Jump to content
The World News Media

Staking is Lending - (Why you should just Buy and HODL Bitcoin)


Mic Drop

Recommended Posts

  • Member

The term poker staking, or simply staking, refers to the act of putting cash up on behalf of a poker player in the hopes that he or she wins.

staking is lending

 

----------------------

What are the people offering you interest payments doing?  They are probably doing something risker to get a return so they can get profit and then give you interest (or you think the interest comes out of nowhere?)

Don't be stupid with money.

You'll just be making some "smart" person rich:

You lend to X. X turns around and lends to Mr. Shorter, for a higher rate. X makes money from your Bitcoins. You take all the risks. X has plenty of his own bitcoins, but, like me, he knows better than to lend them to Mr. Shorter.

Meanwhile:

‘Billions’ lost through hacks of crypto lending platforms

New research by blockchain analytics firm Elliptic showed that fraud and theft at decentralized finance platforms have led to $10.5 billion in losses so far this year.

. . .

However, the explosive DeFi growth came along with booming crime in the mostly unregulated sector, Elliptic said. Users have suffered over $12 billion in losses through crime at DeFi apps, lending platforms and exchanges since 2020, with the majority of losses coming in 2021 alone.

Those losses were mainly attributed to bug and code flaws, as well as a hacking technique that involves exploiting loopholes in how the DeFi service operates.

---------------------------

So the returns on Bitcoin are assymetric. That means that while you can only lose your initial investment, the upside potential on it could be 100x for instance.

When you loan out your Bitcoin you actually flip that assymetry against you because of counterparty risk. Essentially, for an added 4 to 6% you’re taking on the risk that the borrower could default (or in most cases with crypto lending - the platform itself could go under). When you assume those risks you’re taking on the chance that you could lose all of your Bitcoin for a 4 - 6% added return when you could have had 170% (the average return so far - likely to be a little lower going forward as the market grows) annually by just holding it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 746
  • Replies 2
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Member
Quote

"BTC is not a Proof of Stake coin so I assume they convert my BTC to another coin, stake that for higher than 6.5%, convert back after 3 months and pocket the difference?"
This is basically it. You don't stake your BTC, BTC cannot be staked. You can lend it to earn interest.
Is it safe? Maybe. Maybe not. A few exchanges have been closed down over the years, as well as lending services. Read up on Cred. It was one of the big crypto lending programs, like Nexo/Cryptocom/Celcius. It didn't stand the test of time, so anyone who lent their precious BTC was screwed over.
While if you kept your BTC in your wallet with proper backups and measures in place, you still have the same amount of BTC.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...




  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my perspective, when the Smithsonian Magazine covers a topic, I am inclined to trust their expertise. As for the shadows here, I see no benefit in entertaining irrational ideas from others. Let them hold onto their own beliefs. We shouldn't further enable their self-deception and misleading of the public.  
    • Hey Self! 🤣I came across this interesting conspiracy theory. There are scholars who firmly believe in the authenticity of those artifacts. I value having conversations with myself. The suggestion of a mentally ill person has led to the most obscure manifestation of a group of sorrowful individuals. 😁
    • I have considered all of their arguments. Some even apply VAT 4956 to their scenarios, which is acceptable. Anyone can use secular evidence if they genuinely seek understanding. Nonetheless, whether drawing from scripture or secular history, 607 is a plausible timeframe to believe in. People often misuse words like "destruction", "devastation", and "desolation" in an inconsistent manner, similar to words like "besiege", "destroy", and "sack". When these terms are misapplied to man-made events, they lose their true meaning. This is why with past historians, the have labeled it as follows: First Capture of Jerusalem 606 BC Second Capture of Jerusalem 598 BC Third Capture of Jerusalem 587 BC Without taking into account anything else.  Regarding the second account, if we solely rely on secular chronology, the ancient scribes made military adaptations to align with the events recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles. However, the question arises: Can we consider this adaptation as accurate?  Scribes sought to include military components in their stories rather than focusing solely on biblical aspects. Similarly, astronomers, who were also scholars, made their observations at the king's request to divine omens, rather than to understand the plight of the Jewish people. Regarding the third capture, we can only speculate because there are no definitive tablets like the Babylonian chronicles that state 598. It is possible that before the great tribulation, Satan will have influenced someone to forge more Babylonian chronicles in order to discredit the truth and present false evidence from the British Museum, claiming that the secular view was right all along. This could include documents supposedly translated after being found in 1935, while others were found in the 1800s. The Jewish antiquities authorities have acknowledged the discovery of forged items, while the British Museum has not made similar acknowledgments. It is evident that the British Museum has been compelled to confess to having looted or stolen artifacts which they are unwilling to return. Consequently, I find it difficult to place my trust in the hands of those who engage in such activities. One of the most notable instances of deception concerning Jewish antiquities was the widely known case of the ossuary belonging to James, the brother of Jesus. I was astonished by the judge's inexplicable justification for acquittal, as it was evident that his primary concern was preserving the reputation of the Jewish nation, rather than unearthing the truth behind the fraudulent artifact. The judge before even acknowledged it. "In his decision, the judge was careful to say his acquittal of Golan did not mean the artifacts were necessarily genuine, only that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Golan had faked them." The burden of proof is essential. This individual not only forged the "Jehoash Tablet," but also cannot be retried for his deceit. Why are they so insistent on its authenticity? To support their narrative about the first temple of Jerusalem. Anything to appease the public, and deceive God. But then again, after the Exodus, when did they truly please God? So, when it comes to secular history, it's like a game of cat and mouse.  
    • I'm not bothered by being singled out, as you seem to be accustomed to defending and protecting yourselves, but it's a good idea to keep your dog on a leash. Speaking of which, in a different thread, TTH mentioned that it would be great if everyone here shared their life stories. As both of you are the librarians here, I kindly ask you to minimize any signs of intimidation or insincerity. It is you people who need to be "banned" here. However, it is quite evident that you hold a negative influence, which God recognizes, therefore you are banned from your own conscience in His eyes.
    • One issue with historian Flavius Josephus is that he suggests that the Royal Captain of the (Guard) can also be regarded as General Nebuzaradan. A confusion arises from Josephus' account of the captives mentioned in Jeremiah, as he claims that they were taken from Egypt instead of Babylon. Since Nebuchadnezzar was occupied in Rilah, he directed his generals to lay siege to Jerusalem. This could potentially account for the numerous dispatches that Nebuchadnezzar would have sent to the west, but the considerable distance to Borsippa still poses a challenge. As a result, the Babylonians managed to gain control of regions such as Aram (Syria), Ammon, and Moab. The only territories that remained were the coastal cities, where the Egyptians held sway. King Josiah decided to form an alliance with Babylon instead of being under Egyptian rule. So, that part of the territory was covered until King Josiah was defeated.  It's interesting how they started back then in 4129, but still end up with the same conclusion with Zedekiah's Defeat 3522 607 B.C. 3419 607 B.C. even though their AM is different.  
  • Members

    • Mapanda

      Mapanda 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • BTK59

      BTK59 186

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.4k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,679
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Techredirector
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.