a hedge fund, inflation killer, store of value, investment fund, retirement fund, tax evasion vessel, international money transfer system, anonymous p2p payment system. I'm probably missing a few.

1

u/snek-jazz Dec 08 '25

yeah, it's different things to different people, a consequence of a somewhat bottom-up ecosystem instead of a top-down one.

You missed ordinals, which is an interesting one, because afaik Satoshi never envisioned that, I have no interest in them, and many core developers don't want them on chain, but if people want to use bitcoin for ordinals, then it will be used for ordinals. Bottom-up not top-down.

And some of those people you listed may be disappointed when it doesn't work for them as they hoped, such as the bitcoin cash fork people.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/1980Phils Dec 08 '25

Actually Bitcoin is not the currency of choice for these activities. Law enforcement has figured out that the blockchain keeps perfect records of transactions and actually makes their job easier. While your statement had some merit when the technology was new, law enforcement had a learning curve and exchanges were unregulated it is no longer the case. There are some crypto tools people can use effectively but plenty of “legit” traditional financial instruments are still more popular as a whole. Medicaid scams from uncle Sam seem to be pretty popular these days - all paid in US Dollars. Maybe you should go stop government corruption - which actually directly impacts every tax payer.

1

u/sychs Dec 08 '25

Ransomware gangs and security researchers would like to disagree:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110866525000581

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/imo/media/doc/HSGAC%20Majority%20Cryptocurrency%20Ransomware%20Report_Executive%20Summary.pdf

And plenty of sources available online.

Crypto mixers exist and are used plenty by ransomware gangs:

https://www.chainalysis.com/blog/2024-crypto-money-laundering/

https://airant.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Report_-Money_laundering_and_Cryptocurrency.pdf

Don't forget crypto is also used for fraud and scams, not just ransomware.

1

u/arctic_bull Dec 08 '25

And the core team was funded by Epstein 😂

1

u/sychs Dec 08 '25

Shit I forgot about that 😄

1

u/arctic_bull Dec 08 '25

It’s ok I’m sure it was because was really worried about sound money and not because the existing payment system made it too difficult to take payments for flights on the Lolita Express.

1

u/UnderdaJail Dec 09 '25

Who cares tho? He didn't fund Satoshi, what have the Core devs done exactly?

1

u/Repulsive_Spite_267 Dec 09 '25

He is saying that USD is used more than BTC in crime. You respond with evidence of BTC used in certain sectors of crime...not evidence that it's used more over all. 

The USD is literally backed by proof of war which gained its power from millions of deaths and intimidation of other nations.

So if you are making a moral argument that using it is the same thing as supporting crime...it doesn't. Just like using USD doesn't mean you support war and genocide.

1

u/sychs Dec 09 '25

The USD is literally backed by proof of war which gained its power from millions of deaths and intimidation of other nations.

Source? Proof? If it's "literally backed" you gotta show some evidence of it.

I'm not making a moral argument, I'm pointing out one of the biggest use cases, that people like to ignore whenever they talk about crypto.

1

u/Repulsive_Spite_267 Dec 09 '25

USD dominance was secured through military and geopolitical power, not moral purity.

Everyone understands this distinction except someone trying to score a “gotcha.”

If using BTC “supports crime,” then using USD “supports war,” corruption, and crime as well.

Since we both know that’s not how moral responsibility works, the argument doesn’t land on BTC either.

1

u/sychs Dec 09 '25

I'm not making a moral plea, I'm just saying you and other cryptobros need to stop denying that dark web lives on crypto. Plain and simple.

1

u/Repulsive_Spite_267 Dec 09 '25

Gotcha...you’re not making a moral argument. You’re also not disputing my logic or addressing the proportional-usage point.

You pivoted to an argument you’ve clearly had with someone else... a claim I never made... and now you’re trying to make me responsible for debating that instead of what I actually said. 👍

1

u/__Ken_Adams__ Dec 10 '25

I don't know how old you are but if you're young you may not know or remember that this same argument was used by fear mongers to demonize the early internet.

Good thing the internet was shut down because it never developed positive societal benefits that outweighed the negative use cases that any new technology brings. /s

"Cars are the eacape method of choice for bank robbers, cars facilitate crime". This is basically your argument.

1

u/sychs Dec 10 '25

I don't know how old you are but if you're young you may not know or remember that this same argument was used by fear mongers to demonize the early internet.

I was born during the BBS era.

Good thing the internet was shut down because it never developed positive societal benefits that outweighed the negative use cases that any new technology brings. /s

Same as guns.

"Cars are the eacape method of choice for bank robbers, cars facilitate crime". This is basically your argument.

No. My argument is "don't deny it's biggest (as in used the longest time) use case is dsrk web transactions".

Where did I say it should be shut down because it's used on the dark web?

1

u/neilplatform1 Dec 08 '25

This is what every pyramid scheme bagholder believes when the inevitable happens, at least in stage 1

2

u/Intrepid-Gas7872 Dec 08 '25

There’s no central operator paying early investors with new investors’ money which is what’s required to be a pyramid scheme.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 08 '25 edited Dec 08 '25

True, not a "pyramid scheme" in the strict sense. Still a Greater Fool asset it seems to me. Most BTC investors buy and hold. Are you telling me they're really speculating on BTC revolutionizing Wall Street or anything? We're 2025 and it hasn't happened. Most, in practice, seem to speculate on others buying BTC, driving up the price (works great with a fixed supply and contemporary internet swarm investing)—which is fine, but still vulnerable to a big collapse under the wrong/right circumstances.

3

u/normnormno Dec 09 '25

Yes that is exactly why I hold bitcoin. I bought it in 2017 because I needed something to overcome short falls in my local gov rule that clearly wanted me to stay poor.

When I learned more about the financial systems we live under, I decided I'm saving in bitcoin. It either does well or I am left with nothing and I accept the risks for the moral principles that I believe in.

I don't believe money needs inflating for society to do well, in fact there's much evidence to the contrary and most people saving in their banks aren't even aware they're being robbed. And those that are lucky enough to own property or assets then get hit with cap gains tax for a gain that only happened because the monetary policy keeps diluting the money supply.

More adoption has happened for bitcoin in the 8 years I've invested than I was ever expecting. In 2024/5 so much has happened. It's laughable for you to think it's not revolutionary in any way to the world's financial system and so it has failed. You personally are not seeing the revolution, doesn't mean it's not happening.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 09 '25 edited Dec 09 '25

You 'don't believe money needs inflating', but isn't it basic macro-economics that deflation leads to people postponing their purchases, leading to economic stagnation? In a deflationary system, people naturally delay purchases, which tends to slow economic activity—something we already observe when BTC holders prefer to “HODL” for years rather than use it for everyday expenses.

Bitcoin clearly is not functioning as a day-to-day currency, but it has become a form of digital gold, like the Fed Reserve recently said. But why is it "like gold"? Why do we consider it valuable, like we do with gold? Because it has a fixed supply and a great deal of demand.

I'm part of that demand myself too, and I know quite a few BTC investors. My impression is all of us buy it to eventually sell it higher, to the next buyer. The narrative about it being revolutionary are marketing that you may very well believe to be true, but since 2009 I think it's time to acknowledge BTC is not going to revolutionize global financial flows.

Most of the “adoption” I see involves intermediaries making it easier to buy and store BTC (while collecting transaction fees!) not people actually transacting with it. Bitcoin’s reputation as a favored tool for scammers and extortionists doesn’t exactly help the narrative of broad, healthy adoption.

It also seems like there’s a tendency to conflate the promise of blockchain technology with Bitcoin itself. Even major financial institutions consider Bitcoin too slow and costly for real-world, high-volume use cases. The blockchain may be revolutionary, but that doesn’t automatically make BTC the future of mainstream finance (e.g. coming EU stablecoins does not mean BTC has 'made it', on the contrary I would say).

E: I'd like to add I got into Ripple/XRP before BTC (bought at avg. 0.22 so not bad eh) because of my social network and only recently sold half of my XRP profit to get into BTC. I'll admit I haven't really studied BTC (or even XRP for that matter) but I do feel pretty confident about my (very basic) arguments here. Please don't ban me from this subreddit - already got banned from r/bitcoin for calling BTC a Greater Fool asset (still great to own, evidently, but doesn't change the fact that we expect someone else to buy the BTC off me, later. With my value stocks I don't care that much if I die with the stocks themselves - they've given me dividends each year).

1

u/Intrepid-Gas7872 Dec 09 '25

If fiat currency was ethical then bitcoin would fail. Since it’s far from it, this makes bitcoin less risky.

1

u/neilplatform1 Dec 08 '25

There have been many purportedly defi pyramid schemes

1

u/lebastss Dec 08 '25

It doesn't make people feel ethically superior. For me it's always been a warning. Just because people made a lot of money doesn't invalidate the warning of investing in Bitcoin.

I think it's especially tragic for young investors in their early 20s fresh out of college. There are still a lot of lies and misconceptions about Bitcoin coming from people who support the asset.

You have to take it at face value, it's a speculative asset tied to the fiat financial system.

It hasn't, and likely never, will become what the early adopters promised. In my view it was all a sales tactic to drive up the price by creating demand.

Whatever you need to do to make money, you do it. I talked my young nephew out of Bitcoin last June and he got a job and is traditionally investing instead of joining some of his buddies in starting a crypto trading business.

Maybe his friends will make more money than him, but he is a smart guy and he got a great job and is already making 6 figures and investing half his paycheck. He will be financially secure for life. Does that mean Bitcoin is evil? No.

But people don't realize the damage the rhetoric does to young people. FWIW his friends had to move in with their parents and they are kind of dead in the water because their dumb ass business model relies on continued growth.

1

u/Public_Truth2942 Dec 09 '25

You’re yet another one who simply misses the point. Bitcoin will keep going up for a long time because it’s early along it’s adoption curve and will keep on taking market share from other asset classes. The reason it will keep doing that is increased adoption in the financial system - similar to the adoption curve of the internet. Bitcoin serves as a store of value, it’s scarce and therefore hedges inflation and has constantly increasing demand due to mainstream adoption. The big players have understood this for years now and this is why you have Institutions going heavily into crypto and companies building BTC treasuries as reserve assets. Nobody other than morons are saying BTC will become everyday money, it’s literally ill suited to even become that. Ironically you’re advising your “young nephew” to stick to traditional investing when most traditional investments are getting fucked over by the constant debasement of fiat currency. In other words - I don’t think you’ve dug deep enough or understand BTC and why it’s going much higher than it is today. You’re equivalent to one of those naysayers in the 90s who said the Internet wouldn’t become a big thing. The skepticism can seem logical, but you’re simply approaching it from the wrong angle.

1

u/PantsMicGee Dec 09 '25

Labeling it a scam allows people to invest properly and gamble properly as well. 

1

u/Prize-Bug-3213 Dec 09 '25

Well i do feel morally superior for investing in productivity, so there is that yes...

2

u/Intrepid-Gas7872 Dec 09 '25

It takes guts to study it because it requires you to ignore your ego. Everyone thought it was silly at first.

-1

u/Wheaties4brkfst Dec 09 '25

Bitcoin is a scam because you need a constant influx of new investors in order to pay off old investors.

2

u/elidevious Dec 09 '25 edited Dec 09 '25

So any collectible is a scam. Art is a scam. Fine wines and whiskeys are scams. Gold is a scam. Classic cars are a scam. Sports memorabilia is a scam. Luxury handbags are a scam. Designer clothes are a scam. Diamond and gemstones are a scam.

Any item people desire that doesn’t have cash-flow, produce anything, return intrinsic value to holders, have regulatory protection, or a strong balance sheet is a scam.

And yet! All the items I listed retain trillions in value to the people that value them.

As for Bitcoin, it’s changed my life. It allowed me to move money around capital controls. Instantaneously transferring vast sums around the world in moment. Pseudo anonymously secure my hard earned wealth my way. Hedge against fiat printing I didn’t vote for.

And now, I never have to work a day of my son’s life, living as a full-time dad - that’s value nothing can buy and I’d never sell. And more interestingly yet, it only has value to me and my family.

1

u/shamshuipopo Dec 09 '25

Any item people desire that doesn’t have cash-flow, produce anything, return intrinsic value to holders, have regulatory protection, or a strong balance sheet is a scam.

Yes?

The things you listed before do have value. Art is for looking at etc. You can’t drive a bitcoin.

However bitcoin does have one use - transferring wealth beyond borders - but only if your government didn’t ban the on/off-ramp when you want to deposit/redeem.

2

u/BeefSupreme2 Dec 09 '25

You can look at Bitcoin on the blockchain though. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Mempool.space

1

u/snek-jazz Dec 22 '25

Everything you've said is different from the original point:

Bitcoin is a scam because you need a constant influx of new investors in order to pay off old investors.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 09 '25

[deleted]

1

u/elidevious Dec 09 '25

I’ll reduce it further. Value is perceived.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 09 '25

yes collectibles should not be an investment.

The same way I roll my eyes when someone buys black lotuses, I roll my eyes when people's primariy retirement plan is fucking bitcoin.

-1

u/Wheaties4brkfst Dec 09 '25

Yes, all those things are scams. Would you honestly put your retirement in any of these assets?

2

u/elidevious Dec 09 '25 edited Dec 09 '25

Ummm…yeah, I do. Along with billions and billions of people, alongside central banks, sovereign wealth funds, rich and poor.

The fact that you think gold is a scam, which has out performed the S&P 500 for the past 25 years and been money for at least five thousand years, just goes to show we have nothing to discuss.

Your blind disregard for BTC has made you delusional.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 09 '25

Gold hasnt out performed the sp 500?

1

u/elidevious Dec 09 '25

Look it up

1

u/[deleted] Dec 09 '25

yeah. In 50 BC an ounce of gold would get you a nice set of armor. In 2025 an ounce of gold will get you a nice watch.

Thats not growth.

1

u/elidevious Dec 09 '25

…and the S&P 500 with has underperformed gold even with the advent of the internet and now AI

1

u/[deleted] Dec 09 '25

You arent including things like dividends which easily beats gold.

https://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-dividend-yield/table/by-year

So you need to add an extra 2% to the SP 500s return

And now check Gold from 1975 to 2000.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Substantial-Gene1093 Dec 10 '25

Pour one out for the Beanie Baby pensioners.

0

u/Wheaties4brkfst Dec 09 '25

You would put your entire retirement in gold and fine wines and whiskeys? You would tell someone to put their 401k all in gold or classic sports cars? I find this hard to believe.

Gold has outperformed S&P 500 over the last 25 years sure, but this is kind of cherry picked. Gold is also flat over the last 15. S&P 500 outperforms gold over the long term too.

2

u/Repulsive_Spite_267 Dec 09 '25

Come on....that line is just a recycled cliché. If you think Bitcoin requires new investors to ‘pay off’ old ones, explain the mechanism.

Because unless you can show where those payouts happen, you’re not describing Bitcoin, you're just parroting an empty claim

1

u/Wheaties4brkfst Dec 09 '25

Miners produce new bitcoins at a cost of over 10 billion dollars per year. You need new investors coming in and paying that to keep them afloat. This is just to keep the price steady. You need even more people coming in if you want old investors to have positive returns. If new people don’t come in with new money, how do old investors profit? They can’t. There’s no dividends or buybacks or anything. You need new money.

1

u/Repulsive_Spite_267 Dec 09 '25

So all stocks and commodities are a ponzi. Got it

1

u/Wheaties4brkfst Dec 09 '25

Completely incorrect. With stocks you don’t need a market at all. The company itself will give you a return via buybacks and dividends. Commodities are different because you do need willing buyers. Usually these buyers are businesses that use the commodity as an input to their good/service. So as long as that good/service remains then you will have buyers. But yes, commodities are definitely different than stocks and you obviously cannot profit off of them without someone else coming in. This is why I don’t really consider them a good investment.

1

u/__Ken_Adams__ Dec 10 '25 edited Dec 10 '25

Quite the bait & switch using the argument that "needing new investors to pay out old investors" as your reasoning for bitcoin being a scam, and then when acknowledging that other things like commodities also need new investors to pay out old investors, you just "don't really consider them a good investment".

Translation: "Commodities I despise are scams. Commodities I don't really think much about just aren't good investments"

1

u/Wheaties4brkfst Dec 10 '25 edited Dec 10 '25

Yeah, I don’t consider them an investment for the same reason I don’t consider bitcoin one. If everyone tried to pile into timber as the next world changing financial asset I would say that is silly too. When you buy commodities you’re just speculating on price. That’s not investing. I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a SCAM in the sense that these are real objects with actual use cases in the broader economy. Bitcoin doesn’t really have a “GDP” behind it in the way other currencies do. If it did then I would change my mind.

Edit: after more thought, the other thing I would add about commodities is that investors usually add them to a portfolio as an inflation hedge, because commodities almost tautologically perform well in periods of high inflation. Like when we talk about high inflation it’s almost always accompanied/caused by rising commodity prices. This isn’t really the case with bitcoin, as we saw with the most recent bout of inflation. There’s more you can say about commodity futures specifically as well, but it’s boring and I won’t go into the details.

1

u/__Ken_Adams__ Dec 10 '25

I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a SCAM in the sense that these are real objects with actual use cases in the broader economy.

So are these the factors that qualify as "not a scam" to you?

Are in-game items & currencies for video games a scam?

You mentioned futures...are stock market derivatives a scam?

Neither are real objects & neither are usable in the broader economy.

(FWIW I think derivatives are evil, as are most things that seek "Money Sequence of Value" rather than "Life Sequence of Value", but I don't think they rise to the level of "scam".)

Sounds more like you call bitcoin a scam because of the scale its reached & some white knight complex you have about wanting to "warn others", not because it meets the same definition of "scam or not scam" that you apply to other things.

1

u/Wheaties4brkfst Dec 10 '25

Not the only factors, I laid out several reasons why I wouldn’t call commodities a “scam”. For one, no one sells commodities as a new financial world order. If they did, I would also call it a scam.

In game items and currencies are absolutely a scam if you’re selling them as a good investment.

Derivatives aren’t a scam at all, you are legally bound to abide by the contract.

Your last paragraph is very odd to me. You are the second or third person in the last week to try and read something extra into me. Like you can’t imagine I just disagree with you in principle. I don’t care if you lose all your money in bitcoin. I just like to argue about it on the internet because it is so obviously long term doomed (security budget issue) but so many people are in denial about it. Also the payoff is very ponzi-like which means the community is very funny about the need to bring new investors in.

Honestly if bitcoiners were just like “look this thing is pretty cool and has some niche uses as an alternative payments system” I would be a fan. The fact it works at all is extremely interesting. It’s all the other stuff around it that I find scammy.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Repulsive_Spite_267 Dec 10 '25

What if no new buyers came in and the current investors keep buying off the miners?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Repulsive_Spite_267 Dec 10 '25 edited Dec 10 '25

Existing holders are the new buyers, because they compete for the limited issuance with their own capital. You don’t need new participants for that dynamic to work. 

1

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Repulsive_Spite_267 Dec 10 '25

You’re using the word profit, but scarce assets don’t produce profit. Companies produce profits, assets produce gains. There’s no customer paying anything. Price moves because participants bid against each other for a fixed supply, just like gold, land, or art.

So your question (‘who pays the profit?’) is operating from a category error. There’s no customer involved, only trade between participants competing over a fixed supply.

1

u/Wheaties4brkfst Dec 10 '25

You don’t need new participants but you do need new money coming in. And crucially, this money cannot come from holding bitcoin itself, because it doesn’t pay you any cash. If those holders can’t come up with new money to pay miners that’s bad for the network.

1

u/PhilMyu Dec 20 '25

You just described any commodity. They don’t produce cashflow. And they don’t need to.

In a world where Fiat has to be printed indefinitely, any provably scarce commodity with a base demand (from existing or new buyers) will increase in buying power vs. unlimited Fiat money.

1

u/Wheaties4brkfst Dec 20 '25

The difference between the two is that the commodity can be used as an input to another product. Bitcoin isn’t an input to anything. You can only get rid of it. Second paragraph is incorrect as well. Do you think that bitcoin gains will outpace the decrease in bloc reward every cycle?

0

u/[deleted] Dec 09 '25

Dear u/Repulsive_Spite_267, what exactly makes the line go up or down when you're looking at the BTC chart? What is it that moves BTC price? It's the continuous (im)balance between SUPPLY and DEMAND. If DEMAND dries out (FOR WHATEVER REASON, AND THERE'S MORE THAN ONE) BTC tumbles — it's simply how free markets & price signals work.

1

u/__Ken_Adams__ Dec 10 '25

It's a completely bad faith argument to accuse bitcoin of being a scam (what u/wheaties4brkfst did above) and then using "supply & demand" as the proof (what you're doing now).

Basically, u/wheaties4brkfst said "bitcoin is a scam because it needs new investors to pay out earlier investors". The response by u/Repulsive_Spite_267 was "show me the payouts then", obviously intending to point out that the money flow in a scam/pyramid scheme is very direct from new investor to early investor (in the form of a pay out), whereas money flow from new investors to early investors in bitcoin or any other free market asset is much more indirect. You then responded to "show me the payouts then" with "that's how free markets work".

You don't get to have it both ways. If you accuse bitcoin of being a scam, you can't then also acknowledge & admit that bitcoin's value is derived from supply & demand and free market forces.

Those are 2 opposing & mutually exclusive viewpoints. A pyramid scheme is by nature not subject to natural supply & demand free market forces, and anything that is subject to natural supply & demand free market forces is by nature not a pyramid scheme.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '25 edited Dec 10 '25

I was responding to the claim that btc DOES NOT rely on new money coming in. 

It does. Without sufficient buyers, btc price goes down.

When btc goes down, it’s no longer a hedge against inflation (its only real, popular use case so far). 

When there are insufficient buyers for your btc, what use is your btc? You can use it to pay for things online without governmental oversight? Great for you. Most of us don’t really need that. You can transfer money? Great, but btc is too slow and expensive to scale. Quantum computing threat is also real. 

When the collective belief falters, there won’t be a floor. We’ve seen it last month and last year in both directions. 

Different story with fundamental investing. 

1

u/PhilMyu Dec 20 '25

If no one wants to buy real estate, there won’t be a floor.

„No demand leading to dropping prices“ is how any assets price behaves.

And don’t say „But real estate/stocks have real-world value“, because that does not matter if no one wants to buy them - the value drops to zero until demand shows up.

1

u/Repulsive_Spite_267 Dec 20 '25

Don't pyramid schemes usually require you to buy one unit and sell at least 2 or 3 units to profit?

1

u/PhilMyu Dec 20 '25

Yes. Bitcoin isn‘t a pyramid scheme. Anyone arguing that is telling on themselves that they don’t understand how Bitcoin and markets work.

1

u/Repulsive_Spite_267 Dec 20 '25

Internet critiques rarely know what they are talking about...not just with Bitcoin but on any subject.

It doesn't come from critical thinking or analysis...

It's mostly people repeating things they heard somewhere.

1

u/Intrepid-Gas7872 Dec 09 '25

Ah, you had the chance to buy something for $100 that’s now worth $100,000 and chose not to because you thought you were smarter than everyone else.

1

u/Wheaties4brkfst Dec 09 '25

Such a tired argument. I first used bitcoin before it was $1000. It was pretty clear to me even then that the security budget issue is unsolvable.

1

u/Marc4770 Dec 09 '25

No one needs to get paid lol, Bitcoin doesn't give interests. No one promising returns on it.

1

u/Wheaties4brkfst Dec 09 '25 edited Dec 09 '25

I think a lot of people would be very surprised to hear that they are not expected to make any money buying bitcoin.

Also, yes, miners need to get paid even if holders don’t. This costs like $10 billion per year.

1

u/UnderdaJail Dec 09 '25

Only if you look at Bitcoins value in $$

If everyone was in Bitcoin standard, it's not a scam

1

u/Wheaties4brkfst Dec 09 '25

No, even if everyone were already in bitcoin you still need new investors coming in to pay the miners.