Except stocks represent ownership in real companies making real products. If one person owns 100% of a company and there is zero trading, it's still an extremely valuable property. If one person owns 100% of a crypto, it is worthless.
> Except stocks represent ownership in real companies making real products.
But what does that mean in practical terms? Sure, if the company gets bought out you might get some cash, and some companies still pay dividends. Aside from those cases, though, shareholders have no direct claim on the company's assets, and only the largest shareholders have significant influence on the company's board. Most profits made by shareholders come from selling their shares to another investor, not from the company itself.
> If one person owns 100% of a company and there is zero trading, it's still an extremely valuable property.
Assuming the company is solvent... plenty are not, despite a positive stock price. They are trading on the expectation of future improvement, not present value.
> If one person owns 100% of a crypto, it is worthless.
Every cryptocurrency (every non-commodity currency, for that matter) starts out owned 100% by someone. That doesn't make them all worthless. Say I create a new currency with one million units, wholly owned by myself. If I stop there, no one else will value my currency. However, say I also arrange to sell widgets (standard market value $100) in exchange for 100 units of my new currency. Now my currency has value, and people who want widgets may well be willing to trade other goods or services for it—perhaps not 1:1, due to the lower marketability, but at some discounted ratio. This makes more goods available; people who have no need of my widgets may still transact business using my currency and accept it as payment. At this point I no longer possess 100% of my new currency and it has taken on a life (and market value) of its own. Even if I stopped producing widgets the currency may well remain in circulation as a marketable commodity.
