"I don't want to make early adopters rich"

[Peter R]

The forum is slow today, so I thought I'd share a thought that hit me yesterday.  

"I don't want to make early adopters rich."

I've heard this said in person and I've read it in reader comments on MSM articles.  But is doesn't actually make sense.  The benefit to early adopters moving forward in time is exactly the same as to adopters who choose to buy today.  Early adopters may already be rich, but if that's true then it's already happened.  As of right now, it is just as risky to continue to hold, as it is to choose to buy.  

Consider this:  Alice and Bob each have $1,000,000 in financial assets.  Alice is an early adopter of bitcoin and holds half her wealth in BTC.  Bob just learned about bitcoin today, and holds 100% of his wealth in US treasuries and stocks.  The risk Bob takes by moving $500,00 into BTC simply puts him at the same risk level as Alice moving forward in time.  The fact that Alice's bitcoins performed well in the past has no bearing on portfolio allocation moving forward.  Alice choosing to continue to hold $500,000 in bitcoin is just as risky as Bob deciding to buy $500,000 of BTC.  

The public cannot make early adopters un-rich by not investing in bitcoin.  And by investing in bitcoin, the public makes early and current investors rich to the exact same degree from this point in time moving forward.

[1715079496]

1715079496

[1715079496]

1715079496

[1715079496]

1715079496

[1715079496]

1715079496

[1715079496]

1715079496

[Sindelar1938]

True enough

Smart folks get this, but a lot of vestigial fear of being manipulated

[cosmofly]

The forum is slow today, so I thought I'd share a thought that hit me yesterday.  

"I don't want to make early adopters rich."

I've heard this said in person and I've read it in reader comments on MSM articles.  But is doesn't actually make sense.  The benefit to early adopters moving forward in time is exactly the same as to late adopters who choose to buy today.  Early adopters may already be rich, but if that's true then it's already happened.  As of right now, it is just as risky to continue to hold, as it is to choose to buy.  

Consider this:  Alice and Bob each have $1,000,000 in financial assets.  Alice is an early adopter of bitcoin and holds half her wealth in BTC.  Bob just learned about bitcoin today, and holds 100% of his wealth in US treasuries and stocks.  The risk Bob takes by moving $500,00 into BTC simply puts him at the same risk level as Alice moving forward in time.  The fact that Alice's bitcoins performed well in the past has no bearing on portfolio allocation moving forward.  Alice choosing to continue to hold $500,000 in bitcoin is just as risky as Bob deciding to buy $500,000 of BTC.  

The public cannot make early adopters un-rich by not investing in bitcoin.  And by investing in bitcoin, the public makes early and late investors rich to the exact same degree from this point in time moving forward.

not true it is not teh same thing, your analogy is pathetic.

Alice probably $1000 as an early adopter to own $1Million in financial assets. Bob on the other hand spent $500,000 to buy bitcoins as a late adopter.

Both alice and bob HOLD bitcoins despite crashing value that reached $0

at the end of the day Alice lost $1000 , while bob lost $500,000

Alice will work a week to recover, Bob will never be able to recover that much money in his lifetime

what counts is the initial capital you put in, the fact you don't cash your profits out is irrelevant. Alice is not taking risk by not cashing out, atleast to recover your initial capital she's just being greedy / silly , while Bob took a massive risk on a Peaking investment which he hoped will give him returns.

[Lethn]

The whole 'early adopters benefit too much so it's a ponzi scheme' is a load of bollocks, while I get your example, I've got an even better one, why does no one jump and down in a rage over people buying penny stocks and suddenly getting rich overnight holding them? Why does nobody attack people like Peter Schiff for example who said he bought gold back when it was $30 or so?  It's the exact same thing with Bitcoin, people who invest in early are taking a huge risk and could easily lose it all, there's no real different from Bitcoin to anything else, it's just the technology behind it and as we've come to get used to the ignorant old morons on television just don't get that because it's too new to them so they go on a rabid attack.

I don't know why people act so surprised when they see people go after Bitcoin this much, we've seen it with the internet, we've seen it with games, we've seen it with 3D printing, I'm also sure that the older ones here will remember the time when rock music was considered the 'devils' music and the came up with all sorts of bullshit surrounding that as well. Ignorant old people will always fight the progress of humanity, it's a constantly repeating pattern.

So remember these lines when something new comes along and we're all old and don't get taken in by other peoples' bullshit:

. Rock music is devils music

. Violent video games corrupt our children and desensitize them to violence making them kill other people

. The internet is evil and it must be regulated to protect our children because child molesters use it etc.

. 3D Printing must be regulated because people can use it to make guns that kill people

. Bitcoin must be regulated because it's used by Terrorists and Criminals, they're taking a more diplomatic approach now and saying it 'can' be used by terrorists and criminals

Even longer ago here in the UK the church once banned football ( Soccer for you Americans ) and attacked it because they were terrified about how people were enjoying it more than going to church.


p.s. You don't buy Bitcoin because of the USD price, you buy it as a store of value and a convenient means of transferring wealth, people who buy it for other purposes are going to lose money.

[Peter R]

not true it is not teh same thing, your analogy is pathetic.

The OP simply points out a logical fallacy: the truth is that early adopters benefit/lose equally to current adopters from this point in time forward.

You seem to be debating the ethics of whether it is fair for investors to make large gains in general. Your post belongs in the "Politics & Society" section, and is an interesting debate.  I agree that it may be unfair that some people benefit more than others, but the question is: should society "do something" about it?  

The problem is that there are many things in life that could be perceived as "unfair."  You know that picture of your pretty little girlfriend that you've been proudly posting around the forum?  A lot of other women would feel it is unfair that she was born so beautiful.  Maybe we should "do something" about this too?  

On second thought, maybe not.  

[odolvlobo]

not true it is not teh same thing, your analogy is pathetic.
Alice probably $1000 as an early adopter to own $1Million in financial assets. Bob on the other hand spent $500,000 to buy bitcoins as a late adopter.
Both alice and bob HOLD bitcoins despite crashing value that reached $0
at the end of the day Alice lost $1000 , while bob lost $500,000
Alice will work a week to recover, Bob will never be able to recover that much money in his lifetime
what counts is the initial capital you put in, the fact you don't cash your profits out is irrelevant. Alice is not taking risk by not cashing out, atleast to recover your initial capital she's just being greedy / silly , while Bob took a massive risk on a Peaking investment which he hoped will give him returns.

The problem here is that you (like most people) don't understand "sunk" cost. When Alice (the early adopter) bought the bitcoins, the money she spent can never be recovered. Any gains or losses since then cannot be reversed. The past cannot be undone, so it is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how much she paid for them because that doesn't change anything. Alice has what she has -- nothing more, nothing less. The money she originally spent is a "sunk" cost.

If Alice and Bob have bitcoins worth $1,000,000 and the value drops to 0, then they have both lost $1,000,000. How the values of their bitcoins got to $1,000,000 is irrelevant. The values went from $1,000,000 to $0, so they both lost $1,000,000.


BTW, most people also don't understand "opportunity" cost. They don't understand that they need to evaluate buying bitcoins vs. mining them.

[PolarPoint]

In five year's time, looking back, we are early adopters now. It is not too late buying in now.

[Peter R]

In five year's time, looking back, we are early adopters now. It is not too late buying in now.

That's a good point, and I edited the OP to reflect this.    

If you buy now--whenever now is--you feel like you are a late adopter since you were the last person to buy.  But this was true in 2013, 2012, 2011, and 2010.  There are early adopters and there are current adopters.  Current adopters become early adopters as time passes and bitcoin adoption continues to grow.  Given that less than 0.1% of the population hold even a small amount of bitcoin, I'd say there is still a lot of room for growth.  

I think there's an ancient Chinese proverb that speaks to this:

"The best time to buy a bitcoin was 2010.  The second best time is today."

[CurbsideProphet]

It's a foolish statement people make because an early adopter in any business or technology is going to be rich.  Even if the very earliest of adopters put out little monetarily, they still needed the foresight to see Bitcoin's potential.  To sum it up simply, if it were easy, everyone would do it.

[odolvlobo]

It's a foolish statement people make because an early adopter in any business or technology is going to be might become rich.  Even if the very earliest of adopters put out little monetarily, they still needed the foresight to see Bitcoin's potential and Bitcoin had to succeed.  To sum it up simply, if it were easy, everyone would do it.

I agree, but you left out an important point. If Bitcoin never took off, how many people would be complaining that they were not early adopters?

Here is my suggestion for anyone who is upset that they are not a wealthy early adopter of Bitcoin: create your own coin (crycoin perhaps?) and be the earliest adopter and make billions of dollars.

[CurbsideProphet]

It's a foolish statement people make because an early adopter in any business or technology is going to be might become rich.  Even if the very earliest of adopters put out little monetarily, they still needed the foresight to see Bitcoin's potential and Bitcoin had to succeed.  To sum it up simply, if it were easy, everyone would do it.

I agree, but you left out an important point. If Bitcoin never took off, how many people would be complaining that they were not early adopters?

Here is my suggestion for anyone who is upset that they are not a wealthy early adopter of Bitcoin: create your own coin (crycoin perhaps?) and be the earliest adopter and make billions of dollars.

I figured the success of the tech was implied.  Also, early adopter is subjective.  I recall people complaining when they had to pay $50 for a BTC when "early adopters" only had to pay $1.  Then people complained when they had to pay $100 when "early adopters" only paid double digits.  It's an ever moving target when these people should realize that even today, you can still be an early adopter (assuming Bitcoin continues its trajectory).

[Socket54]

I did a bunch of those free ads from back in the day that gave away free bitcoin. This was 2 years ago i think. Yes i was that bored lol. I just recently got re-interested due to the DOGE coin craze. Thinking about that old hard drive that since has been replace with SSD i pulled it back out hooked it up and, holy chit i had almost 5 bitcoin from those free ads. Funny how a lil time changes things.

Now im sure this is not a drop in the bucket compared to early adopters, and part of the reason i quit was because i could not afford to be competitive with them and make much with the nvidia setup i had then. But for me it was a valuable lesson enough that now i mine just about any newer popular coin in hopes that the same thing will happen agin a few years down the road. Probably not but i already gained way more then i had with nothing and can now afford a few gadgets to get in the game a bit. Early adopters win because like me now is they didnt have it to lose to begin with, and that is ok, it is just part of the game too. Without those guys my bitcoin would still be worth a few bucks liek they were then.

[knightcoin]

dont do anything until you visualize it ...

 

[seriouscoin]

The forum is slow today, so I thought I'd share a thought that hit me yesterday.  

"I don't want to make early adopters rich."

I've heard this said in person and I've read it in reader comments on MSM articles.  But is doesn't actually make sense.  The benefit to early adopters moving forward in time is exactly the same as to late adopters who choose to buy today.  Early adopters may already be rich, but if that's true then it's already happened.  As of right now, it is just as risky to continue to hold, as it is to choose to buy.  

Consider this:  Alice and Bob each have $1,000,000 in financial assets.  Alice is an early adopter of bitcoin and holds half her wealth in BTC.  Bob just learned about bitcoin today, and holds 100% of his wealth in US treasuries and stocks.  The risk Bob takes by moving $500,00 into BTC simply puts him at the same risk level as Alice moving forward in time.  The fact that Alice's bitcoins performed well in the past has no bearing on portfolio allocation moving forward.  Alice choosing to continue to hold $500,000 in bitcoin is just as risky as Bob deciding to buy $500,000 of BTC.  

The public cannot make early adopters un-rich by not investing in bitcoin.  And by investing in bitcoin, the public makes early and late investors rich to the exact same degree from this point in time moving forward.

not true it is not teh same thing, your analogy is pathetic.

Alice probably $1000 as an early adopter to own $1Million in financial assets. Bob on the other hand spent $500,000 to buy bitcoins as a late adopter.

Both alice and bob HOLD bitcoins despite crashing value that reached $0

at the end of the day Alice lost $1000 , while bob lost $500,000

Alice will work a week to recover, Bob will never be able to recover that much money in his lifetime

what counts is the initial capital you put in, the fact you don't cash your profits out is irrelevant. Alice is not taking risk by not cashing out, atleast to recover your initial capital she's just being greedy / silly , while Bob took a massive risk on a Peaking investment which he hoped will give him returns.

You should change your name to DumbAsFck..... Thats the best you can ever be in life

Go scream at Apple shareholders that bought its stock in 1999, dumbass

[seriouscoin]

The forum is slow today, so I thought I'd share a thought that hit me yesterday.  

"I don't want to make early adopters rich."

I've heard this said in person and I've read it in reader comments on MSM articles.  But is doesn't actually make sense.  The benefit to early adopters moving forward in time is exactly the same as to adopters who choose to buy today.  Early adopters may already be rich, but if that's true then it's already happened.  As of right now, it is just as risky to continue to hold, as it is to choose to buy.  

Consider this:  Alice and Bob each have $1,000,000 in financial assets.  Alice is an early adopter of bitcoin and holds half her wealth in BTC.  Bob just learned about bitcoin today, and holds 100% of his wealth in US treasuries and stocks.  The risk Bob takes by moving $500,00 into BTC simply puts him at the same risk level as Alice moving forward in time.  The fact that Alice's bitcoins performed well in the past has no bearing on portfolio allocation moving forward.  Alice choosing to continue to hold $500,000 in bitcoin is just as risky as Bob deciding to buy $500,000 of BTC.  

The public cannot make early adopters un-rich by not investing in bitcoin.  And by investing in bitcoin, the public makes early and current investors rich to the exact same degree from this point in time moving forward.

Thats sad, Humanity at its best.
We've seen it way earlier too. When bitcoin was hitting double digits, some pricks started making alternative coins like crazy to suck all those "i dont want to make early adopters rich" in..... in the end only those coins creators are rich.

Most newbies on this board dont even own BTC, they're those suckers that bought altcoins because ..... its cheap and they want to be early adoptors that they hate so much.

They even troll bitcoin forums just because they cant have any btc.... cough.... cosmofly....cough

[BitChick]

I used to be a bit envious of the "early adopters."  Having heard about BTC when it was only around $5 a coin it was frustrating to buy in a small amount at $50.  Of course it then shot up within weeks and I purchased the bulk of the coins I have at over $100 thinking "if only I had bought sooner."  But it is interesting how once I understood that in a way I am still investing very early, and many of the so called "early adopters" have already sold some of their shares, it really is more about how long I decide to hold and when I decide to sell, more than how many coins I actually have.  This is why everyone that has any belief that Bictcoin could actually grow to any greater level of adoption should just invest what they can afford to lose, and hold as long as they decide.  It isn't so much a matter of "how much" it is mostly about just joining in and enjoying the "ride" so to speak. 

[Bit_Happy]

BTC is NOT a Ponzi.
However it does have some real similarities to a Ponzi scam.
People who start worthwhile projects are helping BTC grow long-term; If you are sitting around hoping for new "bag-holders", then may you get what you deserve.

[BitOnyx]

You don't only need early adopters for such statement, you need early adopters who cared at all about they wallets through all of this time. Some people might have mine a lot of bitcoins in 2009 for fun and forget about them .

[thresher]

You guys are not getting what the op is saying.
To make it simpler:
Earlier adopter (A) bought a house for 100k
Later adopter (B) bought an identical house of the same value five years later for 300k
Today the houses are worth 400k
Tomorrow child molesting zombies decide to populate the town and the home values go to 50k.
What if earlier adopter A had kids that are now out of the house, and was going to use the proceeds of his home sale to pay for a smaller home, and to supplement his retirement income? 

You guys are viewing it as well A is only down 50k, while B is down 250k. 
In reality they are both down 350k.
If it is an investment, the logic you tell yourself at a casino when you lose form doubling down does not apply. 
If you invest money and have the money at your disposal, it is your money, it is at risk. 
If your financial planner took all of the proceeds out of your investments you've been building, and lost them all would you go, well I didn't lose since it was profit.  If that's the case i'll gladly invest any profit you have made, since apparently you people do not count it as money for some reason, even though the purpose of investing is to make money and then use the money you made.   

[K3nn3th]

Yeah, why should the smart people profit from their intelligence? That's not fair. Just because they have higher intelligence and are willing to take risk shouldn't mean that they should have an advantage in life.