The other night I got into an argument with my sister about discriminated classes, and I pointed out that one of the most discriminated classes that is almost completely ignored is left handed people. Both my sister and I are left handed, but she does not perceive any kind of real discrimination. Is it because there isn’t a significant amount of discrimination, or is it because social justice warriors don’t go around screaming about left handed discrimination?

But what discrimination is there? It can’t be that bad, can it? It can. In fact, our own language is permeated by that discrimination, as are our social norms. The “right” way is the correct way. Sinister, which has come to mean evil, is quite literally the Latin word for “left.” If you are ambidextrous, you have two right hands. If you are a poor dancer, you have two left feet. Moreover, when you go to greet someone, you shake their hand, but only by reaching out your right hand.

Of course there is also the obvious material issues with being left handed. The world is set up for right handed people. But issues are far more extreme than that. Research has suggested that left handed surgeons have more difficulty than right handed surgeons. There is evidence justifying the claim that people who are left handed have different brains, and yet left handed people seem to be generally excluded from research. This exclusion is not accidental. Left handed people still make up 10 – 15% of the population, but they are excluded from these studies to reduce variance.

Of course, we don’t have certain forms of discrimination that we used to have. Left handed people are no longer burned at the stake or beaten into using their right hands. Of course, since left-handedness is partially genetic, past discrimination very well may have had an influence on the current state of left handed people, and may also be one reason why it is difficult to find products designed to be used by left handed people. It’s also possible that families with a tendency towards left-handedness are also economically disadvantaged because of the past, though given that only about 25% of handedness is hereditary, that might be a bit of a stretch.

Of course, things have settled down a bit in the United States. In other countries, this is not necessarily the case. In India, eating food with your left hand is disrespectful. It can be quite offensive to use your left hand in the Middle East.  Regardless, there is clear discrimination within our culture, against left handed people. It is embedded in our language and our greetings, as well as our production of tools and research criterion. It seems that the only reason why left handed people are not given more attention is that social justice warriors have not taken up the mantle.

The post Left Handed People appeared first on Politicoid.

Socialism is not government control. The purpose of this article is to articulate the nature of socialism, capitalism, and markets. While a word can mean anything you want it to mean, there are advantages to using a common lexicon, including when discussing capitalism and socialism.

Key points

• Marxism is only one form of socialism out of many
• Socialism was founded by anarchists
• Socialism is not force, government, or coercion
• Socialism and capitalism can work together
• Capitalism is not greed
• Capitalism and markets are different
• Government, not socialism or capitalism is the problem

Socialism, Capitalism, and Markets

When I was younger, I honestly thought the same way as a lot of conservatives: socialism means government control and redistribution of wealth. I parroted the talking points and failed to read any material on the topic. Then I started trying to figure out exactly what socialism, capitalism, and markets are. I read numerous documents on the topic. I went back to the primary sources. I was fairly shocked, especially when it came on guild socialism, a form of socialism, which showed clear disappointment and distrust in government. Guild socialists took the idea of guilds, and wanted to bring them into the industrial age, through worker owned businesses, without the aid of the government. Economists do not use socialism to mean government control, nor do they define capitalism as a system of greed. Socialism was developed by anarchists and then later corrupted by statists like Marx. The anarchist forms of socialist thought remain. There are also many libertarian forms of socialism, including guild socialism, as discussed by authors like G.D.H. Cole in “Guild Socialism Restated.”

One reason there seems to be a lot of confusion is that Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who was one of the core founders of socialist thought, the de facto father of modern anarchist thought, and the first self proclaimed anarchist, opposed private property. In “What Is Property?: An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government,” Proudhon reasonably argues that unused property is not actually private property. I express the position in a similar fashion, based on the concept of rights that I have developed over the years. Private property, in an anarchist system, is a myth. Once something is no longer in one’s position, once it is no longer voluntarily enjoyed in the absence of others, that person loses the right to it. If a person lends something to another person, the other person has a contractual obligation to return it, but to take it back by force is a violation of that person’s right to the property that he or she is voluntarily enjoying in the absence of others.

What is Socialism?

Socialism is not government control. I cannot emphasize this point enough. Political talking heads use this view of socialism in order to discredit any discussion on the topic. Socialism is simply any economic system, in whole or in part, characterized by shared ownership or stewardship of the means of production. Credit unions are socialist institutions. Food cooperatives are socialist institutions. Even publicly traded corporations are socialist institutions. It is odd that socialism is characterized only by Marxism, who came after Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and before G.D.H. Cole. Maybe it is because neither those who came before nor after cared for government, Marxists, who want government to bring about change, became the most loudly spoken group, and everyone recognizes them, and only them, as socialists. But they are not in any way the only socialists.

What is Capitalism?

Publicly traded corporations are also capitalist entities. While capitalism was actually a term coined by Marx, and he defined the concept with a negative connotation, modern economists do not use his definition. It is too narrow and too biased. Capitalism is generally defined as an economic system characterized by for profit ventures. A definition which is useful here is “any economic system, in whole or in part, characterized by the excess of production being returned to the system of production.” I used “in whole or in part” in both of these definitions because a common tactic is to use the straw man of demanding a dichotomous system, where either the economy is entirely socialist or entirely capitalist. That makes no sense. While small bands of families may be almost entirely socialist and even egalitarian, it would be odd to see a reasonably complicated system, with a large number of people, characterized by only one economic mode.

Capitalism is not greed. While profit is a primary motivator in a capitalist system, it is normal human behavior to expect something in return for your efforts, risks, and so on. While some corporations do try to maximize profit at all cost, those entities usually die, unless they get bailed out by the government. Wealth maximization is an alternative to profit maximization, which focuses on long term growth in the value of the operation.

One possible reason for the misunderstanding is that until recently, corporations were actually forbidden from acting in any way that would not be in the best interest of the shareholders. Some corporations tried to have other primary motivations, such as benefiting the public. However the courts decidedly ruled that such corporations had a fiduciary responsibility to think about the shareholders first, and everything else second. It was not until the development of a “Public Benefit Corporation” or B-Corp that for-profit corporations even could legally focus on anything other than their shareholders.

What is a Market?

Capitalism is not market economics and market economics is not capitalism. Credit unions are a good example. They are generally non-profit entities, which means that they are not capitalist in nature. However they are market entities. Credit unions charge for their goods and services, based on prices established through supply and demand in an open market. A market is any venue, whether physical or virtual, in which people get together to exchange resources with one another, and negotiate on a price of the exchange. That is all that a market is. Why people are in the market, whether it is simply to get what they need, to provide something that they think others should have, to make a profit, and so on, makes no difference.

Government

Socialism is not government control, and capitalism is not excessive greed. So why do there seem to be so many issues with each one? We see massive institutional corporations destroying small business competition, polluting, and ignoring the desires of the customers. We see nations like Venezuela crumble under economic devastation. There is something that these two classes of situations have in common: government. Regulation, protection and support of one group at the expense of another, including through taxation, regulation which stifles innovation: all of these factors are destructive to socioeconomic conditions. The legal restrictions of for-profit corporations that tried to work for the benefit of more than just the shareholders is a prime example. It is government which is the destructive element, not socialism or capitalism, which often work hand in hand.

The post Socialism is Not Government Control appeared first on Politicoid.

Epidemiology of gun related violence might seem odd, but violent deaths, including those associated with guns, should be considered a disease. We should therefore use a similar methodology used in treating disease, to identify potential interventions for gun related homicides. Gun control laws are one proposed intervention, or class of interventions. Like with all proposed interventions, we need to test for efficacy and safety. Efficacy requires defining an outcome, and that outcome must be reasonable. We must also take into account what is known as all-cause mortality.

All-cause mortality is an interesting concept and an important one. Consider the case of the health consequences of smoking. We could look at the cancer risk associated with smoking, the relationship between COPD or heart attacks and smoking, and so on. Or we can look at the total estimated impact of smoking on the risk of death. One advantage that this approach has is that it can capture causes of death associated with the exposure (or intervention in the case where you’re testing the efficacy and safety of a new treatment), even ones that may not yet have been considered.

Similarly, when we’re considering whether or not to implement a policy like gun control, which is targeted at reducing homicide rates, we need to consider all-cause mortality here as well. By doing so, we can capture the effects of substitutes for guns in violent deaths, police deaths and shootings, which may result from an increase in people trying to purchase guns on the black market, and even other effects of gun control laws on mortality, whether we have thought of what they might be or not.

This practice may seem like common sense, as it is used so often in health sciences, but a quick look at a major systematic review published in 2016 shows that all-cause mortality is being ignored. In fact, the study actively removed any study which looked at all-cause mortality (Systematic Review on Gun Control). The study did indicate that there seemed to be some evidence that there was a reduction in gun related deaths caused by increased gun control, but ignored what other potential impacts it could have. That is not acceptable. Any research conducted on gun control must include all-cause mortality. We must treat gun related deaths and proposed interventions in the same way that we would study any public health concern.

Further Reading

• Second Amendment: History and Purpose
• The Myth of Australia’s Gun Control Success
• An in House Analysis of the Efficacy of Gun Control Laws

 

The post The Epidemiology of Gun Related Violence appeared first on Politicoid.

A bubble is “when the prices of securities or other assets rise so sharply and at such a sustained rate that they exceed valuations justified by fundamentals, making a sudden collapse likely…” This commentary is going to be expanded as time goes on. But I wanted to quickly put something out into the world to explain my concerns with bitcoin and other high risk asset classes.

First, when I say that a sudden collapse is likely, it does not mean that one is imminent. It means that there is a high probability of it occurring. There are ways in which a bubble can end, besides in a crash. Speculation can die down slowly and allow the price to level off or drop slowly. Or the reasonable valuation of the asset can rise due to changes in supply and demand. Either of these situations would cause the bubble to end without a crash.

Bitcoin

It is argued that $BTC is not in a bubble. One argument used is that people have been claiming that it has been a bubble for a long time, and yet even new adopters have been profiting substantially. But as I said in the very beginning, a bubble just implies a high probability of crashing. A bubble can last for a very long time before it does, if it ever does at all. Many argue that the $USD is in a bubble, by the same people who profess that bitcoin is going to continue to grow and grow and grow. I agree that the dollar is a bubble. It has yet to crash, but that does not mean that it is not a bubble. The stock market has been argued to be in a bubble. Again, I agree. Months ago I wrote an article about how stocks were overvalued. Since then, stocks have continued to climb higher, but this climb has just resulted in greater risk.

What makes $BTC a bubble? Aside from the rapid spike in price, the high volatility associated with rampant speculation are to blame. Much of the exchange volume is due to speculation, and very little is due to use. This result has been caused by the inherent deflationary nature of the cryotoasset.

Stocks

One reason why I think $BTC and other cryptoassets are growing in price so much is because people who would normally be shorting the market are instead putting their money into $BTC et al. Because of the “BTFD” mentality, shorting stocks right now isn’t getting anyone anywhere, but most traders do not want to just leave their money on the sidelines. Because of the cryptoasset bubble, even though there is a lot of risk, the reward seems much better than stocks, and so money is flowing into the cryptoasset market. However, that also means that once things start to go south with the stock market, money very well may flow out of bitcoin and others and into short positions in stocks. Now, some of the long positions may transition to bitcoin or another cryptoasset, which may buffer the price, but it is hard to tell. What I do expect is a waterfall effect for the S&P 500 and other indices.

Conclusion

People can certainly profit during a bubble. A bubble may never really burst. However, the risk is great, and that point should be made clear. Also, the way in which the cryptoasset markets, precious metals markets, and stock markets are interacting, make the risk for stocks even greater.

Further Reading

• Gold vs Bitcoin
• Investing 101

The post Bitcoin: A Major Asset Bubble appeared first on Trading Politics.

One of the most important aspects of investing is improving your own “human capital” through education. The more you know, the better off you are.

Your knowledge, skills, and work ethic, and social network all help determine how successful you will be over the course of your life. Of course, luck is always involved, but as Branch Rickey said “luck is the residue of design.” Setting yourself up to be able to take advantage of opportunities, and noticing those opportunities when they arise, is really important.

Economics

Economics is essentially the study of “choice.” Having a solid understanding of economics comes in handy. Microeconomics addresses concepts like opportunity cost, utility, etc and helps us make personal decisions, while macroeconomics addresses GDP, monetary theory, etc, and helps us understand the decisions that governments make. Coursera offers courses in both microeconomics and macroeconomics.

Just a warning with these two courses. Both show a clear bias towards Keynesian economics, although the proctor does a fairly decent job at explaining multiple competing theories, and it is not too off putting.

Corporate Finance & Markets

Now, if beyond investing in yourself, you decide to invest in someone else’s business, either through a startup or through publicly traded companies, you’ll probably want to have a solid grasp of the basics of corporate finance, as well as the nature of the global capital markets. Understanding the difference between book value and market value, knowing basic ratios which help identify how profitable a company is, etc will help you select specific companies. And knowing how equity markets, debt markets, etc all interact with one another, and how companies use these different markets will further help you understand the ups and downs of your investments.

Again, Coursera has some useful courses on these topics. In this case, they’re part of a five course specialization.

Learning Probability Theory

I added this one because of a conversation with an author on Seeking Alpha. Fear and Greed Trader argued that the “naysayers” have been wrong. It is true that we have been calling for a correction or collapse of the markets. However, at least when I address such matters, I am addressing probabilities.

One might argue that since a major correction has not happened in a long time, it will not be likely to happen. Or someone might argue that if a correction has not happened in a long time, it is long overdue and must happen soon. However, in many ways, when a correction happens is largely independent of what has happened in the past. We can only look at the conditions of the markets now. The same is true in the opposite direction. It similar to arguing with someone who has had a winning steak while playing slots. They may argue that since they’ve had a winning steak, they are likely to keep winning. But if you understand probability theory, then you know that this is not the case.

Skills

There’s nothing wrong with simply investing in stocks. However, maybe you don’t want to just profit off of someone else’s work and imagination. Maybe you want to profit off of your own. In that case, you’ll want to gain a marketable skill, or set of skills. Programming is a big one these days, and if the project is small enough, you can even handle the entire thing yourself. If not, a skilled programmer should at least be able to produce a proof of concept, which can then be used to convince investors to get involved.

Two skill sets which should be strengthened, regardless of profession are writing and interpersonal skills. If you’re looking for investors, you’ll want to be able to write up a proper business plan in order to pitch the idea. And similarly, you’ll want to be able to draw people in and convince them of the profitability of your idea. And the idea of interpersonal skills leads us to the next investment.

Networking

It’s difficult to be successful on your own. Spending time building your network is often key to being successful. Now, you might think that you can just rely on your friends when you need something, but that’s not true. Think about it. Suppose you’re looking for a new idea to invest in. Asking your friends probably won’t help that much. If they knew someone with a novel idea, you probably would know that person already too. Or let’s say you’re looking for an open position for a job. Again, if your friends know about the option position, odds are you would too.

That’s why acquaintances, or what’s known as “weak ties” in social network theory are often at least as valuable, if not more valuable, than strong ties like friends and families, even though friends and family are going to be more likely to take on risk for you. So it’s always a good idea to get out there, meet people, and keep track of contacts. Keep a solid contact list, which includes not only how to contact the person, but some basic information so you remember who they are.

Disclaimer: I am not a professional investment adviser. I offer no warranty on this information. Any risk taken is your own.

Further Reading

• Investing 101
• Investing: Less than $10K
• Understanding Social Networks: Theories, Concepts, and Findings Kindle Edition

The post Investing: Human Capital appeared first on Trading Politics.

Black Swans do not seem like something we have to worry about, but they are incredibly dangerous, especially when there is a whole flock of them.

North Korea’s threat of war, Spain’s treatment of Catalonia, and its potential wider effects on the European Union, risk of whether or not key legislation is going to get passed, and Trump’s legal issues are all separate low probability events that when coupled represent significant overall risk to the markets.

Black Swans

Black swans are extremely rare events. But just because the probability of any specific black swan event occurring is low, does not mean that the probability of some black swan event occurring is low.

What we really want to know is the probability of at least one of these events occurring. Mathematically, the probability of at least one event, P(at least one), equals 1 – P(none). As we include more possible black swans, that second term gets smaller and smaller, and the probability of at least one black swan event occurring goes up.

We can get very specific by making some assumptions. Suppose that we have four different once in ten year events that would be bad for the market. It may seem like we do not have to worry about them very much for a while, but the probability of at least one of those events occurring in the next year is 33%.

Systemic Risk

But what makes the situation worse is that the market bubble (yes; stocks really are overvalued, even though the market can still go higher) is built on so much interconnected risk. I have written about some of this before. For instance, a lot of the increase in the the S&P 500 and other indices are due to rising profits in the banking industry, and bank profits are largely dependent on the market going higher.

ETFs

The influx of money into index funds like SPY have boosted more than just the sectors that are seeing growth, since you purchase all stocks in the S&P 500 index when you purchase SPY. This drives much of the market higher.

Margin

Another issue is that a lot of buying has been on margin. Every dip people are buying up stocks, and a lot of that purchase is debt based. This analysis of margin debt, while admitting that the peaks and troughs are not enough to use as a forward indicator, show high levels of margin debt when compared to historical levels. A sharp drop in the S&P 500 and other stocks would result in a sell off as margin calls are initiated.

Consumer Credit

But that is not the only debt that his propping up this bubble. The most November 2017 consumer credit report puts September’s provisional outstanding credit growth rate at 6.6% p.a. Total outstanding consumer credit is now $3.79T and it continues to grow at a rate far faster than the rate of inflation. That means that a lot of this recovery is dependent on debt, and it means that reduction in ability to pay debts would have a significant impact on bank profits, which again are largely responsible for market gains.

Volatility

Finally, XIV may be indirectly driving the market higher, or at least preventing it from dropping. The buy the dip extends to XIV because it has done so well as a profit making system. That in turn suppresses the VIX which bolsters the S&P 500. While it is unlikely, a large drop in XIV could result in it being shut down, and at that point, VIX would see a massive spike and the floor would fall out from under the S&P 500.

Summary

While the odds of any specific black swan event occurring is low, the more types of black swans there are flying around out there, and right now we have a lot, the more likely it is that at least one of these events will be triggered. Maybe North Korea will follow through on its threats. Maybe the Catalonian crisis will get out of hand. Perhaps tax reform will fail. Or maybe we will see legal action brought against Trump. Or perhaps something completely different will trigger a major stock sell off. Do not assume that just because a single event occurs with very low frequency that some major event is not right around the corner. Furthermore, we need to recognize that a major sell off can be far more devastating due to the increased systemic risk generated by ETFs, the co-dependence between the markets and the banking industry, and the recent way in which people are trading volatility as a real asset class. While none of these conditions implies that a meltdown is imminent, they do increase the probability of one occurring and increase the probability of it being extremely severe.

The post A Flock of Black Swans appeared first on Trading Politics.

With Ixalan, planeswalkers have now become legendary. The decision to eliminate the planeswalker rule and replace it with the legend rule was an interesting one with a number of consequences.

Ixalan spoilers have been coming out for a while. And when the article about the errata for planeswalkers came out, people started buying up certain cards. Aside from running this blog, I also do some investing and trading, so I find price fluctuation in trading cards fascinating. As cards move out of rotation or new synnergies are created, the price of a single card may fluctuate considerably. This is happening with Mirror Gallery, a card that allows the player to ignore the legend rule. Outside of Kamigawa block, a block full of legendary cards, Mirror Gallery was a fairly niche card. But now that planeswalkers are legendary permanents, Mirror Gallery affects them, allowing a player to have more than one of the exact same planeswalker out on the field at once. This has caused the price of the card to double on tcgplayer.com. Given the newfound utility of the card, I would not be too surprised to see a reprint at some point, especially with Iconic Masters on its way and more so the return of core sets, a change for which I am ecstatic.

The change has also helped some other planeswalker decks. As anyone who has read my article Hour of Devastation God Synergy knows, I like to find neat combinations. I am more interested in constructing decks than I am playing them. When Gideon of the Trials came out, I immediately started working on a Gideon “tribal” deck, “Giddy Gideons.” The rule change has given this deck a huge boost. Making sure that a Gideon remained on the field was a bit difficult until this rule change. Now it is fairly straight forward, and there has been a change in price for Gideon of the Trials because of this boost.

While the change in the planeswalker rule may be the most prominent addition by Ixalan, there are a number of useful cards as well, this is especially true if you are a fan of tribal decks. There are two tribes in this set: dinosaurs and pirates. And as we all know, “everything’s better with pirates” (Line from The Gamers: Dorkness Rising). There is also a watered down version of Cavern of Souls. While it does not protect creature spells you cast, it is an uncommon. Arcane Adaptation is going to be useful in any tribal deck that splashes blue. One of the biggest issues that I have with constructing tribal decks is the inclusion of helper creatures which are from a different tribe. With Arcane Adaption, those cards become part of the tribe. What is really nice is that the creature type is added to all creatures you own, not just creatures on the battlefield. The tribal heavy tone of Ixalan also lends itself well to Commander 2017, which is highly tribal.

Overall, I am interested to see how the rule changes affect gameplay and prices. Since I am a fan of tribal decks, the additional cards in Ixalan should be quite fun, although sometimes the synergy just does not work out as well as I think it should.

The post Ixalan and Beyond: Legendary Planeswalkers and More appeared first on Geekers' Keep.

This is a very quick analysis based on last week’s closing signals. First, (SPY) is not showing all that much direction, at least on the daily time scale. It could go either way. The Russell 2000 (IWM) is signaling a strong downward movement. Friday’s candlestick sets up a new resistance level at 1452. Look for confirmation of a downward trend today.

The S&P 500 is showing continued positive movement on the weekly time scale, but last week’s candlestick was much weaker than the prior week’s. The Russell 2000 finished last week off fairly weak. I would not call it a traditional shooting star doji, but it is close. At the very least it is showing increased consolidation.

Risk appetite is still fairly strong, based on the extended risk appetite index. However, both gold (GLD) and usd/jpy (FXY) is on the downtrend, with the yen reaching a ten handle last night. However, VIX is still near record low, which is signaling limited expectation of volatility in the short term.

Market Snapshot Image

Watching

There’s a fair amount of information coming out this week. One that everyone will be watching is the GDP estimate for Q2. The Atlanta Fed’s GDP Now estimate has been declining, more or less consistently, since the first estimate for Q2 was released. It is now holding at around 2.5%. Consumer confidence data is going to be released on Tuesday, although the perception of the economy and how it is actually doing seem to be fairly disconnected right now. We also have the FOMC announcement on Wednesday, even though it is not expected that there will be any change in rate policy.

The post Morning Snapshot 7/24/17 appeared first on Trading Politics.

Cryptoassets are an emerging class of assets with a lot significant potential for wealth generation and preservation. Involvement in the “Cryptocurrency Ecosystem” requires a fair amount of knowledge about underlying block-chain technology, but it also requires significant understanding of monetary theory. $BTC, $LTC, $ETH, and many other cryptoassets have a hard cap. Once reached, no new coins are created. This drives the already speculative asset class towards even higher rates of deflation.

Asset Comparison

This natural deflation makes “cryptoassets” like $BTC interesting speculative vehicles, but it is problematic if the desired goal is widespread adoption of the asset as a currency. Consider the following thought experiment. Suppose we have two assets, A and B, where A holds its value at a roughly constant level and B is deflationary.

Given the option, a rational person would spend A first. A week from now, a unit of A will still be worth the same. A unit of B will be worth more, on average, and so if a person spent B instead of A, there would be an economic loss. This means that consumers, businesses, etc, while probably having little issue with accepting B, will not be willing to use B for purchases, payroll, and other expenses.

This drives B out of circulation as hoarding increases. That further drives up the market price of B as the available supply continues to decrease. Of course, while someone might prefer to be paid in units of B, very few would say no to money and so A will be the asset that is actually traded around. To be a form of currency, an asset must be used as an intermediate item of exchange. In the thought experiment, B is driven away from being a currency while A is pushed through circulation.

Consequences

Therefore deflationary assets make poor currency. They are at best investments, and at worst, high risk speculative vehicles. That is the case for the major cryptoassets. The risk stems from the fact that miners are needed to maintain the security and stability of the underlying block-chain. Right now, miners are making their money through payments for generating new coins, but once the hard cap is reached, the only source of revenue will be transaction fees.

Transaction Decline

Transaction fees are more or less capped. A person will not pay significant more for a transaction just because the asset is worth more. If a person is willing to pay 1% for a transaction now, they will not pay 10% just because the asset has increased in value. They are still spending more value. Therefore a declining number of transactions resulting from the deflationary nature of the asset class will result in declining transaction revenue. This will push miners out of the market and make transactions more difficult, while also creating voluntaries in the block-chain. At best, this will mean that it will be difficult and expensive to make transactions. At worst, this will result in a collapse of the block-chain itself.

Investment Strategy

For the time being, hard capped cryptoassets will likely continue to be reasonable speculative vehicles. But there is likely to be fluctuations in which assets are popular and it is unlikely that any of these assets will become used as a broadly accepted currency. For long term investments, seek out stable cryptoassets without a hard cap or ones that have hard caps that are so large that they will not be reached any time soon. $LTC is further away from the hard cap than $BTC, but not by much. $DOGE is a fun cryptoasset without a cap and it is being used on a day to day basis by its fans, but past scams related to the currency have driven down widespread acceptance. I personally am still looking for the best solution.

Further Reading

• Gold vs Bitcoin

Donations always accepted: Donations

The post Deflationary Cryptoassets appeared first on Trading Politics.