haha

Every time crypto guys talk about the strength of the community, it's actually just 17 guys on a discord who's  trying to rug pull each other. 

So Bitcoin hit $100k last week

 So Bitcoin hit $100k last week.

I am skeptical of cryptocurrency. While proponents argue that Bitcoin represents a special case due to its artificial scarcity, the reality is that after more than a decade, crypto has failed to establish meaningful, widespread real-world utility.

The most compelling use case for cryptocurrency appears to be during periods of national crisis. In scenarios like the war in Ukraine, individuals have used crypto as a lifeline – converting your local currency to crypto and transferring it overseas, escaping through the borders, and withdrawing and exchanging the crypto into real money.

However, other proposed applications such as DeFi, web3, and in-game currencies, have largely fallen short – because for these use cases, cryptocurrency offers no real advantages over traditional fiat currency. The friction of conversion, volatility, and complex technological barriers outweigh the theoretical benefits.

The cryptocurrency ecosystem seems primarily driven by venture capitalists seeking short-term gains through pump-and-dump strategies. Even in this speculative realm, crypto is no more effective than traditional listed shares. 

In markets like Indonesia, for instance, listing and manipulating stocks remains relatively straightforward – companies (even unprofitable ones) can list in the IDX, be artificially inflated, and then strategically dumped when FTSE or MSCI index inclusion forces passive funds to purchase.  Anyone bought into BREN lately?

Wakanda only exists in movies

 Indonesia struggles to effectively promote its economy, despite being rich in natural resources. While the country has significant potential, current policies fail to provide meaningful support. In any industry, particularly resource-based sectors, success is not evenly distributed – there are a handful winners and most likely, a lot of losers.

Let’s say 2 are considered successful. However, behind them lie 50 failed projects: those that never gained traction, and those that tried but ultimately collapsed. The fundamental role of government policy should be to create a system that lifts all boats and gives the 50 struggling projects a fighting chance. Instead, the current approach is myopic. Policymakers fixate solely on the two profitable ventures, seeing them only as cash cows to be milked for increased tax revenue.

Predictably, the two "successful" companies gradually decline, joining the very pool of struggling businesses they once stood above. By the time the next, next, next administration takes office, they are left bewildered, confronting a much more difficult economic landscape due to decades of bad policymaking. 

A return to Lex specialis regime for oil and gas and mining would be a good start. 

The downstreaming policy has been disastrous, even if it had had moderate success with nickel.  Nickel smelters, you can build for $100m and upwards – but bauxite/alumina you need $500m, copper $1b, in order to reach scale – hence the limited scale of success with these commodities.  

Forget about coal gasification, it doesn’t work anywhere, why would it work in Indonesia.  

Poop Economics

Note: The story below is written by Perplexity AI. 

Note 2: I think Claude is better for writing. But it's still a story about poop. 



The Economics of a Daring Bet
Two graduate students in economics were enjoying a leisurely stroll through a picturesque forest, engaging in lively discussions about their studies and future careers. As they meandered along the winding path, they stumbled upon an unexpected sight: a large pile of cow dung.

A Bold Proposition
The first student, with a mischievous grin, turned to his friend and said, “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of dung.” The second student paused, contemplating the offer. He remembered his decision to pursue academia—a field where financial rewards were often scarce—and realized that turning down $100 was not an option. After a moment’s hesitation, he retrieved a knife and fork from his backpack and bravely dug in.

A Taste of Regret
Not long after, the duo encountered another pile of cow dung. This time, the second student felt a sense of camaraderie and mischief. “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that one,” he challenged his friend. The first student, still reeling from his earlier decision, felt a pang of regret but also a desire to reclaim his lost funds. With determination, he pulled out an emergency spoon from his bag and joined in on the dubious feast.

A Lesson in Economics
As they continued their walk, the first student turned to his friend and said, “You know, I gave you $100 to eat that dung, and then you gave me back the same $100 to eat it too. I can’t shake the feeling that we both just ate dung for nothing.”The second student chuckled and replied, “Have you learned nothing from our studies? We’ve actually contributed to the economy! We increased service sector GDP by $200 and created two new jobs—one for each of us!”

Conclusion
In that moment, amidst laughter and disbelief, the two students realized that sometimes the most outrageous experiences can lead to valuable lessons—even if they come with an unpleasant taste. They continued their walk through the forest, their bond strengthened by shared absurdity and an unexpected understanding of economic principles.