Hodlers are unscrupulous parasites. Here's why

[Gozie51]

But this is different with the so-called hodlers. By these I don't mean early adopters who wait paiently until they can spend their coins directly without fiat. I mean those who bought bitcoins (or some other coins) and hope to sell them at hefty profits later when bitcoin gets universal recognition and adoption.

What is the difference between early adopters who wait and patient to sell at a reasonable price to make profit as investors and people who have learnt from the same early adopters to also go through perhaps, the same way to make profit. For me, I absolutely see nothing wrong with hodling. Therefore, if there is classification that OP has made, both early and new adopters should all be classified in same grouping.

Meanwhile, bitcoin is already a store of value but if you can't leave the coin to rest in the wallet because of other financial challenges or issues, you will be forced to revert to fiat and use. So, if one is able to store their coin (whatever coin), for 10years and more, so let it go, others who don't want to keep theirs can continue on the circle.

[1714859520]

1714859520

[1714859520]

1714859520

[1714859520]

1714859520

[1714859520]

1714859520

[1714859520]

1714859520

[tee-rex]

Why would anyone want to use their cold storage to buy things they can already buy with fiat, thus spending the bad money (easy money) and holding the good money (hard money). You can't create incentives for this to change, fiat needs to fuck itself up to the point that it happens organically and things are measured in BTC and not in fiat anymore.

I see your point but I don't see how it challenges what I'm describing in the OP. Apart from that, I can't agree that crypto is better than fiat in the context you pretend to make your comparison in. In a nutshell, you are comparing an investment asset (crypto) with a currency (fiat) as an investment asset but this is a completely different context or domain. In this way, your whole comparison doesn't make a lot of sense. Crypto is not good money while fiat is not bad money because you are really comparing one investment asset with another investment asset. And yes, fiat makes a bad investment asset, that's why you would spend it rather than crypto. No one wastes his capital. But if you were truly comparing crypto with fiat as one currency versus another (as you pretend to do, but don't actually do), it would remain to be seen which would be good money and which otherwise.

And putting bitcoin above gold as a store of value is extraordinarily ridiculous (no offense intended). It looks like you don't know or understand what that notion actually means (no offense intended either).

There's nothing wrong with holding Bitcoin. If you want to contribute start coding, create content about Bitcoin, etc, but telling people to use it when they don't really need to isn't going to help.

Where am I telling anyone anything to that tune?

[Blessing97]

I couldn't agree more with what you have said. Hodlers sometimes create a selfish and unhealthy environment or atmosphere for bitcoin as a real world asset. Simply holdling bitcoin would do all but ensure a higher rise in value which is bad for everyone. It's more like an inverse proportional relationship.

[JimboToronto]

what the OP is talking about is not HODLers.. but fiat investors.

HODLers hold and want to keep bitcoin.. HODLers can even spend bitcoin. but they then get more bitcoin because they want to stay with bitcoin as their main currency.. what they have as their assets is majority bitcoin and not much fiat. and they dont wish to hold fiat..

but those only looking for a great time to exit bitcoin and be fiat rich are not HODLers

i think insulting HODLers is wrong. call what your describing by its real term and insult them.. FIAT LOVERS

Bang on.

I consider myself a hoLDer (with apologies to GameKyuubi). I hold Bitcoin not to cash out into fiat, but to continuing to hold as many coins as possible.

I buy whenever I can get a good price, be it from a market dip, or an OTC buying opportunity. I spend only as necessary, and then by buying fiat only if there's no other way. When I bought a house in Mexico last January, I paid about half in cash and half in Bitcoin. Too bad my dental surgeon won't take Bitcoin. I'll be forced to sell some coin(s?) in November to pay for my implants. Hopefully I can do it with the coins I bought this summer.

Being a hoLDer since the days of double digits, I've obviously done OK for myself but I'm still looking forward to possible serious wealth in the future. That wealth won't be in the form of fiat currency though. It will be in Bitcoin.

I didn't get into Bitcoin originally as an investment, it just turned out that way. I got into it after a friend first told me about Silk Road. It wasn't the availability of contraband that fascinated me. It was the weird cryptographic money they used.

I was already a big fan of decentralization and peer-to-peer networking. When I first heard of Napster, it wasn't the free music that interested me. It was the concept of file sharing. I watched as file sharing slowly became less and less centralized, first though Kazaa and Limewire, then Bit Torrent, then Magnet links and multiply redundant cloud-based trackers.

I watched as Wikipedia went from being one of the least dependable sources of information to being one of the best. The site itself may be centralized but the content is not. It is provided and vetted by a worldwide decentralized community of volunteers. Any bullshit is quickly called and removed. If there is any controversy, we hear both sides of the story.

This is what I call the real New World Order. It includes open-source software, crowd funding, and anything else that's not under central control but controlled by the citizens of the global village. Its money is Bitcoin.

Bitcoin HODLers (there I said it) aren't the problem. Fiat lovers are.

[aoluain]

Generally speaking bitcoins rise in FIAT value has changed it from a predominantly
traded currency to a commodity and something to hold.

How has this happened? By people spending it, by people adopting it, like the person
who bought the pizza for 10,000BTC, there was no concept of holding not so long ago.

[BitHodler]

It's somewhat understandable to think so, but has there ever been a time in Bitcoin where these so called parasites have damaged the underlying asset? I don't think they have and won't ever do so.

If it really was a fundamental problem we wouldn't be able to grow to where we are right now. We can't force anyone to follow proper Bitcoin maximalist etiquette if they are only interested to use it as an investment.

I'm more on the side of letting people do whatever they want. Them at least considering Bitcoin as being a worthy long term investment is already a win for me. Everything is better than people ignoring Bitcoin.

[tee-rex]

what the OP is talking about is not HODLers.. but fiat investors.

HODLers hold and want to keep bitcoin.. HODLers can even spend bitcoin. but they then get more bitcoin because they want to stay with bitcoin as their main currency.. what they have as their assets is majority bitcoin and not much fiat. and they dont wish to hold fiat..

but those only looking for a great time to exit bitcoin and be fiat rich are not HODLers

i think insulting HODLers is wrong. call what your describing by its real term and insult them.. FIAT LOVERS

Your main issue, as I see it, is that what you think is true or right is not necessarily what others may think true or right. In most cases people refer to hodlers as dudes who are keeping their coins for longer periods of time specifically with the purpose of selling them later for fiat, having only their personal financial gains as their top priority. You can claim that this is an incorrect definition of a hodler, but things are as they are. Words once spoken lose their meaning, and right now people use the word in that meaning most of the time around here and elsewhere.

And no, my intent was not to insult anyone as I made clear in the OP, and still less HODLers as you mean them. In a way, we can all be considered parasites in the face of the Earth if that gives you peace of mind. Though you don't seem to be particularly disturbed if fiat lovers were called parasites instead.

[andika2018]

I think holdler help bitcoin price not too fall more deep. Hodler always think long term and not easy panic with negative news. Most people in market recently selling their bitcoin because they are very easy become panic with negative news and its affecting on bitcoin price.

[darklus123]

Only the decentralized mining can be beneficial for all. Yes hodlers for me  are one of the problem that this economy have  but they are not the biggest problem to consider. Basically why? since most of this hodlers have only less than 2btc on their wallet. Unlike the big whales who are manipulating the market and when they started acting that is where the real problem starts.

[Cecilve]

Why do you even have problem with that? People will do with bitcoin whatever they want to do. The same goes with any asset. No talking like this will ever change anything for you.

[cellard]

at the end of it all it won't matter if they are parasites or angles! this is what it is. there is always some kind of balance in the market between what you call "parasites" and others such as "day trader parasites", "weak hand idiots", "manipulating whales", "wall street and bank evils" and "daily spending contributing others"!

and that balance will result in the price that you see at any time. complaining about existence of a group will accomplish nothing in my opinion. they will exist whether we complain about them or not.

Yes, I agree with your point, but my post was intended as a thought-out objection against the rhetoric prevailing across the forum that holding (or hodling) is a good thing on its own, which adds a lot of value to crypto. It doesn't, and in this post I'm trying to explain why exactly. In other words, I'm trying to separate the wheat from the chaff, to reveal who actually adds or creates value and who doesn't. If someone doesn't want to add value but plans only to take that value after it has been added by someone else, who are they really?

And I'm not complaining, I'm just making things clear and showing them in their true light and perspective. See the difference?

lets start from ourselves. what have YOU done for bitcoin?
for instance i am running a full node and contribute to the decentralization of the network.

Honestly, I'm not so much into bitcoin these days since I'm more interested in litecoin, and specifically because it has more value for me as an everyday means of payment. I often have to convert LTC to fiat before buying things like groceries and whatnot, and believe me I would be happy to pay with crypto directly. By and large, I use crypto to avoid using banks as much as possible.

Apart from that, I'm also using a plain vanilla litecoin-qt wallet, and if that counts as running a full node, then so be it.

I disagree. By holding bitcoin they strengthen its network effect as a store of value. Just like by people holding gold they streghthen their store of wealth network. The higher the monetary mass in the asset = the higher trust in the eyes of potential investors that will become hodlers too.

You need to feel safe holding money in the network, that's the #1 step and that's what big blockers don't get. Once that is solved, then second layers can serve as a way to buy groceries in some local shop without going out of the native BTC token. And once that happens all these "fast cheap" altcoins will lose their marketing pitch.

[tee-rex]

Based on your logic, almost everyone who has bitcoin, parasites. The price of bitcoin is very unstable, that's because of this there are a lot of holders who try to speculate and it's normal thing in my opinion. I don't think that the progress of bitcoin depends heavily on whether people will use it right now to buy things, the progress of bitcoin depends on the states and large companies that so far do not accept and do not use bitcoin as fiat money

How so? How come that almost everyone holding bitcoin is a parasite, according to you?

To cut a long story short, I agree that people, especially the early adopters ("pioneers"), who hold bitcoin for the sake of actually using it in the future are not parasites. Those who buy bitcoin or get paid with bitcoin, for example, via signature campaigns, and then use it as a means of payment for goods and services are not parasites either. Basically, anyone who contributes (or massively contributed in the past) to bitcoin economy in a constructive way is not by any means a parasite. Even short-term traders who are focused on nothing else but getting profits cannot be called unscrupulous parasites as they are providing liquidity to the market and help discover the bitcoin price even though they pursue entirely selfish interests. Apart from that, they are not necessarily looking exclusively for fiat. It is not uncommon to see a trader trying to increase his bitcoin balance.

[spirali]

I guess the OP is a bit harsh on purpose in order to create a debate. But he isn't totally wrong. Hodling blindly without spending isn't helping adoption. I would have understood it a few months ago when transaction fees were exorbitant but now that we are back to normal, it's very easy to have some satoshi's in a mobile wallet to pay small amounts and re-buy the satoshi's afterwards.

It runs the whole machine, the merchants are always proud to accept BTC so they spread the word, it starts discussions about cryptocurrencies with other customers, etc... And of course a beer paid with BTC just tastes better

[franky1]

Your main issue, as I see it, is that what you think is true or right is not necessarily what others may think true or right. In most cases people refer to hodlers as dudes who are keeping their coins for longer periods of time specifically with the purpose of selling them later for fiat, having only their personal financial gains as their top priority. You can claim that this is an incorrect definition of a hodler, but things are as they are. Words once spoken lose their meaning, and right now people use the word in that meaning most of the time around here and elsewhere.

And no, my intent was not to insult anyone as I made clear in the OP, and still less HODLers as you mean them. In a way, we can all be considered parasites in the face of the Earth if that gives you peace of mind. Though you don't seem to be particularly disturbed if fiat lovers were called parasites instead.

those wanting to sell are not thinking about holding. they are thinking about selling, but just cant quite get to their target.
holders/hodlers are those not thinking about selling they are thinking about holding.

i personally have coins from 2012 that i have not touched. i have not set an exit price. i dont think about the price daily. when i trade i use a separate stash of funds purely to day trade and accumilate more coin. i dont think about prices $. i think in % up or down from last activity

that said. in 2012-14 i went around and actually helped others get into bitcoin i helped start different teams and developments. what i find parasitic are invaders that just want to grab what they can and then move onto a new body once they have grown and matured to their desired level.

i as a hodler am a symbiote (mutual benefit)
fiat investors are a parasite (invador benefits)

[cahbagus555]

I think hodler just waiting the right moment to sell their coin. I am believe hodler is not parasites because they buying and believing on bitcoin. Hodler get big reward because they can be patients with their investment and ignore all negative news about bitcoin.
Every investor have their own perspective about their investment, some worth to hold for long term and some dont, and i think hodler have confident to bitcoin and they keep it for long term

[tee-rex]

It's somewhat understandable to think so, but has there ever been a time in Bitcoin where these so called parasites have damaged the underlying asset? I don't think they have and won't ever do so.

That remains to be seen. Right now some dude is selling long-stashed bitcoins from mt.gox. I know that he can hardly be called a hodler in the sense meant here, but his actions are pretty close to what a big hodler would do by selling so much. So, would you consider his actions as damaging or not?

If it really was a fundamental problem we wouldn't be able to grow to where we are right now. We can't force anyone to follow proper Bitcoin maximalist etiquette if they are only interested to use it as an investment.

I'm not questioning anyone's actions, which is what you seem to mean by "following proper Bitcoin maximalist etiquette" if they aren't. Everyone is free to do with their bitcoins whatever they want and for how long they want it. But this doesn't mean that I can't discuss or point out the consequences of their actions. The term parasites is used only metaphorically here, as a hyperbole. No real parasite has been hurt in the process of writing this or any other post in this topic.

[doolittle]

Broadly speaking, we all are unscrupulous parasites in one way or another as we are ruthlessly exploiting nature without thinking twice what we leave behind us unless it starts to backfire (like with global warming, pollution, etc). But in this case we are all in the same boat, so it doesn't really matter who is to blame and who is to be blamed.

But this is different with the so-called hodlers. By these I don't mean early adopters who wait paiently until they can spend their coins directly without fiat. I mean those who bought bitcoins (or some other coins) and hope to sell them at hefty profits later when bitcoin gets universal recognition and adoption. So why are they parasites? The answer is simple.

Basically, they are expecting that the price will grow as they sit idly on their hands. But this growth is not possible without other people actively using bitcoin, paying with it and selling for it - all those people who help create real value of bitcoin. And I know what hodlers are going to say in reply. That they diminish the supply and thus also contribute to this growth.

But this is a lame excuse. First of all, they can't in any way contribute to real growth which is caused by genuine adoption. All they do is add up to volatility. Second, if their words were true, that would mean that more holding would lead to higher prices. In real life though, it means that a coin (in this case bitcoin) will get abandoned and lose all its value eventually.

Therefore, if we are to bravely face the harsh and unpleasant truth and call things their real names, these people who proudly call themselves hodlers are in fact hoping to get something out of nothing, to get a share of the common pie when they themselves didn't bring anything to the table in the first place. Sounds familiar? So who are they if not parasites?

Good comparison. Those who keep for a long time - they are parasites!!! Horror. Personally, I don't think so, it's too rough and ambiguous!!! If for example he bought bitcoin in the past year and in next year will sell, in even here parasitism. He invested his Fiat money in bitcoin! I don't understand why you say that, don't you keep your bitcoins.

[squatter]

First of all, they can't in any way contribute to real growth which is caused by genuine adoption. All they do is add up to volatility. Second, if their words were true, that would mean that more holding would lead to higher prices. In real life though, it means that a coin (in this case bitcoin) will get abandoned and lose all its value eventually.

Therefore, if we are to bravely face the harsh and unpleasant truth and call things their real names, these people who proudly call themselves hodlers are in fact hoping to get something out of nothing, to get a share of the common pie when they themselves didn't bring anything to the table in the first place. Sounds familiar? So who are they if not parasites?

Parasites derive sustenance at the host's expense. That doesn't really work in this case. Hodlers aren't hurting anyone. They seem more like free riders to me, since they benefit from common usage and transaction liquidity but they don't contribute to it. If everyone were a hodler (so no one was using BTC, only hoarding it), BTC would have no value. A network needs usage and liquidity in order to be useful for anything.

So, I agree with the sentiment here but if you think about it, they're just being rational. If you're not going to use BTC (for example, as a medium of exchange), but you think its price will rise, should you buy it or not?

[rakokiller1]

Its like all people in country have their money at home and dont use them. So, country has no money and it becomes poor

[tee-rex]

First of all, they can't in any way contribute to real growth which is caused by genuine adoption. All they do is add up to volatility. Second, if their words were true, that would mean that more holding would lead to higher prices. In real life though, it means that a coin (in this case bitcoin) will get abandoned and lose all its value eventually.

Therefore, if we are to bravely face the harsh and unpleasant truth and call things their real names, these people who proudly call themselves hodlers are in fact hoping to get something out of nothing, to get a share of the common pie when they themselves didn't bring anything to the table in the first place. Sounds familiar? So who are they if not parasites?

Parasites derive sustenance at the host's expense. That doesn't really work in this case. Hodlers aren't hurting anyone. They seem more like free riders to me, since they benefit from common usage and transaction liquidity but they don't contribute to it. If everyone were a hodler (so no one was using BTC, only hoarding it), BTC would have no value. A network needs usage and liquidity in order to be useful for anything.

So, I agree with the sentiment here but if you think about it, they're just being rational. If you're not going to use BTC (for example, as a medium of exchange), but you think its price will rise, should you buy it or not?

I see what you mean here, but I can't agree that hodlers are just free riders or that free riders are not parasites in their own right (according to the Wiki article you linked). You seem to forget that selling massive amounts of coins at the end of the holding term has its negative effects on its own, and may actually undo the positive effects which were obtained by those who made this price possible in the first place through their hard efforts. Of course, you can claim that if these hodlers didn't thoroughly pursue their agenda, the prices wouldn't be so high, but then the fall wouldn't be that hard either. In fact, there wouldn't be any fall at all as there wouldn't be any hodlers, to begin with. So the overall effect still seems to be negative since, as I said earlier in the thread, hodlers contribute not so much to price itself as to its volatility.