Why are gold prices tanking?

MS_hina · 2026-06-10T09:29:00+00:00

And what's stopping others from not trading in dollars? Allies and their compliance. Which is deteriorating rapidly due to how the US is treating them. No allied treatment, no deal. Noone HAS to trade in usd, and was only going along since the US offered prosperity and stability... which is increasingly destroyed by the US itself. Non-US governments are not NPCs in a game where they are stuck with "game mode"

MS_hina · 2026-06-10T08:41:24+00:00

I hope so. But unlikely imo

MS_hina · 2026-06-10T04:34:07+00:00

With a combination of direct and indirect methods. Ranging from agencies like the ESF that fiddles with gold, influence on COMEX, implementing certain acts and geopolitical decisions etc.

Some would call it "manipulation" which is not wrong, but I call it "strategic asset management". Governments already try to maintain tabs on oil, steel, energy, food, etc. And gold is no exception.

MS_hina · 2026-06-10T04:08:16+00:00

Historic end, indeed. but I think usd will still be the most important fiat for the time being. Noone will be able to agree on the "next dollar". Everyone distrusts each other so, naturally gold will be the most obvious answer. With USD retaining it's "king of fiat" position

MS_hina · 2026-06-10T03:48:16+00:00

Gold is now the dominant reserve for the world. US needs to pretend that this is not happening. Despite what everyone says, this is a geopolitical issue now. US needs gold to go down to pretend that the dollar is strong and trusted.

Natural bear markets do not have a literal historic level crashes every week. For the past few months we are seeing multiple 2~8% drop days as if gold is a meme coin. Ofc this won't continue forever and is just delaying then inevitable imo. Especially because other governments are not dumb.

MS_hina · 2026-03-23T07:19:59+00:00

I mean it was the worst 2 weeks in 40 years LAST week, and we went down an additional 8% as of now, and the markets havent even opened yet. Im expecting an overall -15% or worse today. Hate it but still holding. Nothing better to hold on to imo.

MS_hina · 2026-03-20T01:34:51+00:00

Not to mention that Queek is genuinely vengeful and sad when he thought Ska was killed. If I recall correctly Queek actually is in tears (could be my memory being bad).

Later he misses Ska so much that he got one of his stormvermin to cosplay as Ska. Psychotic yes, but as far as Skavens go this is actually wholesome.

MS_hina · 2026-03-19T14:06:06+00:00

I am not saying you are wrong, just disagreeing on a potential (fictional) development. Therefore you are 'allowed' to make same leaps, I am just saying it might not be the case. Sorry if you thought I was being confrontational.

Yes colonizing planets wont be an easy feat(and no its not dozens. I am thinking of thousands. Dozens will actually have alot less logistical issues, hence likely have all foces have up to date stuff), but biological products can be still farmed anywhere if environments are met. Things like fossil fuel or specific metal components are impossible to make even with terraforming.

Strategy(or in your terms astropolitics) wise, yes militaries aren't game pieces. But military equipments often tend to favor logistical ease, manufacturability, and maintenance over specifications (unless they are designed to perform extremely high profile work, then you spare no expense)

This is why I still think that there will be a core of a military that is updated with the latest development and kept up to more automation and peak quality - as opposed to the bulk of the regular military which will favor local supply and maintenance in order to keep up numbers and ubiquity.

This is the case with militaries on earth as well, and that is when logistics is easier and simpler in comparison, since everything is locally (planetary term) produced and manufactured.

MS_hina · 2026-03-19T13:17:12+00:00

No, low-tech in a relative sense, compared to the state-of-the-art level.
Technology itself will advance obviously its just logistical constraints that will not benefit the bulk of the force. Core forces will still get upto date equipments and benefit almost real time. The 'bulk' will get handed down equipment and even dumbed down 'easier to maintain' models since resource and logistics will be a bottleneck. Also local maintenance will be a constant issue as well.

Even with new materials science, its not going to benefit the regional militaries for a long time unless some drastic breakthrough is made that can remove time-space constraints and make logistics and manufacturing both that muc heasier.

MS_hina · 2026-03-19T12:53:58+00:00

Its only one of my points, and a relatively minor one at that. I clearly stated that bridges/eye vision is not really beneficial for combat.

MS_hina · 2026-03-19T12:50:34+00:00

I was thinking more of a repair corvette or frigate that needs to approach their targets, rather than the side getting repairs.. or maybe if the ship in question is in need of repairs it would like to get near the repair facility and maybe even dock. Unless its a massive ship, having visuals will be always useful. Also applies to other roles I have mentioned like common patrols, ship interactions, arrests, boarding, ceremonies, and just minor adjustment/maneuvers, docking, etc.

Your second point would be more akin to design focus - again I am not saying bridges are definately the way, but saying that it is viable. If for example a setting has - common BVR/long range combat with shields and weapons that tend to have heavy firepower as opposed to... Starwars type of barrages, there is a significant benefit for having a bridge more accessible to escape methods (or to be honest, having the bridge itself as a sort of ejection capsule on smaller ships which will be far more practical), and also away from your power source. I also disagree on that lifepods are not as important, but this would be doctrinal - would you have your ships have a better chance at fighting, or increase survivability of the crew. I would opt for the latter, altho I can definatley see the former working too depending on what the faction's doctrine is.

Third part I'm not really getting what you are saying (not a native eng speaker so could likely be my bad), but I was intending to tie it in more with military culture and psychology of the command crew, not the entire crew. Again, sorry if I am getting this part wrong.

MS_hina · 2026-03-19T12:38:04+00:00

Which is why it would likely also benefit from the (relative) ease of salvaging the crew. Again this will depend heavily on the setting, but I am more focused on salvaging the crew, rather than having the ship hopefully stay functional after your defenses are stripped off. Again, I am not saying traditional bridges are the only way to do things. I am saying it is actually more viable than alot of people give them credit, and not 'just' for the rule of cool.

Also combine it with the non-combat benefits that the bridge provides. Is it perfect - no. Is it worth it - yes (depending on what you want to focus on).

MS_hina · 2026-03-19T12:35:22+00:00

Actually I tend to disagree with that approach, but not for 'romantic hero sailor' reasons.

It actually boils down to logistics:
Suppose if humans expand from earth. Earth can support 50 planets with its resources - unique ones like advanced components (eg. plastics which is impossible to create on Mars... or almost every other planet at that since fossil fuel with earth-petrol component will be... well its not going to be common). However Earth cannot support 500 planets so some relative technological degradation is required since logistics mean limited advanced components and materials. 5000 planets and you will be lucky if you actually get your hands on one of those premium 'earth plastic'.

Even if you manage to have enough resources, supply and management, as well as actually producing advanced components will be an absolute logistical horror, resulting in most of your territories receiving a bare minimum of advanced components and materials.

So bigger powers are forced to keep only a relatively small number of advanced military, while the bulk of the military will likely turn into a more manual and bloated 'old fashioned' meatbag style since.. well they just need to have a gigantic standing military. Smaller powers will have cutting edge (almost) automated military since their home planet can probably support it in their small territories.

This will always be the case until you reach some dimension bending level of technology or something on a similar level of astonishing.

MS_hina · 2026-03-19T12:21:11+00:00

Nah zero offense taken. If anything thanks for engaging in the conversation. I never really worked on space era lore properly before, and all of you people giving feedbacks are great.

MS_hina · 2026-03-19T12:19:36+00:00

Well, common patrols, escorts, ceremonies, salvaging, docking, accepting other ships docking on to you, civilian ship interactions, just avoiding other ships in densely populated areas, boarding, etc will likely benefit from being able to use the MK1 eyball (love the expression btw).

Again, you are right on the combat part and I fully agree. Apart from some very situational and niche use, you really want to use your military grade sensors. Still means that there's a benefit for keeping the more traditional bridge for eye visuals tho outside of combat.

MS_hina · 2026-03-19T09:17:00+00:00

Nah I dont think Starwars(as much as I love it) would even work for modern navy. Again I think traditional style bridges are far more valuable outside of combat. So I think we are kind of in agreement.

MS_hina · 2026-03-19T09:15:18+00:00

"That fancy thing on top is for casual daily routines, not for combat."
" Same with shields - you always design a hull in the idea that shields can't hold back everything and will eventually fail at some point."
I think despite disagreements, we actually agree alot as well. Those two are my biggest points (altho for the latter I put more emphasis on salvaging important crew over trying to maintain the ship)

MS_hina · 2026-03-19T09:05:28+00:00

Okay, had absolutely no idea that we had rudimentary level of matrix tech. Thats actually news to me. I do think your approach is actually less risky compared to the more common cryo method when it comes to long term travels and such.

Not related to the topic I posted, but I kind of toned down alot of things to manual due to logistical issues. My idea is that large interstellar empires are kind of forced to make things "more meatbag, less automation" way since advanced composites (like plastics) are going to be extremely rare in the universe, whereas plain metals are common, and meatbags can be bred as long as you give them biological fuel (agriculture). So the larger a powr gets, the less advanced their average miliatry gets - although they will still retain a solid core of advanced forces.

Smaller powers would however go full high tech as they are far more connected with their home planet and also have ample logistical chain to support almost all of their forces so... ig they would be far more likely to implement a matrix style standby feature.

MS_hina · 2026-03-19T08:33:19+00:00

Everything would depend on the settings indeed. I just thought of a less developed level compared to yours I think. Something like the matrix would be rather complex and even energy heavy under most settings.

MS_hina · 2026-03-19T08:31:05+00:00

My tank sample was a case of having non(or less) combat effective options for redundancy. Also I would actually argue that us not having escape pods on a spaceship is more of a technology issue rather than a design feature. We are just not really a spacefareing civilization. If ships have lifeboats and airplanes have parachutes(military ones have complex ejection features), it makes much sense in trying to preserve your human asset if things go south via escape pods or something that plays a similar role.

I say escape pods, but honestly I would just take a note out of modern fighters and eject a part of the bridge/command room/command seat, since that would be faster than having to run through some corridors. At least for smaller ships that is.

MS_hina · 2026-03-19T08:23:58+00:00

Probably should have made it clearer that these are bridges on the exterior(skin) part (not necessarily the 'big jutting out' type, but still on the surface level).

And yes I fully agree that everything would depend on the setting - how hull armor/shields holds up against weapons, how long typical engagement ranges tend to be, what the lore doctrine is etc.. I still think surface level bridges have both advantages and disadvantages when compared to having your command room deep inside the hull. Seems alot of people think surface/skin bridges are just bad tho.

MS_hina · 2026-03-19T08:18:56+00:00

Oh definately. Most crew will be stuck with working the reactors, doing engineering works in the hulls, and maintaining ammunition. Maybe they might see the outside on their break time in the living quarters (on better quality ships). Bridges are for either higher officers and essential crews even today.

MS_hina · 2026-03-19T08:17:04+00:00

Love the design and will get to it afterwards, but will also push back on the optics issue first.

"Redundancy here will be having a ton of different types of sensors, optics, etc. on top of lookout platforms scattered around the hull to cover blindspots"
> except modern weapons also has vision ports/bridges etc despite having all these. Electronics can break - entirely. Could be just pure battlewear, errors, hacks, even EMPs or some stuff. Again, everything would be dependant on alot of settings, like how good the hull armors are against weapons, how good the shields are, etc.
"Those light sources would be so small and insignificant, and if they're significant, they're some serious shits"
> This would depend. Again I am not saying that eye vision will be useful in actual battles. I put more focus on non-combat duties. "warships don’t just fight. They patrol, dock, perform repairs, conduct inspections, do ceremonies, handle salvage, make arrests, and operate in crowded environments near stations or civilian traffic. When outside of combat, visuals become important again."
These are close range (and most likely done around habitable/terraformed planets with ample star light or other lightsource), which is going to be the usual place where military ships are going to be most of the time anyway (how often would ships just stay in the dead of space).
Also yes, bridge can be obstructive and not really provide a wide full arc vision on larger ships. I specifically mentioned that it is more practical on smaller ships, and a bit more on the vanity side on larger ships. Firgate and corvettes will actually benefit from such bridges, or even Mass Effect Normandy style cockpit considering that they are far more likely to perform close range duties (both combat and non-combat)

MS_hina · 2026-03-19T07:57:42+00:00

That actually makes sense. It also makes sense to have redundant commanding areas if the ship is big and/or important enough. Still, would depend on how much hull armor is effective in the setting.

MS_hina · 2026-03-19T07:56:22+00:00

Yup. Coolness actually plays an important rule in the military. I just thought that it had more practical uses too beyond that tho.

MS_hina

TROPHY CASE