Pro

1) Bitcoin meets the definition of money

2) Bitcoin is superior to its competitors which are widely recognized as fundamentally sound



1: Bitcoin is a store of value, a unit of account and a medium of exchange. These are the historical requirements of a "sound money." See the source below for evidence that Bitcoin can be (and has been) used in such ways:



https://www.bitcoinstore.com...



2: At the above source you also may have noticed that the bitcoin prices various goods are sold at, even after considering exchange rates and fees, are below prices in Euro or USD. USD and Euro are considered widely as the world's most fundamentally strong currencies. Lower prices in Bitcoin is an economic market indicator of a fundamentally stronger currency.



Reasons for Bitcoin's superiority include:

A) Bitcoin creates a free market. This is due to its pseudonymous power. When used correctly, it can be used anonymously, allowing nullification of market-corrupting government law and taxation.

B) Bitcoin reduces transaction costs. Its fees are lower than credit cards, paypal, western union, etc. Lower transaction costs means better money.

C) Bitcoin is fundamentally deflationary in the long run. After a set amount is created no more can be created. This prevents inflation and ensures a strong currency in the long run, unlike the USD, Euro, or pretty much any currency out there.



I could go on. Now bring the debate. I don't want to play all my cards at once. Report this Argument I believe Bitcoin is fundamentally sound and I invite anyone to prove otherwise. I will argue this in 2 ways:1) Bitcoin meets the definition of money2) Bitcoin is superior to its competitors which are widely recognized as fundamentally sound1: Bitcoin is a store of value, a unit of account and a medium of exchange. These are the historical requirements of a "sound money." See the source below for evidence that Bitcoin can be (and has been) used in such ways:2: At the above source you also may have noticed that the bitcoin prices various goods are sold at, even after considering exchange rates and fees, are below prices in Euro or USD. USD and Euro are considered widely as the world's most fundamentally strong currencies. Lower prices in Bitcoin is an economic market indicator of a fundamentally stronger currency.Reasons for Bitcoin's superiority include:A) Bitcoin creates a free market. This is due to its pseudonymous power. When used correctly, it can be used anonymously, allowing nullification of market-corrupting government law and taxation.B) Bitcoin reduces transaction costs. Its fees are lower than credit cards, paypal, western union, etc. Lower transaction costs means better money.C) Bitcoin is fundamentally deflationary in the long run. After a set amount is created no more can be created. This prevents inflation and ensures a strong currency in the long run, unlike the USD, Euro, or pretty much any currency out there.I could go on. Now bring the debate. I don't want to play all my cards at once. Con



If I understand the use of sound currency correctly, then it is being used in reference to hard currency that is backed by a commodity like gold. If I'm not mistaken, and feel free to correct me, but the concept behind calling it "sound" is that an ounce of gold would buy the same today as it would during the Great Depression, or a hundred years in the future.



On the surface, bitcoins share many of the features of a hard currency such as a Gold Certificate. It even shares many of the strengths, and weaknesses of its gold counterpart. However, by its very design, it is fundamentally flawed, and will be unlike any hard currency in existence. Bitcoins are bad because they follow a deflationary model,they are unstable, favor black market transactions, and do not provide market stability necessary for a free market, or a real economy.



Maybe it's todays world where we're so fearful of inflation that some people equate deflation with being good. However, deflation is infinitely worse. Lets say I'm a retailer, and I need to purchase a Nex-7 to stock my store. I spend on February 23rd 35.7 bitcoins, or the equivalent 1000 USD. The camera doesn"t get to me until the 2nd, and now will only sell for 29.5 bitcoins. If the camera doesn"t sell until today at noon it"ll only sell for 15.5 bitcoins. As a retailer, if I used bitcoins, I would have lost 20.2 bitcoins. You can look up the prices over the last month on mtgox.com



This is the textbook definition of deflation, and this is feared because it hurts everyone that participates in the supply chain, from manufacturers to consumers. In a deflationary model, you're only rewarded for being a miser, and refusing to participate in the economy. The last time the US had any deflation at or near -10% was the Great Depression, and the last major economy to be hurt by deflation was Japan in their Lost Decade. It is no wonder why people familiar with deflation will move Heaven and Earth to keep it in the box.



Unlike any other hard currency model, bitcoins will have a permanent money supply choke. In all of human history, we've never run out of minable gold. Also, with asteroid mining a few centuries away, it's hard to say we ever will. With gold, we can very slowly increase the money supply to have it grow with an ever larger economy. Bitcoins, on the other hand, have a maximum of 21 million coins that can ever be made, and can't be modified to generate more bitcoins after that. Taking the worse aspect of the gold standard, the slow growth of the money supply, and magnifying it to create hyper deflation is hardly an advantage.



Other issues arise when you compare it to the current fiat banking systems, because it is uniquely vulnerable to loss, and presents no options for recovery of stolen coins. On the one hand, if I used a bank and my account is hacked, I have options to recover my funds. However, if some hacker steals my bitcoin wallet, then they have free reign over my funds, and I have no options for recovery. The ultimate transaction cost is currently unknown, and will increase as the burden of maintaining the transactional database grows beyond the capabilities of your average user. In a way, it has married the weaknesses of physical currency to the actual banking system, and vise-versa.



The anonymous nature of bitcoins only enhances the black market. They can be used for corporate bribes, money laundering, and deprives local governments from taxes that help build our roads, and schools. It presents no added benefit for the legitimate free market that the current system does not already address.



As bad as inflation may seem, deflation is infinitely worse because it encourages hoarding, and prolongs the recovery period from even the simplest economic recessions. When controlled properly, inflation encourages spending, and discourages hoarding. The current system controlling the USD, the Federal Reserve, can even change monetary policy if it's prudent. If any of the policies controlling bitcoins are determined to be bad at a future date, they cannot be changed, or adjusted, by anyone. By its very nature, bitcoins lack the ability to evolve that has made our current economic system strong. Report this Argument Bitcoin is a fundamentally flawed currency.If I understand the use of sound currency correctly, then it is being used in reference to hard currency that is backed by a commodity like gold. If I'm not mistaken, and feel free to correct me, but the concept behind calling it "sound" is that an ounce of gold would buy the same today as it would during the Great Depression, or a hundred years in the future.On the surface, bitcoins share many of the features of a hard currency such as a Gold Certificate. It even shares many of the strengths, and weaknesses of its gold counterpart. However, by its very design, it is fundamentally flawed, and will be unlike any hard currency in existence. Bitcoins are bad because they follow a deflationary model,they are unstable, favor black market transactions, and do not provide market stability necessary for a free market, or a real economy.Maybe it's todays world where we're so fearful of inflation that some people equate deflation with being good. However, deflation is infinitely worse. Lets say I'm a retailer, and I need to purchase a Nex-7 to stock my store. I spend on February 23rd 35.7 bitcoins, or the equivalent 1000 USD. The camera doesn"t get to me until the 2nd, and now will only sell for 29.5 bitcoins. If the camera doesn"t sell until today at noon it"ll only sell for 15.5 bitcoins. As a retailer, if I used bitcoins, I would have lost 20.2 bitcoins. You can look up the prices over the last month on mtgox.comThis is the textbook definition of deflation, and this is feared because it hurts everyone that participates in the supply chain, from manufacturers to consumers. In a deflationary model, you're only rewarded for being a miser, and refusing to participate in the economy. The last time the US had any deflation at or near -10% was the Great Depression, and the last major economy to be hurt by deflation was Japan in their Lost Decade. It is no wonder why people familiar with deflation will move Heaven and Earth to keep it in the box.Unlike any other hard currency model, bitcoins will have a permanent money supply choke. In all of human history, we've never run out of minable gold. Also, with asteroid mining a few centuries away, it's hard to say we ever will. With gold, we can very slowly increase the money supply to have it grow with an ever larger economy. Bitcoins, on the other hand, have a maximum of 21 million coins that can ever be made, and can't be modified to generate more bitcoins after that. Taking the worse aspect of the gold standard, the slow growth of the money supply, and magnifying it to create hyper deflation is hardly an advantage.Other issues arise when you compare it to the current fiat banking systems, because it is uniquely vulnerable to loss, and presents no options for recovery of stolen coins. On the one hand, if I used a bank and my account is hacked, I have options to recover my funds. However, if some hacker steals my bitcoin wallet, then they have free reign over my funds, and I have no options for recovery. The ultimate transaction cost is currently unknown, and will increase as the burden of maintaining the transactional database grows beyond the capabilities of your average user. In a way, it has married the weaknesses of physical currency to the actual banking system, and vise-versa.The anonymous nature of bitcoins only enhances the black market. They can be used for corporate bribes, money laundering, and deprives local governments from taxes that help build our roads, and schools. It presents no added benefit for the legitimate free market that the current system does not already address.As bad as inflation may seem, deflation is infinitely worse because it encourages hoarding, and prolongs the recovery period from even the simplest economic recessions. When controlled properly, inflation encourages spending, and discourages hoarding. The current system controlling the USD, the Federal Reserve, can even change monetary policy if it's prudent. If any of the policies controlling bitcoins are determined to be bad at a future date, they cannot be changed, or adjusted, by anyone. By its very nature, bitcoins lack the ability to evolve that has made our current economic system strong.

Pro

My opponent has created a straw man argument by using a false definition of sound money. He has invited me to correct him and so I will. "Sound money" has been traditionally defined as being a store of value, a unit of account and a medium of exchange. There are also lesser qualities which are preferred, but not necessary, in sound money. Such fringe qualities include divisibility, lowered transaction costs, intrinsic value, and others.

My opponent has not argued that Bitcoin is incapable of any of these. He has tried to malign Bitcoin due to its deflationary nature but has unknowingly strengthened the case in doing so.

I also argued that Bitcoin is better than the competition. My opponent has advised that the competition would include gold or a Gold Certificate. Certainly these would qualify as "commodity money" as any economist knows. However commodity money is rarely used as money anymore. Nearly all money in the world is fiat money such as the USD or Euro. Nonetheless I will address commodities as though they were a competitor although they really aren"t and most of my opponent"s argument is therefore moot.

Gold has extreme transaction costs which make it unworthy as money. Gold does have some intrinsic value which makes it a good store of value, but I would argue that such intrinsic value is very minimal indeed. I would argue that water has a higher intrinsic value than Gold does. Water is necessary to life whereas Gold is not. It is worth noting that these days the market prefers fiat to Gold or commodity for transaction purposes. The primary drivers of this preference are transaction costs and law. The primary reason for Gold"s use as a store of value is that it is rare, not that it has intrinsic value, although both are contributing factors.

Bitcoin is rare as well. For that reason it has already far surpassed the market value of silver and I believe it will far surpass the market value of Gold over time as well. Bitcoin, however, has negligible transaction fees. For this reason carrying and using Bitcoin in transactions is preferable to using gold. Bitcoin also has intrinsic value. A series of unrealized features in Bitcoin lay dormant and they are called "contracts." See the following video:

The abilities inside of contracts, as well as the ability to transact with less cost than the competition, give Bitcoin an intrinsic value. Just as the service of lawyers and such establishing contracts has a value, Bitcoin can act as an automatically self-enforcing contract service and that has value to people.

Bitcoin has no central bank which can print money, giving it a store of value advantage over fiat. The recent incident in Cyprus reveals other ways in which this is beneficial.

Law prevents people from using Gold certificates as money. If people started using Gold or certificates as money the government could simply cease the Gold, rendering the certificates mere fiat anyway. Bitcoin"s anonymity allows that the government cannot tell who is using it or who to punish. Additionally, even if they could tell, Bitcoin"s distributed nature makes it impossible for seizure to occur. If you take my computer away there is still a distributed record across the internet which holds the same data my computer did, that is the Bitcoin block chain.

Bitcoins are still moderately unstable but the instability decreases as its use, and therefore market liquidity, increases. Additionally, Bitcoin instability is mostly unidirectional. In other words while its price may change it is mostly just appreciation. Business can still be transacted in such an environment.



Bitcoin does favor tax evasion and black market transactions, but what is the effect of that? Weakening of government, which is an economically destructive entity to begin with. The black market which is simply the economy outside of the law is a fundamentally freer and therefore more productive economy.



Bitcoin already has a "real economy." There are people getting paid in Bitcoin. There are producers and consumers in Bitcoin.

Deflation is an essentially good thing as any Austrian knows. I will not address his specific examples, but the general point he made is that deflation is bad because it encourages "being a miser" and "hoarding." Many Keynesian economists would agree with my opponent. However a Keynesian economist is an oxymoron anyway. "Being a miser" and "hoarding" are simply malignant words for "saving money." According to Austrian economics economies grow better through saving than through monetary injection, which my opponent seems to support by complaining about Bitcoin"s "monetary choke."

My opponent claims that Bitcoin is uniquely vulnerable to loss. Actually the loss due to theft, etc pale in comparison to the credit fraud, money counterfeiting and other costs of the traditional money system. This is strength of Bitcoin not a weakness. Yes there is some exposure to theft, just like there is with regular fiat but such exposure is minimal and easily avoided. I will look up data if I have to but this is a well known fact on any Bitcoin reddit or forum.

My opponent also claims that the average user will be burdened by maintaining the transactional database of Bitcoin. Such a thing would already be burdensome. However it is automated by the software. No such point is valid.



My opponent has attempted to argue that black markets are less efficient or legitimate than the Market Overt. That is an easy point to break if he wants to push it.

My opponent has argued that the Federal Reserve is a good thing. This is disturbingly wrong. The decentralized nature of Bitcoin makes it superior, not inferior, to fiat. The Fed, like most other central banks, has been making bad decisions for most of their history. Report this Argument I respectfully disagree with my opponent but let me first thank him for stepping up to the challenge, having a polite tone, and raising some good points, despite the fact that said points do not sufficiently invalidate my stance which is that Bitcoin is a fundamentally sound money.My opponent has created a straw man argument by using a false definition of sound money. He has invited me to correct him and so I will. "Sound money" has been traditionally defined as being a store of value, a unit of account and a medium of exchange. There are also lesser qualities which are preferred, but not necessary, in sound money. Such fringe qualities include divisibility, lowered transaction costs, intrinsic value, and others.My opponent has not argued that Bitcoin is incapable of any of these. He has tried to malign Bitcoin due to its deflationary nature but has unknowingly strengthened the case in doing so.I also argued that Bitcoin is better than the competition. My opponent has advised that the competition would include gold or a Gold Certificate. Certainly these would qualify as "commodity money" as any economist knows. However commodity money is rarely used as money anymore. Nearly all money in the world is fiat money such as the USD or Euro. Nonetheless I will address commodities as though they were a competitor although they really aren"t and most of my opponent"s argument is therefore moot.Gold has extreme transaction costs which make it unworthy as money. Gold does have some intrinsic value which makes it a good store of value, but I would argue that such intrinsic value is very minimal indeed. I would argue that water has a higher intrinsic value than Gold does. Water is necessary to life whereas Gold is not. It is worth noting that these days the market prefers fiat to Gold or commodity for transaction purposes. The primary drivers of this preference are transaction costs and law. The primary reason for Gold"s use as a store of value is that it is rare, not that it has intrinsic value, although both are contributing factors.Bitcoin is rare as well. For that reason it has already far surpassed the market value of silver and I believe it will far surpass the market value of Gold over time as well. Bitcoin, however, has negligible transaction fees. For this reason carrying and using Bitcoin in transactions is preferable to using gold. Bitcoin also has intrinsic value. A series of unrealized features in Bitcoin lay dormant and they are called "contracts." See the following video: https://www.youtube.com... The abilities inside of contracts, as well as the ability to transact with less cost than the competition, give Bitcoin an intrinsic value. Just as the service of lawyers and such establishing contracts has a value, Bitcoin can act as an automatically self-enforcing contract service and that has value to people.Bitcoin has no central bank which can print money, giving it a store of value advantage over fiat. The recent incident in Cyprus reveals other ways in which this is beneficial.Law prevents people from using Gold certificates as money. If people started using Gold or certificates as money the government could simply cease the Gold, rendering the certificates mere fiat anyway. Bitcoin"s anonymity allows that the government cannot tell who is using it or who to punish. Additionally, even if they could tell, Bitcoin"s distributed nature makes it impossible for seizure to occur. If you take my computer away there is still a distributed record across the internet which holds the same data my computer did, that is the Bitcoin block chain.Bitcoins are still moderately unstable but the instability decreases as its use, and therefore market liquidity, increases. Additionally, Bitcoin instability is mostly unidirectional. In other words while its price may change it is mostly just appreciation. Business can still be transacted in such an environment.Bitcoin does favor tax evasion and black market transactions, but what is the effect of that? Weakening of government, which is an economically destructive entity to begin with. The black market which is simply the economy outside of the law is a fundamentally freer and therefore more productive economy.Bitcoin already has a "real economy." There are people getting paid in Bitcoin. There are producers and consumers in Bitcoin.Deflation is an essentially good thing as any Austrian knows. I will not address his specific examples, but the general point he made is that deflation is bad because it encourages "being a miser" and "hoarding." Many Keynesian economists would agree with my opponent. However a Keynesian economist is an oxymoron anyway. "Being a miser" and "hoarding" are simply malignant words for "saving money." According to Austrian economics economies grow better through saving than through monetary injection, which my opponent seems to support by complaining about Bitcoin"s "monetary choke."My opponent claims that Bitcoin is uniquely vulnerable to loss. Actually the loss due to theft, etc pale in comparison to the credit fraud, money counterfeiting and other costs of the traditional money system. This is strength of Bitcoin not a weakness. Yes there is some exposure to theft, just like there is with regular fiat but such exposure is minimal and easily avoided. I will look up data if I have to but this is a well known fact on any Bitcoin reddit or forum.My opponent also claims that the average user will be burdened by maintaining the transactional database of Bitcoin. Such a thing would already be burdensome. However it is automated by the software. No such point is valid.My opponent has attempted to argue that black markets are less efficient or legitimate than the Market Overt. That is an easy point to break if he wants to push it.My opponent has argued that the Federal Reserve is a good thing. This is disturbingly wrong. The decentralized nature of Bitcoin makes it superior, not inferior, to fiat. The Fed, like most other central banks, has been making bad decisions for most of their history. Con I’d like to thank the pro for their response. I would hardly call giving the standard definition of sound money, and a paraphrased anecdote, from libertarians, a strawman argument. You’ve insisted that your definition is following the historical definition of sound money. What sound money is, or is supposed to be, is integral to this debate so allow me to enlighten you on the historic, and current definition. Historically “At the same time it must be an equally complete presentation of the arguments in favor of what we believe, under present conditions, to be the only sound money - gold, and a currency based upon that most stable of all values.” [1] Currently “ money not liable to sudden appreciation or depreciation in value :stable money; specif : a currency based on or redeemable in gold — compare paper money, soft”[2] The definition of Sound Money hasn’t changed much over the years. It’s easy to see that to be sound money only has to have one property. It must retain its value. What it means for a currency to retain its value is revealed in why Gold is prefered as backing. “An ounce of gold would have bought you a nice suit 100 years ago and it will still buy you a nice suit today.”[3] In other words, gold is chosen because it is believed to be immune to inflation, and deflation. The definition that you’ve chosen is only that of currency. Since anything can be used as a currency, even sea shells, it would be pointless to contest bitcoins use as a currency, but you singled out sound money. Are bitcoins resistant to deflation? By your own admission they are a deflationary currency, and thus cannot meet the historic, or current, definition of sound money. Do you honestly believe that I’m arguing the Black Markets are less efficient than the Market? I don’t care about its efficiency, or inefficiency. The Government intrusion that you’re complaining about is the Currency Transaction Report that’s triggered anytime someone does a transaction for $10,000 or more[4]. The Government doesn’t care about your purchase of some cheap camera, and never did. Human trafficking, on the other hand, is a serious issue, and can easily hit that $10,000 trigger[5]. If you want to defend the right of sickos to purchase virgin slaves without the prying eyes of law enforcement that’s your own business, but the public would hardly see this as an advantage over a government controlled currency. Austrian Economists are hardly embracing of deflation. It is, perhaps, the only thing that can convince the laissez-faire that maybe, just maybe, government intervention is necessary[6], and that’s from an Austrian Economics Journal. Maybe the opinion of Austrian Economist John M. Keynes would be a better source. “Thus inflation is unjust and deflation is inexpedient. Of the two perhaps deflation is, if we rule out exaggerated inflations such as that of Germany, the worse; because it is worse, in an impoverished world, to provoke unemployment than to disappoint the rentier. But it is necessary that we should weigh one evil against the other. It is easier to agree that both are evils to be shunned.”[7] There is a good form of deflation which the tech industry is familiar with. Prices falling because your efficiency in production has improved is good deflation. Lowering prices because you’re able to produce more food with the same work is good deflation. Lowering prices because there is fewer people per coin is money supply deflation, and is the destructive form of deflation. Bitcoins have nothing to do with the good form of deflation, and is only deflation of the money supply. Just because people are foolish enough to accept bitcoins now is hardly evidence that they are a superior currency, or even sound money. In the 1630s there was a commodity that the Dutch thought would never lose its value, and could only gain value. Speculative pressure began a form of Hyper-Deflation. This continued for years until February 1637 when this commodity, a tulip bulb, failed to sell[8]. You could no longer use a single tulip bulb to buy a house, and instead couldn’t even trade it for a loaf of bread. You believe that the value of a bitcoin mostly appreciates. Unfortunately, that’s not a property of a deflationary commodity or currency. They only appear to increase in value until enough people catch onto the con and panic causing its value to rapidly collapse. On June 8th 2011 bitcoins were trading at a high of 32$, but by August they were trading for as little as 7$[9]. That alone, makes it look more like a highly volatile commodity, and less like a stable currency. In the real economy if I transfer money to another bank, and the place I transferred it to says “I’m sorry we don’t see the 1000$ you say you sent”. I can call up my bank, and request a trace. They will either confirm that the money was received, that there was a problem and correct it, or roll the transaction back so that I have the money back in my account. This is all possible thanks to the roll the Federal Reserve plays in our banking system. On July 26th 2011 Biomate, a bitcoin exchange, announced that their wallet.dat file had become corrupted. What this means is that Biomate had effectively lost 17,000 bitcoins. These coins are unusable, and there is no backup or rollback option to recover them. As bad as the Madoff Ponzi Scheme was, Madoff is in jail. Some people who made money off of the scam have returned it to lessen the blow to the victims at the end of the scam. Instead of being a total loss over 5 Billion Dollars have been recovered[11]. This is all thanks to our banking system. We know who received the money, and can trace where it was sent to. There have been a number of Ponzi Schemes with bitcoins, and because of the anonymous nature of bitcoins no one knows who received the money for Bitcoin Savings & Trust, and no one ever will[12]. All thanks to the miracle of bitcoins. The biggest advantage the USD has over Bitcoin is the ability to evolve and change. If it becomes too easy to counterfeit then the Government can update it. If a mathematical breakthrough happens, or computers get powerful enough to break the security on Bitcoin who is going to be able to shut it down long enough to update the system? No one, because it has no way of changing the algorithms governing its use. Since I am nearing the end of my character limit I will have to elaborate further in the final round. [1]Fraser, John Arthur., Charles H. Sergel, and W. H. Harvey. Sound Money. 1895. Print.

books.google.com/books?id=Xy05AAAAMAAJ&dq=Sound%20Money%20%201895.&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false

[2]"Sound Money" Merriam-Webster

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sound%20money

[3]"Gold Investing."

contrarian-investor.com/gold-investing.html

[4]"Currency Transaction Reporting."

www.ffiec.gov/bsa_aml_infobase/pages_manual/olm_017.htm

[5]"Human Traffickers Prices." Havocscope Black Market RSS

havocscope.com/black-market-prices/human-trafficking-prices

[6]Bagus, Philipp. "Deflation: When Austrians Become Interventionists." The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 6.4 (2003): 19-35. Print.

mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae6_4_3.pdf

[7]Keynes, John Maynard. Essays in Persuasion. New York: Norton, 1963. Print.

[8]Farrell, Chris. Deflation: What Happens When Prices Fall. 2004. Print. pg 57

[9]Lee, Timothy B. "The Bitcoin Crash." Forbes

forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2011/08/07/the-bitcoin-crash/

[10] "Third Largest Bitcoin Exchange Bitomat Lost Their Wallet, Over 17,000 Bitcoins Missing." SiliconANGLE.

siliconangle.com/blog/2011/08/01/third-largest-bitcoin-exchange-bitomat-lost-their-wallet-over-17000-bitcoins-missing/

[11] "Money to Be Returned to Madoff Investors Tops $5 Billion." CNBC.com

cnbc.com/id/100454360

[12]Mott, Nathaniel. "Bitcoin: How a Virtual Currency Became Real with a $5.6M Fraud."PandoDaily.

pandodaily.com/2012/08/31/bitcoin-how-a-virtual-currency-became-real-with-a-5-6m-fraud/ Report this Argument