What prevents you from seeing the risk?

# What prevents you from seeing the risk?

Whether the Terra/Luna incident is a crime will be revealed through investigation, and the focus of my Nawabari is the "failure of risk management." And I would like to say something to pay attention to behind the voices of those who criticize and ridicule Luna & Kwon Do-hyung, the CEO of those who have nothing to do with cryptocurrency investment.

In the cryptocurrency community, investors who were enthusiastic about Luna (CEO Hashid Kim Seo-joon, Galaxy Digital Novogratz, etc.) and people who were concerned about it, saying, "There's a problem with this?" and "It's going to explode if I do something wrong."

CEO V.C. was an early investment participant in Terra/Luna, and the valuation gain and loss of 2 billion won reached 4 trillion won, so it is easy to guess that CEO Kwon Do-hyung's valuation gain and loss was trillion won.

Under the premise that there was no intention of fraud in the first place - if I were to start a business/project that I started growing to 50 trillion won in three years and my assets reached trillions of won - I don't know if I can be free from complacency such as 'I am God!' I think I will be sure that 'my judgment and choice were right' if my assets become trillion units thanks to my investment earlier than others, let alone creating an ecosystem.

So it's natural for people around me to mock "Yes, I think this is too expensive." or "... It's because you don't know well," or "Does it hurt because you can't buy it when it's packed?"

While no one could have predicted that interest rates would fall so low by 2021, if you look around, you often see people who buy apartments early and earn at most hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. When you offer opinions such as 'Hey, isn't this too expensive for GDP, income, PEER' or 'too risky with excessive leverage' it is often followed by ridiculous comments such as 'Ha... it's because you don't know...' 'What did you do without buying a house, X-Shin?'

People who made billions of dollars in real estate at most are like this, but are people who made trillions of dollars in their hearts sad?
In the end, the real estate mania, which used to be a stock dispute, is a lesson that all asset market participants should learn if they ignore risk-taking opinions because they are intoxicated with enormous financial success. Banks and large corporations have much stronger risk control than the relatively small second financial sector and small and medium-sized companies, because the larger the scale, the more risk management should be raised to the appropriate level.

When you're flattered by the good results of your investment, let's think about the winding type. "...is my profit now going to exceed the winding type before Terra collapsed?"

# an unwavering principle, a high risk high return

The Luna crisis is a total crisis, but it's a pity that nothing has changed from four years ago when we saw a lot of mockery of "I knew it" as we entered the downturn. As we have said for a long time, personal investment in cryptocurrencies is the LONG-rate hike if the U.S. goes for a rate cut and SHORT if it goes for a LONG-rate hike. My close acquaintances know how many times I hit SHORT on altcoins in Binance.

It's not just a narrow view of assets competing for scarcity with USD. I've been to banks and the bond market, and I have high expectations that there will be more and more uses for that. However, the problem is that the speed is still slow to meet public expectations. In the meantime, if interest rates fall, expectations will amplify, and if interest rates rise, expectations will collapse.

Although different experts have different opinions, the technological position of cryptocurrency is comparable to the Internet in the early and mid-1990s, and Ethereum is similar to the early Netscape level. It's really impressive to see what's going on since the establishment of the U.S. Stock Exchange in the 1700s, which was covered in the Shuka World "The Age of Outlaws" (pictured) on May 17, 2022.

Robbery to take over real stocks is common, buy judges to issue stocks indefinitely, etc..
From a modern person's point of view, one might think, "Why invest in stocks when it's so dangerous?" Nevertheless, wouldn't investing in stocks be simply explained as "a human desire to get my money called at a high rate of return"?
The result seems similar to the question, "Why invest in such a dangerous cryptocurrency?"

According to Professor Sunyoung Park of Dongguk University's Facebook post on May 16, 1837 to 1863 are called free banking eras in the U.S. banking history, during which banks were able to issue bank notes as much as collateral and distribute them like money (very similar to the current situation in which stablecoin issuers are rampant in the cryptocurrency ecosystem), and there were constant bank runs until the introduction of deposit insurance in 1934. After all, banks and stocks were too dangerous when the state's control of public power was insufficient.

If so, it leads to a discussion that the control of the public power should be increased to protect investors in the cryptocurrency market, and the attack point that always appears in this case is the concept of "decentralization." Just as the left and the right are not dichotomous, decentralization and centralization also span various spectrums, not dichotomy, and those who are negative about cryptocurrency tend to drive the meaning of "decentralization" too much only as "anti-government."

If the interpretation of Bitcoin as "made to overthrow the money printed by the government" is limited, it should be banned from the government's perspective. However, many developed countries that list Bitcoin ETFs, including the United States, do not seem to have such a narrow interpretation.

# Heungseon Daewongun's spirit that differentiates himself from white people in developed countries?

According to a YouTuber who deals with the birth of microwave ovens -
During World War II, terrible things happened to the bodies of people who were working on radar sites, and people in the heaven were like, "Oh, my God, if we use this well, it's going to be a good thing," and that led to the creation of microwaves. Perhaps our sentiment was, "Hey, get rid of this dangerous thing right now!" But the basic sentiment of the American people was, "Even though it's dangerous, it's beneficial if you use it well. Proceed with it!"

I've been working with Bitcoin for only six years this year, and I'm tired of repertoires such as "It's a scam," "It's useless," and "The U.S. will ban it" that repeat like a parrot every time the price drops, and something may make the price look like Luna, but the American stans seem to be becoming more and more clear that "Let's make good use of this and take the lead in this market."

It was the Silk Road incident in the United States in 2014 that Bitcoin began to gain popularity. In the United States, where people hate drugs so much, Bitcoin's only use began with drug trafficking. At the time, the market capitalization of Bitcoin was small, and very few people owned and traded it, so that was the best time to ban it.

Despite the harsh incident, however, the U.S. is developing research and regulation at the same time without banning the establishment and mining of various cryptocurrency exchanges. Rather, they are continuing their steps as opposed to the ban, such as listing on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, approving futures ETF, listing on Coinbase Nasdaq, and approving stablecoins by the U.S. Monetary Authority. (There are many talks about stablecoins, which the U.S. Monetary Authority recognized as a formal payment method, and U.S. banks approved to issue stablecoins directly.)

Not only the U.S. but also Switzerland and Singapore, where the level of civil servants is high, are making active efforts to preempt this market. Of course, if the majority of Korean people's sentiment is 'buy all these and ban them,' it would be useless to simply listen to the cases of the U.S., Switzerland and Singapore without any efforts to communicate. Conversely, it seems necessary to recall what the U.S. and other advanced countries have seen and are actively embracing them before "unconditionally opposing."