
Litecoin has lost half its value since the creator sold all of his stake - everdev
http://markets.businessinsider.com/currencies/news/litecoin-price-loses-half-its-value-since-creator-charlie-lee-sold-stake-2018-1-1013127468
======
threepadstack
what this article fails to mention is that, while litecoin's price has halved
since charlie lee sold all of his stake, so has bitcoin. the entire market has
corrected, at its peak the crypto market cap was at ~$850 billion, right now
its at ~$500 billion

~~~
geezerjay
By "corrected" surely you mean "entered the dump stage of a pump-and-dump
scheme".

That's essentially the underlying story of litecoin and the common thread of
all so called cryptocurrencies.

~~~
coralreef
Yeah, an unhackable protocol that is decentralized and solves the double spend
problem has no value to society whatsoever.

~~~
mayank
> an unhackable* protocol

* unhackable except for the 51% attack. Decentralized does not mean invulnerable.

> ...solves the double spend problem has no value to society

The value of a cryptocoin reflects people's belief in the ROI of holding on to
it, rather than how "good" to society it can be.

~~~
carlmr
Like you I believe it's a pump and dump. I still believe we're discovering
valuable technology. This is like the first motor-drawn-carriage that went at
nimble walking speed. It led to proper cars about 20 years later.

I think we'll see a lot of iterations and people losing their money in the
next few years, until we've figured out how to make the currency slightly
inflationary. Which is what is needed to actually make it a currency that
people use. Pretty much every government knows that deflation is bad for
spending, because hoarding means making money. Too much inflation and people
don't want to save for big purchases because they're losing too much. Slight
inflation (e.g. 1%) is the golden middle.

We could maybe have an algorithm that achieves this somehow by regulating the
crypto supply to make it grow at a rate of 1% (+ the losses in crypto going
out of circulation via people losing their private keys).

------
maxander
Judging by the chart, the writer probably had this ready to go for awhile and
set an alarm for _the precise moment_ that a random price fluctuation finally
put it below the 50% mark.

That, and of course the price is going down in general, but that's because
it's no longer December 2017, doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the
creator's sellout.

~~~
seehafer
Then again, going on CNBC and touting your coin as the next big thing and then
selling your stake a few days later... there's a reason we've banned that kind
of behavior in securities markets for decades.

