Undoubtedly the entire financial market is speculation and gambling.
Fully agree with that point.
And yep, only very rich sharks benefit as any market becomes more established ... as the current world shows anyone with two functional brain cells.
I think you have vindicated my actual point, that getting paid in cryto is probably not the best idea, for anyone.
But please feel free to tell me if that is not representative of your opinion.
Let's take crypto out of the equation, so that the crypto bros can unwad their panties and see a little sense for a moment, since their argument is that SWs should take crypto as payment.
Getting paid in any stock (crypto is just a form of stock) is a very risky thing, as stocks fluctuate, sometimes in fairly predicable ways, and sometimes wildly when unusual global events have a knock on effect on financial markets, the entire of 2025 has had those markets bouncing all over the place, and 2026 is trending the same.
I have been saying that it is a risky proposition because if you have no idea if the stock you are paid in today will hold a very similar value tomorrow.
That becomes important when you have to factor in real world considerations, my buying a Monster Zero Sugar from the dairy example, but paying for any number of real world things of necessity like rent, utilities, fuel, food, etc are all the same.
The dairy owner wants to know that the thing you are paying him with will be worth essentially for all practical purposes the same today as it was yesterday and will be tomorrow (because yes real money currencies do fluctuate, that's why exchange rates are a thing, but they don't often wildly fluctuate, NZD on Feb 16 was worth about the same as NZD on the 17th, so purchasing power is effectively the same).
Paying your rent to the landlord is essentially the same, paying the mechanic, the doctor, the supermarket, the list goes on, are all the same, they want payment for their goods and services in a means that they know that what they are getting is worth.
Breaking the thought/paragraph for readability, large blocks of text just turn into unreadable mush.
All the previous leads back to an example that I used a number of posts back, which the crypto bros around here have conveniently pretended was never asked.
The question was (paraphrased):
If your boss came up to you on a random morning and said "I will not be paying you in the currency of the land any longer, instead I am going to pay you in a stock that fluctuates in value and you cannot spend wherever you need or want to, how does that sound?"
Would you say A) "Yessir that sounds like a great idea, because now planning my personal day to day finances will be made more difficult as I'll never really know what my purchasing power will be."
Or would you say B) "Go fuck yourself. Pay me in way that I have a pretty good idea what purchasing power I have in the short to mid-term is ... oh and by the way I can use anywhere I need to. If you don't, find someone else to serve cafe lattes to your well healed boomer customers."
I'm willing to bet that pretty much everybody would go for option B, including the crypto bros around here (since none of them have indicated that they get paid bitcoin at work and not NZD), for the reasons I have outlined.
So why do these guys keep harping on that someone should rent them their vavjayjay for something that is not relatively stable so that they can pay their bills dependably (that's why these ladies do what they do, it isn't because we're all charming motherfuckers that just cause them to drop their pants at the sight of us)?
I'm not for a second saying that you are suggesting that it is a good idea.
From your remark I would gather that you are a normal person, who happens to take some of their real money that isn't tied up in day to day things, and use it to speculate on a market in the hopes that you get a larger return than what you put in.
In other words, if you have the means, then try to make your money work for you and earn a little more.
Which is a totally reasonable position.
What you aren't suggesting, at least from what I can pull from your comment, is that people get paid for their labor, goods or services in stock.
Which is what some of these dudes are suggesting.
(Yes I know there are renumeration packages that include stock as part payment, but never the entire amount, or even a majority)
Anyways, thanks for the good faith engagement in the discussion.
