In the long run, staking return cannot be larger than the risk-free rate as money is a non-productive asset & staking a non-productive activity, so return cannot be perpetually above the returns given by productive assets. It is simply not sustainable.https://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/1021918438678122496 …
I'm not talking about debt for no reason. I'm talking about debt because it is an inevitable evolution of the market: capital will naturally flow to where the best returns are. You have to account for this when analyzing staking, esp. as its main cost component is financial.
-
-
I'm not confusing these. Interest rate parity in forward markets implies an expected return for holding a currency that is equal in each currency, discounting future changes in value equal to the real interest rate differential through a change in the present value.
-
Also I'm not saying you're talking about debt for no reason-- definitely a big part in how the economics of staking play out. However, you can be right about debt and still be wrong about the value impact of staking (can not only focus on debt).
-
To be clear-- I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying your arguments (for why you are right) don't demonstrate sufficient evidence for your conclusion.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

Money is not equity, period.
When you park capital in a non-productive asset, it is OUT of the system completely. Decommissioned.
The non-productive asset value can only rise if it piggybacks on the success of productive assets.