Financiers would never invest in bitcoin?

[as.exchange]

Recently read a post/opinion of one analyst, which seams pretty interesting. Curious about what the Community here thinks about that.

BELOW IS THE TRANSLATED POST

Why financiers would never invest in bitcoin or in any other asset at all, including much less risky assets.

For that you have to understand that financiers are in the business of financing and investors are in the business of investing.

- The bank's instrument is a spread between how much money they acquired and for how much and for how long they sold that money to others.
- The tool of the investor is a profitable asset.

The above are completely different kinds of business, what is often forgotten. For the bank (I'll call it so broadly everyone and all businesses who work with money) in the first place is security, namely shifting the risk of funding on someone else's shoulders. In this case, on the shoulders of investors who get the money to work, but pledge the asset to the bank at a discount. The bank's risk is minimal, because LTV (loan-to-value) could be 65 or 50%, i.e. the money is given less than the market price of the collateral. All the risks are borne by the investor, and the bank finances them safely (for itself). In that sense, neither the Bank of New York, nor the Maker DAO, much less NEXO is any different. The business is to take money for the longest possible period, immobilize (make it unmovable) it as much as possible, and lend the same money at a discount to the risk. All risk is shifted to the borrower who decides to buy something as an asset. The investor is left with the asset but no money. The bank uses the money to make more money, including by refinancing the asset further to get even more money. Think of the resale of mortgage bonds through CDOs and other variations of repeatedly selling the same asset or risk on it. Who is safer in this process should be obvious.

That is the nature of the financial business. Banks and financial institutions are in the money business, investors are in the asset business. For a bank or financier, investing in an asset is dead money, in jargon, it's just not their business. For the money business, the most important thing is turnover, money velocity, not return on the asset. The bank is looking for yield, the investor is looking for ROI. What's more, you need to attract as much money as possible to immobilize it for the one who gave it to the bank, in order to get the maximum turnover of the liability. The bank simply shifts the risk of ownership and the market value of the asset to the investor. And it makes money regardless of whether the asset rises or falls in value. What cannot be said about a typical buy & hold investor.

Once I saw a table of institutional investors in Bitcoin as a proof that "institutionals are coming now and we will prosper now". Financiers will prosper indeed, but not all investors, because investing is still a zero sum game. The market is not in the business of creating added value, but of redistributing money among its participants. Some investors will lose money 100%, you have to understand that. But the financiers will never. The infamous Grayscale earns 2% on trust assets, but owns nothing itself. Galaxy Digital probably didn't take a performance fee when it was making 70% loss, but it took a management fee anyways which all investors were paying them.

Everyone is screaming that institutional players came into the Bitcoin now. Who came are the few players who could push a new asset to the investors, even though to the low quality ones, while they themselves will be sitting on commissions and transactional revenues. You must agree there's a big difference between the two businesses. Institutional investors are not gods pooping butterflies and rainbow-coloured unicorns. Many of them sit on unprofitable assets for many many years. Just look at the return statistics of most hedge funds. Especially it's interesting to look not at annualised returns, but at specific years (YoY). They also got enough idiots there too, who are driven by the banal greed in addition to diversification. Here you can pump a flat price out of nowhere, and get the absolute income higher. And you don't have to invest anything in the asset itself, - it's too risky! And the risk, as we remember, is what financiers pass on to others. That's their business. If it looks like a duck, walks and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.

END OF THE POST

[1714736879]

1714736879

[1714736879]

1714736879

[1714736879]

1714736879

[Oshosondy]

Financiers are institutional investors investors that invested with institutions that will be paid back in profit, or you can correct me if I am wrong about that. I will only focus on them, their numbers have increased in this year because many institutions are investing in bitcoin, this could be the rise of institutions that will invest in bitcoin. 2021 can be the year of more rise of institutions that will be investing in bitcoin. They have later have to know that bitcoin is a new era money and yet an asset that is not inflationary like gold, fiats and many like that, it is real deflationary unlike those. We all know how fiats is so inflationary while gold may not be left out if true value is considered. There will be no option for financiers than to invest in bitcoin because it is better, and the world have being dawning to understand this unlike the olden time.

[Darker45]

Recently read a post/opinion of one analyst, which seams pretty interesting. Curious about what the Community here thinks about that.

You have to indicate the source of this long post/opinion of someone you call an analyst.

To me, this is not at all interesting. As a matter of fact, it appears to me as if this is simply a play of jargons. Financiers and investors are actually the same bananas more or less. Financing is investing. ROI may somehow be different from yield but they do not actually belong to two different worlds. You can measure your monthly ROI based on your annual yield.

Some investors will lose money 100%, you have to understand that. But the financiers will never.

I don't understand where this is coming from. It's as if what the analyst calls financiers are not facing any risks at all. Which is probably wrong.

[as.exchange]

Financiers are institutional investors investors that invested with institutions that will be paid back in profit, or you can correct me if I am wrong about that. I will only focus on them, their numbers have increased in this year because many institutions are investing in bitcoin, this could be the rise of institutions that will invest in bitcoin. 2021 can be the year of more rise of institutions that will be investing in bitcoin. They have later have to know that bitcoin is a new era money and yet an asset that is not inflationary like gold, fiats and many like that, it is real deflationary unlike those. We all know how fiats is so inflationary while gold may not be left out if true value is considered. There will be no option for financiers than to invest in bitcoin because it is better, and the world have being dawning to understand this unlike the olden time.

From my personal perspective, financiers are also investors. But just like hedge fund invests but rather than entering equity of company / or purchasing asset they do it via debt instruments. Banks and money institutions also collect money from others (depositors), just like hedge funds do so with their LPs. Due to this part I do agree with you. However, if we consider money transmission business as it is (payment processing), or exchanges - they don't necessarily take others' money to make more money. They simply provide infrastructure for investors and don't care that much if the underlying assets go up or down - they just live on transaction fees and revenues.

As for institutions that invested in Bitcoin, yes you are correct, and from my personal perspective, some of them are quite reliable (not MicroStrategy though), but they are all eventually investors, but not financiers (i.e. HSBC, JP Morgan Chase, ICBC, CMB, Sberbank or those guys). Thus, while we do observe entrance of institutional investors, we can't say (yet?) entrance of institionals in the broad term, or financiers specifically.

While banks do deal in assets in the end, they never actually take the actual asset risks, because they (here I agree with the author of that post) eventually just "borrow long-term, lend short term" and if they are not sure they are able to hedge all risks and leave only transaction revenue for themselves - they will not enter the deal.

You have to indicate the source of this long post/opinion of someone you call an analyst.

To me, this is not at all interesting. As a matter of fact, it appears to me as if this is simply a play of jargons. Financiers and investors are actually the same bananas more or less. Financing is investing. ROI may somehow be different from yield but they do not actually belong to two different worlds. You can measure your monthly ROI based on your annual yield.

Some investors will lose money 100%, you have to understand that. But the financiers will never.

I don't understand where this is coming from. It's as if what the analyst calls financiers are not facing any risks at all. Which is probably wrong.

Sure, the source is here (it's in Russian originally): https://t.me/blockbitnews/968 Didn't post initially as didn't want to get the thread removed due to advertisement (it's not).

As for investors and financiers being the same, unfortunately I cannot agree on that. Bank's business is borrow long-term from CB/depositors @ cheap rates, and lend short-term @ high rates. From philosophical perspective - yes, they do both make money from other people's money - that's true, but the business models are different. One is like Uber - connects those with assets with the ones who need assets and earn their margin, but another one is like traditional taxi car - buy the cars hire drivers and wish that can earn money from that.

And about the investors losing money vs financiers not losing money, I guess the author of the initial article didn't state that clearly, but yes, investors will lose due to market price risks, financiers - will never! Financiers will lose due to risk mismanagement, due to failed operations, or liquidity mismatch, and there are million other risks, but not the price risks purposely taken by investors. If you see a bank failing, that's very unlikely due to taking price risk (unlike investors), but due to poor risk management and/or failed risk transfer as this is the only and core business line of all financiers - transfer risks from one party to another one, earn the spread for doing so, and with the earned spread cover own operational costs.

[Mauser]

I think this wrong. Financiers are the most abstract people I have met. They only look at money and everything else is converted into money. For a financier it doesn't matter if its oil, gold, corn or electricity, they will buy it all as long as there is money being made. So for them bitcoins is just another commodity they can buy and trade.

[as.exchange]

I think this wrong. Financiers are the most abstract people I have met. They only look at money and everything else is converted into money. For a financier it doesn't matter if its oil, gold, corn or electricity, they will buy it all as long as there is money being made. So for them bitcoins is just another commodity they can buy and trade.

You are very correct, but they usually don't like to take risk which they cannot estimate and carefully manage. As you correctly said - very calculative people, who take well accounted-for risks to earn profits (mostly arbitrage). But yes, if BTC can be de-risked (typically done via derivatives), then they might start using it too.

Trading in bitcoins is complicated and you have to spend a lot of time and mind with 100% consecrate. I personally think that financiers are not sufficiently free to glance in bitcoins and put away their cash on it. Bitcoins help just for the individuals who need to twofold their cash Why would they put their asset when they're already making benefit ?. Same with the Millionaire they'll never attempt to twofold their cash.

I don't think trading in Bitcoins is harder than trading swaps or structured products, or even planes (I used to know one person from Deutsche Bank who literally was trading planes like we trade Bitcoins:D). But you made a great point - for the top ones, it's too small to care about. People who scream that BTC is impossible to ignore, just fail to realize the size of capital markets and the relative size of BTC for now. Once it grows to the big enough cap - they will enter, until then - VCs and speculators, or the small ones will try to take advantage.

[Gozie51]

BELOW IS THE TRANSLATED POST

Then consider your post to be backed up with a source to your information.

Anyway, IMO I think that financier is generally someone who has seen some better advantage than they can do and can sponsor, encourage or advise that a financial obligation is taken up and in this extent relating to trade and cryptocurrency, they can be banks, cooperate institutions. To another point in that, the government can also be financier in there project and they sell out bonds and security to individuals or institutions for investment in different areas of government sectors.
A financier has strong believe that invested money is going to bring better profit than they are able to generate.

[darewaller]

This is sort of right but also a bit wrong at the same time. What they are trying to explain here is that if a bank buys bitcoin for example, instead of loaning to others, they would put themselves into much more risk and would be a lot worse, it would hurt them because people may withdraw their money at anytime, and if bitcoin is lower at that point the bank would lose money.

Instead they put the money to use, and give it as a loan and get money back each month as payment, and that would guarantee an income for them, think of it like you putting your money into savings account for a good interest rate. However investors are called financiers as well, they do not put a name tag different just because they do different task, which means investors, companies like grayscale or microstrategy would also call themselves the same thing as the banks when it comes to buying bitcoin.

[as.exchange]

BELOW IS THE TRANSLATED POST

Then consider your post to be backed up with a source to your information.

Anyway, IMO I think that financier is generally someone who has seen some better advantage than they can do and can sponsor, encourage or advise that a financial obligation is taken up and in this extent relating to trade and cryptocurrency, they can be banks, cooperate institutions. To another point in that, the government can also be financier in there project and they sell out bonds and security to individuals or institutions for investment in different areas of government sectors.
A financier has strong believe that invested money is going to bring better profit than they are able to generate.

I believe you are referring to the specific group of financiers - investors. Just like PayPal, Visa, or NASDAQ cannot be called investors (apart from their dedicated VC teams), overall they are in different business, which is not the same with Black Stone, or Sequoia Capital. Same could apply to HSBC, Citi or ICBC. Some are moving funds/capital/money and processing them by earning their transaction revenue irrespective of currency/asset market price, while others intentionally make bets that what they buy-in is currently underpriced and they can earn their risk premium in the future when the currency/asset will be fairly priced.

This is sort of right but also a bit wrong at the same time. What they are trying to explain here is that if a bank buys bitcoin for example, instead of loaning to others, they would put themselves into much more risk and would be a lot worse, it would hurt them because people may withdraw their money at anytime, and if bitcoin is lower at that point the bank would lose money.

Instead they put the money to use, and give it as a loan and get money back each month as payment, and that would guarantee an income for them, think of it like you putting your money into savings account for a good interest rate.

Absolutely correct point. Banks need to handle deposits which are fixed in USD/whatever currency, while BTC can go up/down any moment by 10-20-30% which will be an unbearable risk for them and will result in bank run. Of course they can hedge the risk away, but there will be such issues as: 1) when fully hedged - you don't earn any profit at all, 2) with BTC current market size, they might be not able to hedge to the extend they would want to.

However investors are called financiers as well, they do not put a name tag different just because they do different task, which means investors, companies like grayscale or microstrategy would also call themselves the same thing as the banks when it comes to buying bitcoin.

Yes, with this I fully agree. From common understanding perspective and more of "philosophical" perspective, the word "financier" typically refers literally to anyone who is working with money, be it asset manager, hedge fund, bank, FX broker, stock broker, local exchange down the street, Treasury department, VISA processing the payments, or literally anyone - just a very general term. From another perspective, there are subdivisions in the world of financiers, and "financier" (who earns processing/transaction/maturity/liquidity fees) is another subdivision of the general "financier" (which does include investors, exchanges, lenders, brokers, including Grayscale, MicroStrategy's treasury dep., etc.).

[mu_enrico]

"Never" is a strong word, and this world is full of uncertainty.
What if Bitcoin becomes widely used money?
Bank also has many types; what about Investment Bank?

But sure, commercial banks (that deal with fiat loans) would not buy/use Bitcoin in its current state because most transactions use fiat.

[as.exchange]

"Never" is a strong word, and this world is full of uncertainty.
What if Bitcoin becomes widely used money?
Bank also has many types; what about Investment Bank?

But sure, commercial banks (that deal with fiat loans) would not buy/use Bitcoin in its current state because most transactions use fiat.

Well, of course we can say that anything is possible in this world. Some time ago people couldn't also imagine using mobile phones or driving cars as well. But do you objectively believe that Fed, ECB, PBC, BOJ, etc. would give up their power of money control to something they don't control and cannot print as much as needed / when needed?

As for Investment Banks (GS, MS, JPM, etc.) sure, same applies to Merchant Banks - that's entirely different business model. They are investors (sometimes), and advisors to others mostly. Their end goal of business is to "sell" - whether it's a corporation in M&A deal, stocks in IPO, or something else (and also collect the fee irrespective of the success , but it's not money processing like commercial banks).

[Broly46]

Financier is lowest form of human scumbag, people like Rothschild funding for World War One and two for profit, Jamie Dimon funding market crashes and bailout and glass steagall to protect themselves, now enjoying fat pay check bailout for doing nothing, thing that would disrupt their finance empire something like bitcoin is their greatest fear, they would like to destroy bitcoin, but to invest into it, which is contradicting with their narrative, nope they would never advocate thing that accelerate their demise let’s alone invest into it.

[as.exchange]

Financier is lowest form of human scumbag, people like Rothschild funding for World War One and two for profit, Jamie Dimon funding market crashes and bailout and glass steagall to protect themselves, now enjoying fat pay check bailout for doing nothing, thing that would disrupt their finance empire something like bitcoin is their greatest fear, they would like to destroy bitcoin, but to invest into it, which is contradicting with their narrative, nope they would never advocate thing that accelerate their demise let’s alone invest into it.

True and not. It might seam so from the external actions which we all can observe and judge it based on our own limited understanding. However, we will never know the full story or the full motives & reasons. We might be failing to see the bigger picture, or might be thinking too much and most of those things were accidental and not on purpose. Therefore, I, personally never judge people before I can be sure that I really understand every single part of them. Otherwise, whatever we assume is just an assumption based on the news that we were fed with by the public media, and nothing more.

[davis196]

The quoted article was a boring to read wall of text.
Financiers,bankers and accountants are NOT investors.They work for a monthly paycheck+bonuses,or they get a commission for every new customer they acquire.
Investors are investing their capital and getting a return-interest rate or profit.
Financiers,bankers and accountants don't risk anything in their daily jobs.All the risk goes to their customers.
They(financiers,bankers and accountants) can invest their savings everywhere they want.
If they don't want to invest in Bitcoin,that's fine.

[as.exchange]

The quoted article was a boring to read wall of text.
Financiers,bankers and accountants are NOT investors.They work for a monthly paycheck+bonuses,or they get a commission for every new customer they acquire.
Investors are investing their capital and getting a return-interest rate or profit.
Financiers,bankers and accountants don't risk anything in their daily jobs.All the risk goes to their customers.
They(financiers,bankers and accountants) can invest their savings everywhere they want.
If they don't want to invest in Bitcoin,that's fine.

Yes, you are pretty correct with defining the financiers (I would exclude accountants though). But I guess the article was more about the common misconception among people that financiers (banks, etc.) would soon enter the market. Which as you correctly noted too - unlikely to happen, unless they would have customers who want to take that risk, and they could simply transfer the risk from markets to customers, and lock themselves into the risk-free spreads.

[amishmanish]

 I think that institutions jumping on the bitcoin bandwagon is resulting in an interesting scenario. The exchanges have a ljmited supply of bitcoins. Amongst the biggest hodlers, the ideas are about bringing changes to the way the world functions, not just to sell at 100K and retire as billionaires. That may well be the goal of plenty of latecomers but those who have been here from the beginning, most probably have better plans than selling it to the traditional investors.

There are interesting days ahead. I hope those demigods have a plan and the little guys like me can just stack Satoshi by Satoshi and hope better financial condition than would have been possible otherwise.

[as.exchange]

I think that institutions jumping on the bitcoin bandwagon is resulting in an interesting scenario. The exchanges have a ljmited supply of bitcoins. Amongst the biggest hodlers, the ideas are about bringing changes to the way the world functions, not just to sell at 100K and retire as billionaires. That may well be the goal of plenty of latecomers but those who have been here from the beginning, most probably have better plans than selling it to the traditional investors.

There are interesting days ahead. I hope those demigods have a plan and the little guys like me can just stack Satoshi by Satoshi and hope better financial condition than would have been possible otherwise.

You are right, and with the limited BTC supply the price will have to keep raising, until someone decides that it's too high and the final price could clear the market demand/supply. I think those days you are referring to will come pretty soon 

[GeorgeJohn]

Why financiers would never invest in bitcoin or in any other asset at all, including much less risky assets.

For that you have to understand that financiers are in the business of financing and investors are in the business of investing.

I don't think so, I noticed that it's based on choice, it's obvious that financiers have the ability to invest in bitcoin if really wishes to invest, financiers only managed a government finance and that does not warrantee their not eligible to invest their finance.

[dothebeats]

They’d love to get their hands on something that will yield them more money with the right risks, so you’ll never know what they really want at the moment. Financiers mostly care about results and profits, and if they see something that performs really well even with risks involved, they’d still get it. They do not restrict themselves on financial and debt instruments that are within their knowledge—I’m pretty sure there are some that have already tried crypto and stuck with it since.

[create_crypto]

There a lot of officialy working funds, that investing in bitcoin and crypto.
They investing money of their clients, it is around 1000 already all over the world.
Also some instruments like ETF, is the instruments of a traditional financial system, that now also sometimes using to help people legally invest their money in bitcoin.

[as.exchange]

I don't think so, I noticed that it's based on choice, it's obvious that financiers have the ability to invest in bitcoin if really wishes to invest, financiers only managed a government finance and that does not warrantee their not eligible to invest their finance.

Well it depends on the perspective we consider - we can always say that anyone can invest anywhere in the end. Even you could invest in complex swaptions if you really want to, but yes it's not that easy. Same with financiers - they can, of course, but do you see HSBC or ICBC investing in Bitcoin any time soon?

They’d love to get their hands on something that will yield them more money with the right risks, so you’ll never know what they really want at the moment. Financiers mostly care about results and profits, and if they see something that performs really well even with risks involved, they’d still get it. They do not restrict themselves on financial and debt instruments that are within their knowledge—I’m pretty sure there are some that have already tried crypto and stuck with it since.

If we speak of individuals as financiers, I believe you are very right, however, that's hard to imagine to be done by top global banks as I mentioned above. Do you think they would get involved too?

There a lot of officialy working funds, that investing in bitcoin and crypto.
They investing money of their clients, it is around 1000 already all over the world.
Also some instruments like ETF, is the instruments of a traditional financial system, that now also sometimes using to help people legally invest their money in bitcoin.

Yes they are investors, not financiers if we consider that word in a narrow meaning.

[kolbalish]

That can't say this time, because anything can happen this year or some time far. Cryptocurrency becoming well known in the world day by day, many countries and organizations are accepting BTC so why not financiers? Commerce known people now knowing and investigating about cryptocurrency. I hope that financiers will come to this field and they will work on that and if there are some mistakes, they will try to solve and upgrade the systems. Scams will reduce by the preventing of falls.

[as.exchange]

That can't say this time, because anything can happen this year or some time far. Cryptocurrency becoming well known in the world day by day, many countries and organizations are accepting BTC so why not financiers? Commerce known people now knowing and investigating about cryptocurrency. I hope that financiers will come to this field and they will work on that and if there are some mistakes, they will try to solve and upgrade the systems. Scams will reduce by the preventing of falls.

You are right that commerce and trading (business-like)  people do use BTC, but that's for other purposes. I guess you are right also that anything can happen (but I wouldn't say in 2021 yet).

Bitcoin's provide high benefits and why would financial not invest their money on it ?. I personally imagine that they're less educated in term of putting resources into bitcoin or a considerable lot of them are not very much aware of the bitcoins or existing of digital currencies. If they came to realize how bitcoin's help to twofold our speculation they'll surly step-in and contribute their huge bit of cash. It's better to persuade with those individuals who don't know about bitcoins

I wouldn't call financiers less educated I guess. They knew about it from early days, but didn't take it seriously (like with Tesla for example, and other assets too). But we certainly see that attitude changing. But do you think that using crypto-currencies (not only Bitcoin, but potentially others too) is within the scope of their business model?

[Mauser]

That can't say this time, because anything can happen this year or some time far. Cryptocurrency becoming well known in the world day by day, many countries and organizations are accepting BTC so why not financiers? Commerce known people now knowing and investigating about cryptocurrency. I hope that financiers will come to this field and they will work on that and if there are some mistakes, they will try to solve and upgrade the systems. Scams will reduce by the preventing of falls.

I agree with you. Crypto currencies become more and more mainstream these days. Almost everybody has atleast heard of them. Bitcoin is now close to 35.000 USD, I think we with. these returns we saw over the last few weeks. It becomes very attractive for a types of investors. You don't want to sit out this rally.

[as.exchange]

I agree with you. Crypto currencies become more and more mainstream these days. Almost everybody has atleast heard of them. Bitcoin is now close to 35.000 USD, I think we with. these returns we saw over the last few weeks. It becomes very attractive for a types of investors. You don't want to sit out this rally.

I tend to agree with you, but not completely though. Financiers (the smart ones) know that "buy when the blood runs on the street", so nobody is gonna buy when BTC reaches new ATHs. And the financiers (again, - not investors) will not want to sit out this rally, unless they have ways to earn risk-free commissions which won't depend on whether Bitcoin goes up or down.

[as.exchange]

Financiers  is a synonyms of investors. They are a money provider for some projects or businesses, one who deals with finance and investment on a large scale. They are investors also and this time that bitcoin is already popular and valuable there are financiers for some group or businesses who are investing directly in cryptocurrency or bitcoin in particular.

Those are not synonyms actually. That's what I mentioned in the earlier comments (see below):

As for investors and financiers being the same, unfortunately I cannot agree on that. Bank's business is borrow long-term from CB/depositors @ cheap rates, and lend short-term @ high rates. From philosophical perspective - yes, they do both make money from other people's money - that's true, but the business models are different. One is like Uber - connects those with assets with the ones who need assets and earn their margin, but another one is like traditional taxi car - buy the cars hire drivers and wish that can earn money from that.

From common understanding perspective and more of "philosophical" perspective, the word "financier" typically refers literally to anyone who is working with money, be it asset manager, hedge fund, bank, FX broker, stock broker, local exchange down the street, Treasury department, VISA processing the payments, or literally anyone - just a very general term. From another perspective, there are subdivisions in the world of financiers, and "financier" (who earns processing/transaction/maturity/liquidity fees) is another subdivision of the general "financier" (which does include investors, exchanges, lenders, brokers, including Grayscale, MicroStrategy's treasury dep., etc.).

[fiulpro]

See everyone have their own opinion. Now these people might literally be very well off and they don't need to take such measures to increase their wealth a net investment in a good bank would do good. When it comes to us , a common man, we don't have resources, we don't have financial freedom, we don't have economic stability and if these people do advice us on these situations do they even think for a second that " our situation is not the same as theirs" it is very different indeed.
I understand for a fact that when people who are big business man and then decide to say how **I won't ever invest in bitcoins, it's far too volatile** they don't think for a second that they are the whales controlling the market. This is the capitalism we are talking about. The centralized dominance. They even control the government, the banks , this is far much known. So I think we have to make this decision for ourselves and then consider our situation differently because more often than ever we think of investors and we directly talk about the people who are more successful, how about we think about a common man ?

[Twentyonepaylots]

The points they made on how and why financiers will not use cryptocurrencies or invest in them makes little sense to me. Although what I'm getting in this is that they don't need to, since they are filthy rich anyway and wouldn't want to expand their wealth which is really good for small time bitcoin investors like us, fewer whales on the market means bigger chances for us.

That can't say this time, because anything can happen this year or some time far. Cryptocurrency becoming well known in the world day by day, many countries and organizations are accepting BTC so why not financiers? Commerce known people now knowing and investigating about cryptocurrency. I hope that financiers will come to this field and they will work on that and if there are some mistakes, they will try to solve and upgrade the systems. Scams will reduce by the preventing of falls.

This I agree, a lot of privately-owned companies way back 2018 are reluctant into getting into crypto, but look at them now FOMOing the hell out of themselves to get a chance at earning here too.

[as.exchange]

See everyone have their own opinion. Now these people might literally be very well off and they don't need to take such measures to increase their wealth a net investment in a good bank would do good. When it comes to us , a common man, we don't have resources, we don't have financial freedom, we don't have economic stability and if these people do advice us on these situations do they even think for a second that " our situation is not the same as theirs" it is very different indeed.
I understand for a fact that when people who are big business man and then decide to say how **I won't ever invest in bitcoins, it's far too volatile** they don't think for a second that they are the whales controlling the market. This is the capitalism we are talking about. The centralized dominance. They even control the government, the banks , this is far much known. So I think we have to make this decision for ourselves and then consider our situation differently because more often than ever we think of investors and we directly talk about the people who are more successful, how about we think about a common man ?

Really loved your comment. I would say "you cannot imagine", but I am sure you can - how many times I saw common people sharing the same feelings, but only you described it well straight to the point. Some people say this is the case in China only where people got wealthy with the rise of China 10-20y ago and now common people cannot afford to purchase real estate in first-tier cities while that's kind of mandatory based on social norms; people in Russia say the same thing but blame oligarchs and corrupt government officials who do the best to benefit only the own inner circle driving the prices higher and pushing people more to the poverty; and same with the US where people are desperately trying to figure out point of life under capitalism and with little-to-no chance or happily leaving the 9-5 / 9-6 hole and with inability to afford life in big cities.

Yet, all these people are the "average Joe" who drive BTC price higher with a hope that it will change their life once the whales controlling the market would turn their attention to constantly growing asset.

Let's hope this situation changes, but I personally don't see any big change with only monetary system change/transition to being more crypto-friendly, as currently the world is experiencing far more fundamental and structural issues when "the bottoms don't want and the tops cannot live in the old way" coupled with "high political activity of the working masses, their readiness to revolutionary actions"

The points they made on how and why financiers will not use cryptocurrencies or invest in them makes little sense to me. Although what I'm getting in this is that they don't need to, since they are filthy rich anyway and wouldn't want to expand their wealth which is really good for small time bitcoin investors like us, fewer whales on the market means bigger chances for us.

Well even having trillions of dollars I don't think someone would mind having an additional couple of billions I'm not sure though, hopefully one day we all together will find that out personally.

This I agree, a lot of privately-owned companies way back 2018 are reluctant into getting into crypto, but look at them now FOMOing the hell out of themselves to get a chance at earning here too.

This is just a proof that "smart money" isn't that smart after all. Ignoring promising technology and innovative asset in the early stage and then FOMOing at ATHs and entering with public announcements (to further hype the price of course). Not very smart imho.

[lixer]

That can't say this time, because anything can happen this year or some time far. Cryptocurrency becoming well known in the world day by day, many countries and organizations are accepting BTC so why not financiers? Commerce known people now knowing and investigating about cryptocurrency. I hope that financiers will come to this field and they will work on that and if there are some mistakes, they will try to solve and upgrade the systems. Scams will reduce by the preventing of falls.

I remember a very intelligent line from some philosopher or someone " First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight with you and ultimately you win" and I honestly think this is what is happening with Bitcoins. When it was new people ignored, now as it got more popular some investors laughed and called it a bubble. Then now banking systems are fighting against Bitcoin and ultimately looks like Bitcoin is going to win now.

With more and more investors putting their money into crypto it makes me feel like its about time we will see bitcoins being accepted worldwide although it might not be precisely bitcoin because of confirmation issues and fees so it might be crypto payments in general.

[Mauser]

Most of the big financiers are changing their minds right now about crypto currencies and bitcoins. For the big banks and financiers it's all about money. If investors want to trade in bitcoins then they are going to follow. I don't think there is a big difference for traders if they buy commodities, stocks, currencies or crypto currencies. They all use advanced tools which can adjust to new markets. The use of Bitcoin's is growing every year. Eventually everybody will follow.

[Webetcoins]

Bitcoin's provide high benefits and why would financial not invest their money on it ?. I personally imagine that they're less educated in term of putting resources into bitcoin or a considerable lot of them are not very much aware of the bitcoins or existing of digital currencies. If they came to realize how bitcoin's help to twofold our speculation they'll surly step-in and contribute their huge bit of cash. It's better to persuade with those individuals who don't know about bitcoins

It took time for everyone including investors and venture capitalists to realize that Bitcoin is not a scam project being operated by some money money minded group of people, instead it is a project made for people and one which is also being controlled by people only. More and more adoption will follow after the move by Tesla and Musk recently to welcome bitcoins as payment.

Trading in bitcoins is complicated and you have to spend a lot of time and mind with 100% consecrate. I personally think that financiers are not sufficiently free to glance in bitcoins and put away their cash on it. Bitcoins help just for the individuals who need to twofold their cash Why would they put their asset when they're already making benefit ?. Same with the Millionaire they'll never attempt to twofold their cash.

Rich guys don't actually need to trade as they can just invest and divest later when the market has gone up. Its actually easier for rich guys to even manipulate the market and make even more profits but they are afraid because they don't know if someone owns 100k BTC and just dumps suddenly so that fear is keeping most of the investors away.

[fullhdpixel]

Most of the big financiers are changing their minds right now about crypto currencies and bitcoins. For the big banks and financiers it's all about money. If investors want to trade in bitcoins then they are going to follow. I don't think there is a big difference for traders if they buy commodities, stocks, currencies or crypto currencies. They all use advanced tools which can adjust to new markets. The use of Bitcoin's is growing every year. Eventually everybody will follow.

The reality is that I do not think they are "changing their minds" about crypto, they just waited until they could get into crypto without disturbing the market as a whole, because if they got into bitcoin 3-4 years ago (or earlier) the market cap was so small and volume was so little that they couldn't buy too much since it would take the price super high and they couldn't sell because it would take the price very low.

Right now they could do whatever they want, buy 1 billion dollars worth of bitcoin, sell 1 billion dollars worth of bitcoin and it wouldn't change the price "too much". And these are companies with so much money that they do put their money into many different things, so they waited for crypto to become good and big enough so that they could diversify their portfolio with bitcoin. We haven't even seen the real big players, these are still small timers, we are going to see 50-60 billion dollars go into bitcoin in the future.

[passwordnow]

The reality is that I do not think they are "changing their minds" about crypto, they just waited until they could get into crypto without disturbing the market as a whole, because if they got into bitcoin 3-4 years ago (or earlier) the market cap was so small and volume was so little that they couldn't buy too much since it would take the price super high and they couldn't sell because it would take the price very low.

Well, I agree on that. It's like testing the waters for many years before they get involved in it. They just can't trust a disruptive technology that was just made a few years ago and they would put millions to billions on it. These financiers and other related businesses are all for the money, they don't want to burn money and also securing that they get the minimum risk for that potential profit that they are about to make. But thanks to our Doge CEO Elon Musk that have waken them up although there were other financial institutions that have been doing it but only lacks of publicity.

[verita1]

I think that other financials based on bitcoin and some altcoins have been created and that is the reason why we are seeing this boom.
We are evolving from traditional systems to the digital system that offers us bitcoin and cryptocurrencies.
I have seen testimonials from the great investors who went through the entire current finance system and realized that bitcoin is the best asset for safeguarding capital.
The transformation is happening, perhaps we will see two worlds who adhere to the traditional and who seek to innovate with Blockchain technology.

[AmoreJaz]

The reality is that I do not think they are "changing their minds" about crypto, they just waited until they could get into crypto without disturbing the market as a whole, because if they got into bitcoin 3-4 years ago (or earlier) the market cap was so small and volume was so little that they couldn't buy too much since it would take the price super high and they couldn't sell because it would take the price very low.

Well, I agree on that. It's like testing the waters for many years before they get involved in it. They just can't trust a disruptive technology that was just made a few years ago and they would put millions to billions on it. These financiers and other related businesses are all for the money, they don't want to burn money and also securing that they get the minimum risk for that potential profit that they are about to make. But thanks to our Doge CEO Elon Musk that have waken them up although there were other financial institutions that have been doing it but only lacks of publicity.

now, they are seeing that foundation is now more solid than before. as a lot of top companies and financial institutions are in this game, they are now confident that this will not crash hard. they are just waiting the pulse of the community. and yes, Elon Musk did give some confidence to these companies to go into crypto because his company is also touching the crypto industry.
i think, they have the notion that if Musk is trusting this new tech, then it means, there's something in store for him on this venture. and so they want to follow thru his steps.

[AndySt]

Well, I agree on that. It's like testing the waters for many years before they get involved in it. They just can't trust a disruptive technology that was just made a few years ago and they would put millions to billions on it. These financiers and other related businesses are all for the money, they don't want to burn money and also securing that they get the minimum risk for that potential profit that they are about to make. But thanks to our Doge CEO Elon Musk that have waken them up although there were other financial institutions that have been doing it but only lacks of publicity.

Let us not forget that financial institutions rely on the instructions of state financial regulators, so it is not only caution and distrust that have caused their actions. Elon Musk's recent actions have certainly stirred up this sleepy financial realm a bit, but there are also some concerns from government officials about the regulation of such bitcoin transactions. The financial market is also waiting for the approval of new instruments for cryptocurrencies similar to other financial instruments.

[passwordnow]

Well, I agree on that. It's like testing the waters for many years before they get involved in it. They just can't trust a disruptive technology that was just made a few years ago and they would put millions to billions on it. These financiers and other related businesses are all for the money, they don't want to burn money and also securing that they get the minimum risk for that potential profit that they are about to make. But thanks to our Doge CEO Elon Musk that have waken them up although there were other financial institutions that have been doing it but only lacks of publicity.

Let us not forget that financial institutions rely on the instructions of state financial regulators, so it is not only caution and distrust that have caused their actions. Elon Musk's recent actions have certainly stirred up this sleepy financial realm a bit, but there are also some concerns from government officials about the regulation of such bitcoin transactions. The financial market is also waiting for the approval of new instruments for cryptocurrencies similar to other financial instruments.

The government officials are not that more concern with bitcoin transactions, it's irreversible and it's hard to track but, what they are concerned about is the tweets that's generating a huge noise in the internet world made by Elon. It's very manipulative and I don't know if there are other financial institutions that have already called the attention of the body of government that's assigned for it. What are those "new instruments" that you have? can you cite example?

[Stedsm]

Considering the high risk associated with investing in crypto, I believe that'll what will stop financiers to invest into crypto because they offer much less returns on investments of their customers (by customers, I mean the ones who made accounts or created FDs there) and I believe that whenever, even one bank takes interest and manages to invest in crypto, I don't see crypto's marketcap under $10 trillion because banking sector is on big sector which is untouched here yet and if it gets involved in crypto ever, I don't think that crypto will need any more recognition.

[AndySt]

The government officials are not that more concern with bitcoin transactions, it's irreversible and it's hard to track but, what they are concerned about is the tweets that's generating a huge noise in the internet world made by Elon. It's very manipulative and I don't know if there are other financial institutions that have already called the attention of the body of government that's assigned for it. What are those "new instruments" that you have? can you cite example?

Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies have again become a fashionable topic on the news agenda, but still it will not be able to continue indefinitely and then there will be a decline in interest again. Elon Musk is very fond of flirting with fire, not only in the case of flamethrowers, and I'm afraid that he again has problems with regulators, similar to those that concerned Tesla shares. As for the new instruments, I did not mean absolutely new ones, unique to bitcoin, but quantitatively more instruments, similar to ETFs, futures, etc.

[FanEagle]

Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies have again become a fashionable topic on the news agenda, but still it will not be able to continue indefinitely and then there will be a decline in interest again. Elon Musk is very fond of flirting with fire, not only in the case of flamethrowers, and I'm afraid that he again has problems with regulators, similar to those that concerned Tesla shares. As for the new instruments, I did not mean absolutely new ones, unique to bitcoin, but quantitatively more instruments, similar to ETFs, futures, etc.

I do believe that bitcoin becomes a great topic to discuss every few years but I also believe that people who got in during these bull runs are a great thing for us since not all of them leaves neither, some of them stays, which means we continue our path with more and more people and that is why the next bull run takes us to even higher places. Forever 100 people that come here, at least 5 or 10 stays even after a huge bear crash that takes us 80%+ lower in price, they do not leave because they have seen what bitcoin can do and they are acting according to that.

This is why I think it is quite important that we just focus on what we could handle, look at 2019 and you will see that there were more transactions per day in spring 2019 than 2017 peak times, even though price didn't move beyond, which shows that we need to figure out a way to make the transactions cheaper again, this is not enough, if we want future success we need to first handle that.

[passwordnow]

The government officials are not that more concern with bitcoin transactions, it's irreversible and it's hard to track but, what they are concerned about is the tweets that's generating a huge noise in the internet world made by Elon. It's very manipulative and I don't know if there are other financial institutions that have already called the attention of the body of government that's assigned for it. What are those "new instruments" that you have? can you cite example?

Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies have again become a fashionable topic on the news agenda, but still it will not be able to continue indefinitely and then there will be a decline in interest again. Elon Musk is very fond of flirting with fire, not only in the case of flamethrowers, and I'm afraid that he again has problems with regulators, similar to those that concerned Tesla shares. As for the new instruments, I did not mean absolutely new ones, unique to bitcoin, but quantitatively more instruments, similar to ETFs, futures, etc.

As long as there are influencers that have been showing their interest on it to the public, the interest will remain as it is. Thanks, I know understand what does it really means.

I do believe that bitcoin becomes a great topic to discuss every few years but I also believe that people who got in during these bull runs are a great thing for us since not all of them leaves neither, some of them stays, which means we continue our path with more and more people and that is why the next bull run takes us to even higher places.

Most likely, we stay. But for those short term folks, they tend to sell most that they've got and happily taking their profits before it will be taken by the market again.

[SmokerFace]

Bitcoin's provide high benefits and why would financial not invest their money on it ?. I personally imagine that they're less educated in term of putting resources into bitcoin or a considerable lot of them are not very much aware of the bitcoins or existing of digital currencies. If they came to realize how bitcoin's help to twofold our speculation they'll surly step-in and contribute their huge bit of cash. It's better to persuade with those individuals who don't know about bitcoins

[SmokerFace]

Trading in bitcoins is complicated and you have to spend a lot of time and mind with 100% consecrate. I personally think that financiers are not sufficiently free to glance in bitcoins and put away their cash on it. Bitcoins help just for the individuals who need to twofold their cash Why would they put their asset when they're already making benefit ?. Same with the Millionaire they'll never attempt to twofold their cash.

[Webetcoins]

Considering the high risk associated with investing in crypto, I believe that'll what will stop financiers to invest into crypto because they offer much less returns on investments of their customers (by customers, I mean the ones who made accounts or created FDs there) and I believe that whenever, even one bank takes interest and manages to invest in crypto, I don't see crypto's marketcap under $10 trillion because banking sector is on big sector which is untouched here yet and if it gets involved in crypto ever, I don't think that crypto will need any more recognition.

It all depends on the nature of the investors and we also need to keep in mind that there was never before an asset like Bitcoins and to understand and invest in an asset which is first of its kind in the market, it takes time and efforts. Now with years passing by more and more investors are gaining faith in Bitcoin and as a result market is expanding.

Adoption of Bitcoins is still the most important factor when evaluating the value of it and more than big investors we need more small scale investors because it brings stability into the market, while big investors but lesser in number cause the market to swing when they decide to sell and buy.

[paxmao]

At the end of the day, the large investment firms actually manage others money, and if there is enough interest from their clients into having some bitcoin or other crypto in their portfolios, they will eventually have to give in or see part of their assets under management leave to those alternative managers that accept the new economy.

[Smartprofit]

Recently read a post/opinion of one analyst, which seams pretty interesting. Curious about what the Community here thinks about that.

BELOW IS THE TRANSLATED POST

Why financiers would never invest in bitcoin or in any other asset at all, including much less risky assets.

For that you have to understand that financiers are in the business of financing and investors are in the business of investing.

- The bank's instrument is a spread between how much money they acquired and for how much and for how long they sold that money to others.
- The tool of the investor is a profitable asset.

...................................

Everyone is screaming that institutional players came into the Bitcoin now. Who came are the few players who could push a new asset to the investors, even though to the low quality ones, while they themselves will be sitting on commissions and transactional revenues. You must agree there's a big difference between the two businesses. Institutional investors are not gods pooping butterflies and rainbow-coloured unicorns. Many of them sit on unprofitable assets for many many years. Just look at the return statistics of most hedge funds. Especially it's interesting to look not at annualised returns, but at specific years (YoY). They also got enough idiots there too, who are driven by the banal greed in addition to diversification. Here you can pump a flat price out of nowhere, and get the absolute income higher. And you don't have to invest anything in the asset itself, - it's too risky! And the risk, as we remember, is what financiers pass on to others. That's their business. If it looks like a duck, walks and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.

END OF THE POST

Yes this is correct.  

I really like the movie "The Wolf of Wall Street" (starring Leonardo DiCaprio).  At the beginning of the film, Leonardo's character talks to an experienced broker.  The broker tells him, "Our clients ride financial carousels and we bring home commission (clean money)!"  

Investing is a zero-sum game.  The work of financiers is business.  

Financiers are intermediaries.  Financiers' income is an intermediary (agency) fee.  Many people confuse investors and financiers.

This is a big mistake.

[blue_nexus15]

Why financiers would never invest in bitcoin or in any other asset at all, including much less risky assets.

For that you have to understand that financiers are in the business of financing and investors are in the business of investing.

- The bank's instrument is a spread between how much money they acquired and for how much and for how long they sold that money to others.
- The tool of the investor is a profitable asset.

For me this doesn't make sense.  Bitcoin has all sorts of uses for a multitude of different purposes.  We are talking a lot about the speculative aspect, so is bitcoin the tool?  Sure.  There's no difference or it's just the flip side of the truth.  A good profitable tool, since they can't get over their own shadow, they're not confident enough )

[Dragonfund]

At the end of the day, the large investment firms actually manage others money, and if there is enough interest from their clients into having some bitcoin or other crypto in their portfolios, they will eventually have to give in or see part of their assets under management leave to those alternative managers that accept the new economy.

You see, most of this financial institutions like the insurance company will deny that the Insurers money are sometimes giving out at informed of lending with sole aim of making some interest but I bet there will always be an allocated amount invested in cryptocurrency, especially now that there is high Fomo in the space, they would certainly don't want to miss out.
The above insurance is just an example, there are more of the finance that are heavily into cryptocurrency but for the fear of been sanctions or fine, they will never disclose but will continue to invest in underground. 

[RealMalatesta]

Trading in bitcoins is complicated and you have to spend a lot of time and mind with 100% consecrate. I personally think that financiers are not sufficiently free to glance in bitcoins and put away their cash on it. Bitcoins help just for the individuals who need to twofold their cash Why would they put their asset when they're already making benefit ?. Same with the Millionaire they'll never attempt to twofold their cash.

They do put their money in bitcoin, sure it takes a lot of concentration but the reality is that these people are doing it as a job, so it would be simple for them to focus on crypto all day everyday for their work, plus they are not really worried about daily changes neither, they put in billions of dollars in it and just let it be, sure it could drop 20% over night but they are rich enough to wait for it to go back up and they know that if they can wait, they could see the profits later on, compared to regular people who would be scared to lose all their savings and they end up selling when it goes down and lose money.

It is just a game of who can wait longer and people who can "spare" billions of dollars will be capable of waiting longer than people who put in a few thousand dollars of their savings, so I think it is simpler for financiers to invest into bitcoin.