> This also means that if Eth switches to proof of stake, the larger hodlers will have the power to determine consensus.
Absolutely correct and this is where the web3 hype origins were from. They are using web3 to pump their bags to get late comers buying into the Ethereum dream of 'decentralisation'. First it was the ICOs, then ERC-20 tokens, NFTs, The DAO scandal and now you have web3.
Sounds like 'decentralies' from the start. This article [0] summarises the entire problems in 'web3' and the mismatch of its proposed goals.
[0] https://blog.mollywhite.net/blockchains-are-not-what-they-sa...
You have it backwards. Web3 is what Ethereum called it's client APIs since as far as I can remember.
So still worthless.
Getting people to buy worthless things from you is a phenomenal business.
Price and value are not the same. Ponzi schemes require buy in but still have no underlying value.
Also lol at crypto markets being liquid. In stablecoins maybe. Liquidity literally means volume has very limited effects on the price of an underlying. $100 or $5000 tomorrow is definitionally illiquid
Regarding liquidity, that's not really contradictory to the definition. That's only if I meaningfully impact the price by selling, so I would have to personally cause the change to $100 or $5000 for it to be considered illiquid. If Alphabet goes down or up 50% because of a bad report it doesn't make Alphabet illiquid.
Price in the crypto sphere is only dictated by transactions (which is why it's illiquid) because there is no intrinsic value. There is no wealth creation occuring. Volatility is definitionally illiquid.
In the equity sphere, assets have intrinsic value, and their price may be affected by extrinsic factors as well, but if the price tanks overnight because of bad quarterlies it's because the intrinsic value declined. The business's wealth creation potential declined.
What have you had issues buying or selling on Uni or Sushi?
Sure when volatility gets too high on the real stockmarkets, they temporarily pause the share or the exchange and make it, by definition, illiquid. This is however a completely artificial limitation and there is nothing inherently contradictory about having high volatility and high liquidity.
I presume you belong to the school of thought that says if you can't do a cash flow analysis then it doesn't have value. But I don't get that, there are tons of things that have value without being able to do a cash flow analysis on it.
Crypto is illiquid. It has no intrinsic value.
> liquidity describes the degree to which an asset can be quickly bought or sold in the market at a price reflecting its intrinsic value.
> A liquid asset has some or all of the following features: It can be sold rapidly, with minimal loss of value, anytime within market hours. The essential characteristic of a liquid market is that there are always ready and willing buyers and sellers.
Now read the first definition for example and the first paragraph of my previous post, follow the logical structure of my argument and tell me what doesn't add up. You make the assumption that it's worthless, the implicit assumption in the definition is that you don't sell for a loss basically. Since you're always above zero, it fits snugly in there.
>without affecting its market price
Which is absolutely not the case in crypto, further evidence of how illiquid it is.