ETFs are evil and a tool of the Corpo-fascists to destroy the true value of commodities. Case in point. Look at what they have done to precious metals. They trade paper representations of the same ounce of gold over and over again causing hundreds, if not thousands of people to own the same ounce. They use Kabuki Theater and rehypothecate precious metals to perpetrate the scam. Eventually it will fail and people who thought that they could get actual metal for their paper will be paid in fiat that will be worthless. No one reads the fine print in the SLV nor GLD ETFs. They tell you as much. You get fiat at their discretion. You do not own a damn thing except shit paper.
When this comes to BTC you will be fed bullshit encouraging you to invest in these ETFs. Short-term, yes there will be an euphoric windfall compared to fiat, but if you dance with the devil you will end up losing your BTC and selling your soul.
Look at your BTC as physical PMs. It is not yours unless you have it in your possession.
That's a knock against precious metals themselves - they are not good enough to stand up against ETFs because no one has any use for them. The hassle of delivery and storage combined with the lack of any practical use of the metal itself to its owner (can't spend it as money directly anywhere, aren't going to make a spoon out of it). If this wasn't true then more people would be holding precous metals themselves instead of buying ETF shares in them.
Too bad the discussion veered off on a rather boring tangent in a very emotional way after the above 2 posts.
I think it's a very valid discussion and I'm thinking about this myself a lot:
loads of people will buy the silbert or later maybe the winklevii shares and they will brag to their friends how they own bitcoin now. At first it will probably work out and they will participate in BTC appreciation through the shares they own.
coinits is right, though: you don't own bitcoins if you own such an ETF. Afaik there isn't even a way described to take delivery unless you are a primary dealer or whatever. It's easily imaginable that the trading volume of such vehicles might greatly exceed the volume on the 'real markets' and then we'll have a
'tail wags the dog' situation.
shields answer is promising at first sight: bitcoin isn't gold. It's easy to transact and store, so
it's going to be easier for bitcoin to stand up to the ETFs.I fear the answer is a bit weak, though:
the primary use case of bitcoin currently is speculation. This use case is covered by he ETF just fine. I don't see ETF share owners taking delivery on their bitcoins (it's not encouraged or probably even possible, there might even be fine print saying they can be payed out in fiat). In addition: if they were planning to own bitcoins in the first place, why did they buy the shares and not coins, then.
To people who are saying: "but a share is always backed by 0.1 real Bitcoins in custody of the ETF handlers" we can only answer: that's a solution that requires trust in a centralized entity.
I fear these ETFs might turn out to be a slippery slope and might turn out to be misused to control bitcoin price. Hello naked shorting.
Yes: the utility of bitcoin can potentially stand up to such an attack, but only if bitcoin enjoys widespread actual use.
thoughts?
Show Posts
