Dogecoin

A memecoin cryptoasset based on a joke about the Shibu variety of dogs.

Dogecoin is part of a larger class of investments based around a collective dog theme.

Properties

Dogecoin is not a currency.

Dogecoin is a speculative investment.

Dogecoin is deflationary.

Dogecoin is a bearer instrument.

Dogecoin has no fundamental value.

Dogecoin has no use value.

Dogecoin has no income-cashflows.

Dogecoin has a present-value of zero.

Dogecoin has a terminal-value of zero.

Dogecoin is a greater-fool theory asset.

Dogecoin is a form of gambling.

Dogecoin is a non-productive investment.

Dogecoin has a negative expected return.

Dogecoin is based on the consensus algorithm known as Proof of Work mining.

References

  1. Warzel, Charlie. 2021. ‘The Absurdity Is the Point’. Substack newsletter. Galaxy Brain (blog). 11 May 2021. https://warzel.substack.com/p/the-absurdity-is-the-point.
  2. Gerard, David. n.d. ‘Confused About Dogecoin? Here’s How It (Doesn’t) Work.’ Foreign Policy (blog). Accessed 3 March 2022. https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/11/dogecoin-how-does-it-work-elon-musk-cryptocurrency/.
  3. Maddox, Alexia, and Luke J Heemsbergen. 2021. ‘Digging in Crypto-Communities’ Future-Making: From Dark to Doge’. M/C Journal 24 (2 SE-). https://doi.org/10.5204/mcj.2755.
  4. Becker, Moritz. 2019. ‘Blockchain and the Promise (s) of Decentralisation : A Sociological Investigation of the Sociotechnical Imaginaries of Blockchain’. In Proceedings of the STS Conference Graz 2019, 6–30. https://doi.org/10.3217/978-3-85125-668-0-02.
  5. Groos, Jan. 2021. ‘Crypto Politics: Notes on Sociotechnical Imaginaries of Governance in Blockchain Based Technologies’. In Data Loam, 1:148–70. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110697841-009.
  6. Lustig, Caitlin. 2019. ‘Intersecting Imaginaries: Visions of Decentralized Autonomous Systems’. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3 (CSCW). https://doi.org/10.1145/3359312.
  7. West, Sarah Myers. 2018. ‘Cryptographic Imaginaries and the Networked Public’. Internet Policy Review 7 (2): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.14763/2018.2.792.
Edit this page