This is one of the best examples of the fundamental attribution error that I’ve seen:

  > if someone does [buy crypto] they are not as smart as you or they think.

  > I personally invest in crypto because fundamentally I believe [...]

Have you considered the possibility that you are no different than those you look down on?

When quoting someone please use the full statement. You've paraphrased and injected your own meaning which is incorrect.

> I've never encouraged people to buy crypto and if someone does [encourage people to buy crypto], they are not as smart as you or they think.

> I personally invest in crypto because fundamentally I believe something deeper that I hope works.

I've implemented my own blockchains, I have produced patents in the space, I have spoken and worked in this space for a significant amount of time.

Pumping and dumping is a get rich scheme which is destroying the perception with very real victims. I feel bad for people young and old that attempt to play in the stock market options space and lose it all because they are gambling thinking they will get rich.

I feel equally for those getting hurt in crypto despite the sad reality that they should have come in with questions not hope of a windfall.

These two things are more alike than different in my opinion

The difference is that buying crypto is like buying a pet rock or a bottle of air. In fact it's less than that.. It's literally nothing. It's a greater fool market and it's certainly not currency. In addition there's companies (lenders, exchanges, issuers, etc) which build their businessesn on schemes built on schemes that you are supposed to trust which you can't because no one person understands the code or the infrastructure and systems that the code is built in. All in a totally unregulated market that can be shut down in bits and pieces or even all at once by the government. And then you have people touting it as a legitimate asset class deserving investment. And now it's all coming tumbling down.

I think there is more to it than that.

The fact we have currency that fluctuates on a day to day basis despite not being tied to anything beyond our trust in the system is not much better of an argument.

There was a point that the U.S. based it on the gold standard which locked in how much could be produced. This would be similar to how certain crypto lending exchanges claim they are backed 1:1 with dollars to create this concept of stablecoins.

The crypto is easy to determine, the dollars not so. Some are having audits to provide trust and transparency.

The clearing houses and financial levers are more complex than many understand. Our financial systems operate on trust, credit, and risk more than they do on having everything working in proper order.

I'm not saying crypto is THE solution and maybe in it's current state it isn't. I have learned a lot more about what exists today because I have something to contrast it too and I understand different pros/cons that I didn't see before.

>The crypto is easy to determine, the dollars not so.

I don't think we can use such excuses anymore. Luna was supposed to be backed by $3b worth of btc. We have absolutely no idea if this capital was actually used to defend its peg or if Mr Kwon pocketed it all. Crypto is just as hard to determine if not more so

> The fact we have currency that fluctuates on a day to day basis despite not being tied to anything beyond our trust in the system is not much better of an argument.

Translation of what you wrote: "I've never really thought about economics for more than a couple of seconds, and therefore I cannot see the difference between the US dollar which literally supports a 21 trillion dollar economy and is guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the richest government in history, and a cryptocurrency backed by no one, which performs perhaps 0.01% of the transaction that the dollar does."

https://www.verywellmind.com/an-overview-of-the-dunning-krug...

I'm quite familiar with the economics and it has served me well enough.

I'm talking about the actual systems and physical infrastructure.

I have been fortunate to work with some of these larger institutions which carry the "full faith and credit of the richest country in the world".

Save Dunning-Krueger in your back pocket, I learned that quite some time ago in college, you may not be finished with it just yet.

If you are serious about learning look into FedNet. Bump that against the white and yellow papers and you'll have a better understanding of what I mean.

I think you're misquoting, though I had to read it a few times myself. I would read the first quote more along the lines of "if someone does [try to convince you to buy crypto] they are not as smart as you or they think."

It is this exactly, thank you for correcting it. I can see how the error could be easily made.

Parent pointed out that I misinterpreted an ambiguous phrase, that the “not as smart” people are those encouraging others to buy crypto.

Mea culpa, although if anything this is an even more extreme example of attribution error:

(paraphrasing) “I invest in crypto for grand and philosophical reasons, and would never dream of promoting it to others (except by regularly claiming that it will save our supposedly broken financial system). Others who promote cryptocurrencies are opportunists or fools.”

Far from increasing your credibility, having been involved in cryptocurrency development more likely than not has hopelessly biased you towards this kind of messianic “crypto will save us” thinking.

Sadly wrong again. Here's me without paraphrasing

> I'm not saying crypto is THE solution and maybe in it's current state it isn't.

Your quick admission and then doubling down is disappointing.

Ironically, you really are owning this attribution error with your textbook self-serving bias.