Denarius, for all intensive purposes is a dead Cyrptocurrency coin. For those unfamiliar with crypto, this is typically when a crypto coin's daily transaction volume is significantly less than the size of the total market cap -- which this coin fits the bill. Viper would obviously stand to profit if he could increase that volume and was paid in the crypto-currency, leveraging the attention to the coin the value of his investment would rise such as the price of Denarius would rise as more investors bought in. Typically in a scenario where there is a dead coin, it's likely the owner is wanting the price to head upwards so that they can unload their massive inventory at a higher price, immediately tanking the price and leaving those who invested with a nice, fat loss for their time and effort. In fact, the scenario Viper describes where the coin has had historically no use-case but will rise in value on advertisement alone due to its low volume funding showmatches is (I personally believe unintentionally,) a kind of pump and dump scheme. As most "normal," crypto investors are the type who hold, this obviously leaves them at great risk of investing in something with no value.
Viper has since responded and decided not to pursue the sponsorship as seen today here:
With the other recent sponsorships pertaining to Gambling/Poker, GFuel (unregulated supplement) and RSL, it's an interesting recurring dynamic in the community. Perhaps some of the more popular AOE2 streamers tend to be less sensitive towards the optics of these sponsorships, perhaps because their line of work can be viewed as somewhat comparable in terms of being non-traditional of a product. I wonder if the pursuit of these types of sponsorships is more because they are the only investments available to them, (or the most profitable,) so there is also that side of the coin to consider as well.
As someone who bought just over a hundred Ethereum from 2018-2019, watching 30k turn into 8k and then be excited to sell when I broke even a couple years later (only to let the sheer excitement of getting the initial investment back while losing out on potentially 220k post-tax rise a year later,) - this was a fun topic of conversation.
There seems to be a clash of people who don't believe in crypto-currency as a viable investment, which I disagree with. What I don't disagree with is that due to the myriad regulatory and systemic challenges of the space, they are a high-risk investment, and I would never encourage anyone putting a dollar into it that they couldn't afford to simply disappear. Crypto is currently in bull form but I would anticipate that the bears will be out in force shortly, and everyone will be losing their minds that an asset couldn't continue to exponentially increase as traders who know how to short laugh hysterically.
I expect roughly 20-30 replies saying that an individual should be entitled to lose out on an investment but it is their right to make it. Perfectly valid point, and one that I might tend to agree with in most cases. But idealism, ethics, and business optics do not always align. Perhaps they never will?
There is a separate issue of the optics of the type of investment this appeared to be.
Viper has since responded and decided not to pursue the sponsorship as seen today here:
With the other recent sponsorships pertaining to Gambling/Poker, GFuel (unregulated supplement) and RSL, it's an interesting recurring dynamic in the community. Perhaps some of the more popular AOE2 streamers tend to be less sensitive towards the optics of these sponsorships, perhaps because their line of work can be viewed as somewhat comparable in terms of being non-traditional of a product. I wonder if the pursuit of these types of sponsorships is more because they are the only investments available to them, (or the most profitable,) so there is also that side of the coin to consider as well.
As someone who bought just over a hundred Ethereum from 2018-2019, watching 30k turn into 8k and then be excited to sell when I broke even a couple years later (only to let the sheer excitement of getting the initial investment back while losing out on potentially 220k post-tax rise a year later,) - this was a fun topic of conversation.
There seems to be a clash of people who don't believe in crypto-currency as a viable investment, which I disagree with. What I don't disagree with is that due to the myriad regulatory and systemic challenges of the space, they are a high-risk investment, and I would never encourage anyone putting a dollar into it that they couldn't afford to simply disappear. Crypto is currently in bull form but I would anticipate that the bears will be out in force shortly, and everyone will be losing their minds that an asset couldn't continue to exponentially increase as traders who know how to short laugh hysterically.
I expect roughly 20-30 replies saying that an individual should be entitled to lose out on an investment but it is their right to make it. Perfectly valid point, and one that I might tend to agree with in most cases. But idealism, ethics, and business optics do not always align. Perhaps they never will?
There is a separate issue of the optics of the type of investment this appeared to be.
Last edited: