Talk:Cryptocurrency bubble

Bold

@Smallbones: I took the bold out of the lede here [1], as I think it just doesn't look right. Normally only the article title is bolded. I guess you must have added it back since then. Please explain. Seems to me this big bolded sentence violates weight or probably other policy as well. Thanks. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You're mistaken, I didn't add it back. There is no policy, or even guideline, that says the bolding should be limited to the article title. Sometimes it just isn't possible to include the article title in the first sentence. Check somewhere in WP:MOS if you want to find the guideline. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks to me you added it back here [2] after I had deleted it. Usage of bold is covered in MOS as you mention, specifically here MOS:BOLD which says "The most common use of boldface is to highlight the first occurrence of the title word/phrase of the article (and usually its synonyms) in the lead section." I dont think usage of in this article fits with this guideline. Do you? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

"most common use" of a guideline is not a requirement. When somebody says "cryptocurrency bubble" what they are saying is a "prediction of a collapse of an economic bubble in cryptocurrencies." What do you think they mean? Let's not try to confuse the subject matter. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe this is a WP:WEIGHT issue. The purpose of bold is not to give extra weight, it is to highlight the article title. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks good now. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

sorta done here

I've added and copy edited a lot of material here. Before I started it was a real mess, random claims, interrupted with random denials. At least the claims of "Bitcoin is a bubble" are now clearly documented.

A few possible places to go further:

• I first tried to organize this chronologically, but that was pretty messy
• Now it's organized by profession of the people who make the bubble claim (economists, central bankers, business execs). I might try to organize it by the nature of the claims (irrationality, criminality, etc.) but that could also be a mess.
• Are there folks of equal stature who make the opposite claims? Richard Branson might be one, but please feel free to add these cases *after* the original claims are made (interleaved claims and counter-claims just confused the earlier article).
• Is bitcoin *now* in a bubble or has it already burst? Were there 2 or more bubbles?
• More on ICOs

Hope this helps.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Nice, greatly improved! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

2013/2014 was a smaller bubble. The 2017/2018 bubble is notable and should have its own article which is "2018 cryptocurrency crash" and also needs improvement. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC) _{My old account – change of mind. Џ 06:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)}

Merger proposal

I propose to merge 2018 cryptocurrency crash into Cryptocurrency bubble. As suggested at Talk:2018 cryptocurrency crash. Џ 06:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support as bubbles and busts happen over the years. Merge all into one "cryptocurrency volatility" or "cryptocurrency bubbles" article unless one event (eg 2018) is extra notable (which I doubt). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
• Please see my comment at talk:2018 cryptocurrency crash saying we should merge to this article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing wrong with separate pages: general; and specific. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Having separate articles is better in this case, since the Cryptocurrency bubble has a much wider scope than just the 2018 bubble, given that there were several cryptocurrency bubbles in the past that should be added to that article. The 2018 bubble was a fairly significant phenomenon and in my opinion deserves an article of its own. It's similar to how there's an article for financial crisis and another article for Financial crisis of 2007–2008. --Btcgeek (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose and close expeditiously. This proposal falls into the GMAB ("Give me a break") category. Comparable to proposing to merge the article on the Great Depression or the Great Recession into the general article on Depression (economics). This crash will remain notable (in both Wikipedia's technical sense and the colloquial sense) no matter how many other cryptocurrency crashes might occur in the future. —Syrenka V (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• I'd Support this merge, since the content of that article is almost entirely duplicated in this one, so it seems redundant to have both. Robofish (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

POV forking

If this article is meant to describe cryptocurrency bubbles generally, then the bulk of the Bitcoin-related content here looks like a POV fork of material that really belongs at Bitcoin or a valid spinoff article such as Economics of bitcoin. I suggest a large-scale merge of this page's Bitcoin-related content, which seems reliably sourced, to either of those articles. This page could read something like:

Bitcoin

Further information: Bitcoin and Economics of bitcoin

Bitcoin has been characterized as a speculative bubble by eight winners of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences: Paul Krugman, Robert J. Shiller, Joseph Stiglitz, Richard Thaler, James Heckman, Thomas Sargent, Angus Deaton, and Oliver Hart; and by central bank officials including Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Janet Yellen, Agustin Carstens, Vítor Constâncio, and Nout Wellink.

The investors Warren Buffett and George Soros have respectively characterized it as a "mirage" and a "bubble"; while the business executives Jack Ma and Jamie Dimon have called it a "bubble" and a "fraud", respectively.

See also Talk:Bitcoin#POV forking?. Thoughts? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Where is the value coming from ?

I think this could be of benefit to the article. Crypto currencies are sometimes compared to gold. And indeed there is "paper gold" with the same value as physical bars. Still with physical gold to back some of it up. With crypto currencies there is nothing that backs them up whatsoever. (not to my knowledge) Even if we assume all the crypto currencies are safe (even from the arrival of quantum computers) - safe but hollow. There are no central banks with gross national product and taxes behind the cryptos. All there is, is some kind of strange trust. And from where is that trust coming ? The block chain is just cryptography. And I can´t see a value based simply on that. A currency in general must be accepted by all within a certain geographical. A replacement for barter. Bitcoins has become more of a strange investment. The 99% use seems to be about a hope that the BTC will rise and rise vs real currencies. Whilst gold has a value in itself. Like this: if a XAU begins to fall and fall and fall vs USD,EUR and GBP, then eventually someone begins to think "whow how cheap gold has become" and it will be more and more expensive again, as people and investors buys again. That's the nature of gold. But has BTC and the other any similar kind of nature ? Doubt that. This issue should if possible become more examined and explained here, I hope. 188.148.98.50 (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)