I got about half way through your post, dragonvslinux, while attempting to decide whether I was going to quibble, and I had realized that there was something that was just off about some of your ways of framing these matters (from my perspective, of course). Furthermore, once I had identified my perceived need to quibble, I realized that there were a few points that needed to be made - even if there seemed to ONLY be a kind of overall - one angle that was initially bothering me - which hopefully will sufficiently come through my various responses.
Just received a reality check on the sentiment of Bitcoin from a old-school-boomer & no-coiner this evening. A retired investor involved in the old money world of tax, and very curious on cryptocurrencies and their upside potential.
It seems that your introductory paragraph does kind of show the overall crux of my various quibbles - and in that regard, an seemingly central aspect of my quibble is to go to people who have been experts in their field regarding traditional investments and to seemingly give them too much credence regarding a topic like bitcoin, a topic that they likely have not spent a lot of time to understand - and perhaps they even end up making the mistake of trying to compare bitcoin too much to their other areas of knowledge in regards to assets. So, yeah in 2013 they may have spent 1- 5 hours studying bitcoin, and in 2017 they may have spent an additional 10-50 hours studying bitcoin, and maybe in 2021 they get into the 100 to 300 hours of studying bitcoin and they per start to perceive their lil selfies as experts or quasi-experts because they are experts in other related fields.
I am not going to deny that there are some folks who are really able to leverage their expertise in their various fields and to come around to understand new or emerging competitors way better and quicker than others, yet we know that frequently a lot of the purported experts get handicapped by their previous success in which they had been so successful in the past (and without any meaningful failures) that they start to presume that that they conceptual and intellectual framework is correct, and they believe that after 100 to 300 hours, they have identified the crux of bitcoin - which is likely not true for a majority of them - because they either had been handicapped by their past success and they likely need 1,000 to 10,000 hours studying bitcoin to actually allow it to sink in such a way that they are able to recognize and appreciate what bitcoin is actually bringing to the table rather than their otherwise erroneous categorization of it.
Michael Saylor made some various similar points towards the end of his November 9 interview with A. Pompliano... I consider that there may have been a bit of a crescendo of topics building in that podcast in terms of the discussion that was building
around 1 hour 40 minutes into the podcast - so I am not sure if there is a necessity to listen to the whole thing - but there was a certain amount of description of the value of becoming an expert in your field.. and suggesting from a variety of angles (even if not explicit.. these are my 3 framing points): 1) that bitcoin has become an expert in its field 2) people should strive to be experts in their own fields which takes a lot of time but also is the place that makes them money, brings them fame and brings them dominance and 3) in order to understand bitcoin and hope to even close to becoming an expert in bitcoin there is a need to study bitcoin a lot (in other words, sometimes people with very low levels of time studying bitcoin 10 hours or even less than 100 hours studying bitcoin proclaim to be experts - but somewhere in there, Saylor said that there are few people (such as shitcoin pumpers - who proclaim to know about bitcoin's defects) who study bitcoin for 100 hours or more who actually have informed critiques of bitcoin).
Given they come from the "Gold age", they were surprisingly very interested and generally much less sceptical than the conversations I had with retired individuals in previous years.
Yes.. they have gone from studying bitcoin 10 hours to 50 hours, and maybe some of them have advanced to 100 hours of studying bitcoin (though I doubt it)
They had no understanding of how blockchains functioned, cryptographic algorithms, mining and the like, but after realising they didn't understand how https or SSL certificates were verified, as well as the mechaincs of motor or electric cars, but still used and trusted them, were much more inclined to understand. They could certainly relate to the idea that pieces of paper are only worth what they are deemed to be valued at, as opposed to a fixed value, and concerned with increasing inflation - this being one of the best angles for boomers for reference sake, re "The Age of Gold". Bare with me, there is a point in here that isn't the usual.
Of course, there is going to be variation in the areas of knowledge that people have and you are making some of the same points as me in regards to some people in finance being very smart in regards to a lot of areas of industry (especially if they have been investing in a variety of areas of industry, they do tend to know a lot of areas of how the economy has traditionally functioned - even a lot of aspects of informational systems that are not new either.. we have had mainstream people learning about aspects of the informational age since the 80s and the incorporation of various informational management / computerization / cryptography into industries - even some boomers are quite informed on these various topics).
However. Despite my conversation being focused around Bitcoin as an investment, and only Bitcoin, they still had their mind focused on the overall value of cryptocurrencies, rather than simply Bitcoin. More interested in "what cryptocurrencies to invest in" rather than "how much to invest in Bitcoin" as it were. Despite another boomer referencing the potential of Ethereum, the analogy I used was that a blockchain platform is like Windows, even if it's the most valuable one. There may be good upgrades, there may be others that go wrong, and when it comes to value transactions, going wrong is a serious problem. Ie it's not an immutable ledger like Bitcoin.
Of course, a lot of people try to approach topics from a kind of open-minded approach which can really fuck them up in the bitcoin space - when probably the better approach is to study bitcoin first before getting distracted by the various pieces of shit out there.. Yes, like you seem to have been saying, there are innovations on the various other shit projects, but there seems to be some kind of need to really get toxic in regards to the topic by saying something like: "focus the fuck on bitcoin first before getting distracted by various other bells and whistles" Once you understand bitcoin, then that will put those other projects (various levels of shit and imitations and snake oil and scams) into perspective.
Yeah, people do not appreciate being told how to focus on a topic, and their own downfall tends to be that everyone wants to be smarter than everyone else (especially the bitcoiners) to find the new project blah blah blah.. which also is one of the ways that really smart people end up getting played in this space.
I was told using the term "immutable" was a very Gen X concept, which is understandable given the idea of computing and cryptography, and intended as a compliment rather than an insult. Even though I'm an early Millennial. Furthermore, the idea that Bitcoin is 12 years old and therefore time-tested was considered laughable: the idea that a decade is a long enough test of time. This appeared to help shift the idea away from a blockchain platform that upgrades every 6 months or so and therefore liable to fault, and why Bitcoin can be considered risky enough as it is, even with a decade of reliability behind it.
Fair points, there.
All in all, Bitcoin being a minority of the cryptocurrency market became an obvious issue to this conversation, because it is only a piece of the speculation pie right now as opposed to the main chunk. Being the no.1 cryptocurrency appears almost irrelevant at this point and it felt unnoticed. It's recognised more so as the first cryptographic form of money, but not the most reliable nor the most valuable it seems. This again was a reminder of why I "feel" Bitcoin needs to reclaim 50% of market dominance in order to reach 6 figures, even if temporarily, just to show how it can lead in this market rather than continue to fall behind.
You seem to be confused as others in regards to such a bullshit point. You really believe bitcoin dominance matters in terms of the value of bitcoin and in terms of value going to continue to flow into bitcoin?
I really do not feel like attempting to argue this point - either you see the value of bitcoin or you don't and seems that you are distracted if you believe that various bitcoin dominance metrics matter.. this might be a good place for have fun staying poor - even though I do appreciate that a lot of shitcoin projects are likely to pump in the coming 10 to 20 years.. if not longer (likely quite longer).
This isn't intended as an attack on Bitcoin, but a realisation that altcoin dominance has become problematic to gaining older investors.
They should figure it out sooner or later.. maybe after some rug pulls.. maybe after they get into scamming others? who knows? The widespread levels of distraction should not be our problems.. at least not on a personal level.. just because other peeps are distracted does not mean that we should be buying into that or giving credence to it as if it were some kind of solid investment thesis to be investing into pump and dumps, various kinds of snake oil and ponzi schemes.. even if a lot of money can be made by going in that direction.
This is simply what I believe. First the altcoin profits as well as liquidity need to move back to Bitcoin, as part of a Bitcoin season.
Oh gawd.. you do sound distracted. Are you not toknormal or some other shitcoiner talking about the breathing of cycles.. blah blah blah. bitcoin needs to have a marketing department to get the word out there, right?
This is what will give confidence to newcomers as to which is the most relevant cryptocurrency to invest in. The reality is many investors like to diversify, given in the age of computing investing all in Mircosoft would have been an worthless idea, but instead diversifying into Apple would of been a worthwhile concept. But the difference is, cryptos are not OS's nor devices.
Yes.. let them have fun diversifying. They should learn at some point, no?
Diversification is good.. but yeah, not in terms of having to diversify in the same industry when bitcoin is already identified as the leader.. there is another Saylor clip on this too from February 2021.. I remember AlcoHoDL shared it.. can provide another link to that.
I'm not against some market weighted diversification strategy of (for example) 80% Bitcoin and 20% Ethereum, but clearly it comes at a price. Because while boomers are happy to invest 20% in ETH, Gen Z are more inclined to invest 50% in Ethereum and 50% in the latest speculative technology that may or may not succeed, without even considering Bitcoin, it can come across as "too old for them" or "too expensive". It's as if Bitcoin is for the boomers, and the Millennials and younger want something more speculative, more risky. As if Bitcoin isn't speculative enough. This is confirmed by the fact that altcoins are the majority of the cryptocurrency market, not Bitcoin anymore. Not since 2017/2018 altseason. This is just my experience, but it is what I see right now. Soon enough, things will need to change in order to move forward.
This is a bunch of blah blah blah nonsense.. there is not really any need to diversify within this industry - especially into penny stocks, ponzi schemes and scams.. bitcoin is already identified as the industry leader.
Maybe I do need to find that February 2021 clip...
Here: I found the AlcoHoDL post that links the February 2021 clip
>>>>>>
Bitcoin underperforming? Huh?
Greedy much?
Personally, I do not refer to the recent "underperforming" assessments as "greedy" (even though there could be some truth in the "greedy" label) instead of "distracted."**..
**The distraction is by shitcoins, to be more precise... which really seems difficult to help "supposed bitcoiner" who has such difficult times focusing on king daddy bitcoin, even after having supposedly been studying this space for as long as me (more than 7 years) while still cannot help his lil selfie in being distracted by shitcoins.. go figure??? can we help dumb in that kind of presentation?Are they... diversifying?
https://youtu.be/zQ60ehVJYAs?t=1031<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
By the way, it does not hurt to diversify into property, equities, cash and perhaps some other areas.. and surely if you are a young investor and you are starting out ONLY investing into bitcoin, then you might start your first cycle or two just investing into bitcoin (and cash perhaps) before diversifying out once your investment and value is built to some greater degree.. perhaps more than $10k in value or $50k in value.. sometimes there is not as big of a deal to diversify if you are just getting started and you have not built too much value, yet..
So how does this change? I genuinely think it's through ProShares, the newly discovered and arguably undervalued ETF. Because most boomers don't have the technical experience to buy Bitcoin, let alone own it.
ETFs are valuable because some funds ONLY allow to invest in qualified funds, and not buying directly.. so people are not going to change their whole approach to investing.. so there is no need to patronizing about what they know or do not know because some folks like boomers might have already established their whole investing life so they might never really feel any need to buy into more adventurous assets such as bitcoin because they are in maintenance and liquidation stages rather than in accumulation stages so their timeline might even be certain, including being less than 4 years.. ... but sure even if they might perceive themselves as having a relatively short investment timeline, that might be a justification to invest less into bitcoin rather than not investing at all.... so people of all ages frequently do make all or nothing type mistakes in their thinking... when sometimes some kind of small allocation of 1% to 10% (and even erroring on the lower side of that range) can complement their other various investments in a lot of ways, but they may well be nervous about buying directly so in that regard ETFs can be very helpful (and sure spot ETFs would be way better than futures ETFs)...
They've only just got their head around Paypal and they still don't trust it either. Greyscale has always been there, but likely considered a ponzi scheme (even though it's not), without doing a lot of due diligence.
Bitcoin is ONLY in its earliest of stages of financialization, and yeah Greyscale has been around since about 2014 - but it still takes time for various 401k plans to even allow some kinds of financial vehicles that would involve bitcoin.. some 401k plans are very restrictive in terms of what is available.. and I would conjecture that Greyscale has not been available for an overwhelming majority of plans - even if it might becoming more possible to be available...a lot of plans only allow for the investment in various index funds in equities categories and bond categories.. I have had a plan like that for more than 20 years that I have just kept my money in that fund..and move money between the various categories therein (not very flexible).. Since I got into BTC in late 2013, that fund had gotten about 70% returns for the whole period.. and yeah, bitcoin has gotten around 60x during that same period, even if we were to count the 2013 ATH of $1,163 (technically 55x from this price point to current prices as I type this post) as our starting point for BTC.. that is a pretty BIG difference - even using such a conservative measure as the 2013 price top, and many of us know and appreciate from personal experience of going through it that there was a very long time frame including most of 2015 in which BTC could have easily have been bought directly in the $250 price arena (which would be more than a 250x rise in value).. and some people remain quite reluctant to go outside of investments that they already had been investing into - especially if that is what is provided through their employer, they get matching funds and they might not feel that they have a whole hell of a lot of extra cashflow when they feel that they have to buy a house (and personal property is perceived as a decently good investment - which is not necessarily untrue if you are going to be geographically stable anyhow).
Having access to moving shares into a Bitcoin ETF is a safe and easy way to gain the exposure of Bitcoin's potential, something that other cryptocurrencies simply do not provide. This is where Bitcoin gains it's edge in the market I believe, because if you sign up to a cryptocurrency exchange you can gain exposure to all sorts, but if you invest in ETFs, you can only get Bitcoin. First mover advantage right there.
I hear what you are saying, but seems to be a BIG so fucking what. Yeah bitcoin is the first, but it is not ONLY the first because a variety of shitcoins were later.. yeah, some of those shitcoins might get ETFs too.. or some variety of an ETF shitcoin package may well come available and help to distract retards into buying into that crap.
So, yeah.. for now, bitcoin is the ONLY ETF.. but seems almost like a big so fucking what the point that you are making... or at least the way that you are making it.
We can talk to end of time of why Bitcoin is more reliable, more valuable, a better investment and form of reserve currency, as well as a reserve asset, but ultimately other cryptocurrencies will always distort the idea of investing in it, rather than incentivize it. Not to mention most won't understand fundamentally nor technologically why Bitcoin is more reliable and therefore more valuable.. Because it simply confuses the idea of Bitcoin being on a playing field with altcoins, rather than a playing field with fiat currencies. Whereas the idea of a ledger being 100% reliable and 100% immutable is unique. I hope that makes sense.
There have been quite a few people in the bitcoin space to be proclaiming the proliferation of a variety of shitcoins to continue to serve as distractions that allow the bitcoin Trojan horse to get into the gate and other kinds of assertions that so what? Let people get distracted, let educated people get distracted, let government regulators get distracted.. takes a lot of resources to be pumping nonsense out there and even trying to sort through the nonsense and even protect people/companies from themselves (and even their gambling tendencies or their tendencies to get scammed), and bitcoin is going to continue to trudge along without a marketing team and without a marketing budget and even a whole hell of a lot of very competent folks working on various angles of it.. developers and even lightning folks.. and some of the work is voluntary and some of the work on bitcoin is framed with commercial interests.. In the end, none of the various developments and distractions regarding a variety of shitcoins - including their taking away from bitcoin dominance is a problem unless some people are so dumb to invest in that crap based on dominance metrics (and yeah there are a lot of smart people who are swayed into superficial metrics - even if when they might realize that the metrics are flawed in a variety of ways, they still use such metrics to make their "diversification" determinations).
They might learn better or they might not, and some of our own roles on a personal level is to figure out how we are going to be playing our own game and diversification.. and seems dumb as fuck to me to be considering a 80% BTC 20% ETH as any kind of prudent allocation, but hey.. do what you like in terms of staying distracted, even if ETH may (or may not) have several more pump and dump smoke and mirror bullshit to pull off including that other scammers continue to build on it. By the way, can we stop talking about that bullshit coin in this thread? There are other threads on this forum (and even other forums) for that.
Poll
