Actually, when reading it carefully it is not that bad. They put forward some points that seem to be based on lack of knowledge of the Bitcoin concept and some regular misconceptions.
*it's infrastructure is designed that those who purchased early will have more value in their investment than those who came later. (This also makes it questionable the motives of people who want others participating in bitcoin being as they have the potential to personally profit from another person buying into the program, very similar to a pyramid scheme.) The former is true, but that applies to stocks in a start up company as well, or any other commodity that gains popularity (gold, silver). The latter is an very limited view on Bitcoin users. While I cannot vouch of everyone's intentions, especially the Thrive Movement should be able to see the stunning potential of Bitcoin for a decentralized open source 'community' currency, gaining users TODAY who see that potential (besides some financial gains as early adopter). I do not advocate Bitcoin actively, but I would not do so based on the prospect of financial gain but the possibility to protect once's capital (and solve some horrible things in our world). From my perspective, this point fails.
*It's also vulnerable to collusion and as well as nefarious participants from creating large scale mining operations of bitcoins making them potentially accessible only to those with a large computer network focused specifically on mining bitcoins. Mining is a voluntary business. Don't want to make the investement, don't do it. Bitcoin can also be used without mining on your personal computer at home. Mining is in essence really not interesting for the average user, just like interbank market or TARGET2 workings in regular finance. It only has to work as a means of payment (we'll get to that later). Furthermore, mining is an essential part of Bitcoin's concept, so it is not about obtaining Bitcoins to become rich on the backs of later adopters, but making the concept work. In the end, mining will only be about fees since the new amount of Bitcoins will decrease over time to a certain maximum.
This point fails as well.
*The other element is the security of ones wealth. There have been a couple large scale robberies of bitcoins with no way to track the thieves and no guarantee that the owners of the bitcoins will ever see their money again. Security is still a significant issue. MF Global: unresolved, no one held accountable. I could list countless other examples of 'money gone, no culprits'. Someone stealing BTC or defrauding people from BTC is nothing new. It happens in USD/EUR land as well, massively and daily. Let's not forget the skimming of fiat value by the issuers of fiat curreny
Robbery is always an item of interest and not specifically related to or excessively present with Bitcoin. Having made that point, Bitcoin does require the user to think about safety. The safety of his own digital wallet instead of forgetting all about this when storing digital cash in a regular bank. Well, I would think that the Thrive Movement would not have problems with the notion that people should be aware and act for themselves
I consider this point a fail as well.
*Also, bitcoins suffer from the same issues as other fia currency. The big difference is that it is not clear there are any real assets backing them, making their worth even more vulnerable to large value swings. When thinking this over, gold and silver are not backed as well. It's just gold and silver, no more no less. Of course, gold and silver can be uses for several things, but their value is in essence the same as Bitcoin: 'want' by humans. Backing with an asset is not necessarily a requirement for a currency to work (see USD/EUR).
I consider this a semi-fail.
*Last, a currency only has value if it can be exchanged for something of equal value to the recipient of the bitcoins. If we are paid in bitcoins, we have to also be able to pay others in bitcoins for them to be of value. But as it stands, there are limited things we can use the money for and our operations would quickly go under due to lack of useable funds unless we sell them for cash dollars, in which case we're back to the commodity argument. Donations in the form of bitcoins are of limited value, if any, if they can't pay to keep the lights on and the computers running, etc. This point makes sense: if Bitcoins cannot be used to pay regular invoices, its practical use is and will remain limited. I cannot disagree with this notion but we are still in the very early stage of development. There will be a lot of time to sort out these things and all things have to start somewhere. Today is not the end; some 'inventions' never take off while others require up to 20 years to mature and be adopted by the masses. Thrive's remark that the useability of Bitcoin is still limited is true. I think the exchanges are still very important to Bitcoin and its future acceptance. Gradually, their importance should decrease as people will start to exchange in Bitcoin instead of fiat.
Again, I am not very disturbed by Thrive's stand on Bitcoin, but from where they come (with pretty outlandish claims and a very healthy dose of positivism on humanity), they show an awful lot of common thinking when it comes to finance. One would think that the Thrive Movement would have better feelings for the concept of a digital currency 'for the people, by the people'.
Time will tell the real color of the Thrive Movement...
