I agree that one is well-advised to listen to what people like Munger and Buffett have to say about all kinds of financial topics, crypto included.
The problem I have with their statements is that it is obviously not unbiased and even lowbrow at times, like calling Bitcoin rat poison and what not. That has nothing to do with dialectic.
It would be more interesting to see the two guys having to start from scratch today and then listen to what they have to say. They knew that the whole digital, decentralized revolution in the financial sector would draw attention away from their portfolio.
One good example is Bill Gates' stance back in the days:
""Bitcoin is exciting because it shows how cheap it can be," he told Erik Schatzker during a Bloomberg TV's Smart Street show interview yesterday. "Bitcoin is better than currency in that you don't have to be physically in the same place and, of course, for large transactions, currency can get pretty inconvenient."
And then he did a perfect 180:
“I like investing in things that have valuable output. The value of companies is based on how they make great products. The value of crypto is just what some other person decides someone else will pay for it so not adding to society like other investments.”
Everyone noticed that something must have happened in the background with Munger and Buffett because that 180 was quite weird to be honest, especially from a tech geek like Gates. That is why I find it difficult to take Munger and Buffett and Gates seriously when they talk about cryptocurrencies. I would actually be genuinely interested in their real opinion and I am sure that might really differ from what they publicly claim to be their position.
It often seems like they are solely arguing from the speculative standpoint and how much yield one can expect. But the entire industry has been constantly growing in terms of infrastructure and number of users. At the same time more educational material is becoming available and people can make more educated decisions today than they were able to make back in 2012/13/14... A constantly growing number of users along with a constantly growing amount of educational material would lead me to the guess that this is indicative of a decreasing number of new users who jump in just because of FOMO and without informing themselves whatsoever at least to a certain degree. Of course there are phases of hype and excitement that do attract more new users just because of getting aware of it, but that is no different with the stock market. And there are also times of a little bit of stagnation, as is the case right now. But that is again no different from the stock market.
After all I think that at least Bill Gates is not being honest anymore when it comes to Bitcoin. Munger and Buffett, I am not entirely sure.
If the house has a 100% edge and he refers to the banks as being the house, then why wouldn't he just become part of the house and not talk bad about crypto?
A 100% edge should be quite tempting for ultra large scale investors.
