zlacker

>>nemoni+(OP)
It's astonishing to me that people will just buy into any success story that involves crypto and NFTs. People don't question why poorly drawn pictures are being bought for thousands of dollars, don't question why there are hundreds of altcoins on the market and some "cryptocurrency experts" are supposedly "offering free tips" on investment. The whole space is rife with scams and embellishments and yet there are so many people just blindly buying into it, including the damn BBC!

>>WilTim+o2
Why limit it to crypto? People don't question why the value of houses seems to magically rise globally despite no tangible value being added to the assets in most cases. People don't question why Wall Street traders get rich by trading second derivatives of mortgage backed securities with each other all day. What makes a mortgage any more "real" than an NFT?

>>globul+87
People question it all the time. And a house has obvious utility. It's also kind of a share in the city's future. It can be mispriced but it's not entirely based on hype.

>>blfr+s8
I'm not talking about the houses, though. I'm talking about mortgages. Have you ever wondered why you can't just save up for a house and buy it with cash? Why do you need to first acquire this thing called a mortgage? What part is the bank actually playing in this transaction? You'll pay tax to them for 30 years but what exactly are you getting in return?

These are the questions that need to be asked.

>>globul+PE
Houses are acquired in cash all the time. There is no legal requirement to tie oneself to a mortgage, if you already have the means to pay the price in full.