Bitcoin changed people (enemy to supporter). Lary Fink (BlackRock CEO) 2017 2024

[Fundamentals Of]

be careful of the fools game of sudden admiration...

I did not admire Larry Fink because he changed his mind.

This topic, is to bring a point of thinking like if in future, at a day we see people like Jamie Dimon, Peter Schiff changed their words, it will be a day of Bitcoin massive adoption. No admiration on those people at any level.

Even their way of adoption is questionable. They are now supporters of Bitcoin but in a unique way.

they are still not supporters of bitcoin

I call them supporters in a sense because rather than criticizing Bitcoin, attempting to nip its development or progress, lobbying for its blacklisting or for very strict regulations, etc, they instead promoted it and created financial products out of it. Rather than calling it a currency of or for hackers, criminals, launderers, drug lords, etc, they even provided a different access for some people to gain exposure to it. It was in this sense that I call them supporters. But of course they're indeed not supporters of what Bitcoin is fundamentally meant for.

[1714804305]

1714804305

[1714804305]

1714804305

[1714804305]

1714804305

[1714804305]

1714804305

[1714804305]

1714804305

[franky1]

when i see people shout "deposit/lock into LN, a sub-product bridge to bitcoin"
when i see people shout "deposit/lock into ETF, a trade-fi exposure product to bitcoin"

it must be corrected that LN and ETF are not bitcoin because bitcoin never leaves the bitcoin network and these other platforms are transacting in a totally different unit pegged to bitcoin. much the same as WBTC rBTC [insert other wrapped/pegged tokens] which are not bitcoin

the only smallest positive claim is that ETF sponsors have agreements that a custodian will lock up a portion of bitcoin circulation so they can trade their other platform units(shares). and have been willing to spend millions on legal stuff, applications to be able to do it. so it gives a perception that the trade-fi have long term plans for bitcoin custody. thus legitimises bitcoin as something that will stay around for awhile

[Blitzboy]

It shows how technology and beliefs change. New and misunderstood, Bitcoin was viewed with mistrust in 2017. Perception changes drastically in 2024. This shift isnt just about Bitcoin; it shows our growing familiarity with digital assets.

I understand Jamie Dimon's caution. We naturally fight what we once opposed; it requires a change in thought and identity. Changing one's public stance, especially for a figure as prominent as Dimon, is no small feat. Not only admitting a change of heart, but managing intricate emotional and professional dynamics.

Considering Peter Schiff, it's fascinating but understandable. His doubt is profound, and it doesnt change suddenly. Keeping an open mind is crucial. The financial world changes, therefore adaptability is vital. Given time and distance, views, like markets, can change unexpectedly.

[Natsuu]

Imagine you've been saying something's bad for a long time, like Dimon and Schiff with Bitcoin. If they suddenly change their tune, it's like admitting they were wrong all along. People don't always like doing that, especially in the public eye. It's a bit of a pride thing, you know? So, it might take them a while to come around, if they ever do.

[kryptqnick]

While I don't trust those very rich profit-oriented guys, it is inspiring to see people change their mind, especially when they are pretty old and have done well with their former priorities and beliefs. The CEO of BlackRock made a good financial decision that will bring profit to the company. It's probably based on the interests of their customers and on Bitcoin's really great performance in the long run.
Clearly, BlackRock isn't the only one, as several funds got their ETFs granted. But some people are just unwilling to change with the times, especially if they view Bitcoin as a threat to their businesses.

[DeathAngel]

People are always hostile towards new technology & new innovation. It has been this way since time began. All the way back to the first cars, the telephone, television, the internet. People in power especially are always reluctant to be early adopters. They wait until something is somewhat proven before they give it their backing. Blackrock being pro Bitcoin is huge & we will see adoption accelerate now. Exciting years ahead for those of us who were brave to be pioneers.

[retreat]

It's all just a matter of interests and money. He may see that Bitcoin is a digital asset that, although much criticized, is still growing and its adoption is increasing even now, so instead of rejecting it, why not use it as an opportunity to bring in more money?
You know that there is a saying that is commonly used by opportunists "If you can't beat them, join them" that is being used by BlackRock right now. In fact BlackRock doesn't need to buy Bitcoin to be able to profit from the words "Bitcoin", they only need to issue 21 million shares of Bitcoin ETF and claim that it is equivalent to an investment in Bitcoin, they can make millions of dollars in profit from that alone. That's pretty crazy isn't it?

[koang]

Imagine you've been saying something's bad for a long time, like Dimon and Schiff with Bitcoin. If they suddenly change their tune, it's like admitting they were wrong all along. People don't always like doing that, especially in the public eye. It's a bit of a pride thing, you know? So, it might take them a while to come around, if they ever do.

This is not a matter of right or wrong, but this is a classic FUD attack.
Jamie Dimon doesn't want to see any of us succeed.
He wants to keep his little monopoly and the price go down so he can load his bags.
But I like how he always mentions anti-money laundering as a use case for Bitcoin. That high-powered CEOs don't know the value of Bitcoin. lol
For a moment, this made me feel better 

[Myleschetty]

The BlackRock CEO was not the only one who once said negative things about Bitcoin due to a lack of proper understanding of its genuine purpose. I have once said negative things about Bitcoin either when I don't have an understanding about it. What is important is taking the words back publicly which is what Larry Fink did.

With that being said, we only talk about the Bitcoin spot ETF but don't know the fact that the Winklevoss brothers were the first to file for the spot ETF in 2013.

[Lucius]

~snip~

Do you really think that Lary thinks positively about Bitcoin today because he learned something over the past years, or did Lary, like many others, just "change his mind" because he saw an opportunity for profit? There is no courage in what that you mention, it is about people who have extremely thick skin and accordingly can adapt to any moment in a way to say what suits them at that moment.

Jamie Dimon is the same man as Lary, he has changed his opinions about Bitcoin so many times that it is hard to keep track. If it will make you so happy, here is one of his statements from the past.

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon said Tuesday he “regrets” disparaging bitcoin as a fraud used by drug dealers, murderers, and North Korea.
Dimon used a Fox Business interview to row back his September comments that sparked widespread anger within the cryptocurrency community. “I regret making them,” he said, adding that he’s still “not interested that much” in bitcoin.

[Hadari334]

Jamie Dimon is the same man as Lary, he has changed his opinions about Bitcoin so many times that it is hard to keep track. If it will make you so happy, here is one of his statements from the past.

It's crazy how inconsistent he is. I can't wait for him to backtrack on the 'pet rock' comment he made at Davos in a few months, but I'm enjoying how mad he is that they keep asking him about Bitcoin.

[Pmalek]

Their original statements and opinions on Bitcoin haven't changed. They have just learned how to go with the flow and not piss in the wind. What they are doing now is profiting from a brand-new way of making money of investors, and not by trying to increase adoption of BTC. They couldn't care if BTC adoption skyrocketed or plummeted to the ground if it made them richer. That's why I wouldn't pay too much attention on their statements. 

[moneystery]

not only larry fink, michael saylor who is the ceo of microstrategy who currently holds hundreds of thousands of bitcoins used to reject bitcoin and say that bitcoin is not trustworthy, but now you can see how they are investing heavily in it.

so this is not about how they reject bitcoin, but how they as business people want to profit from bitcoin. they are just capitalists who understand that with bitcoin they can get bigger profits and increase their company's assets, and that's all.

and because of that i was never interested in the bitcoin etf product they offered. even though some people say that it can improve bitcoin's image in wider society, these capitalists have never once offered real bitcoin to their customers. instead what they offer is a bitcoin etf which they can manipulate at any time and they claim that it is much safer than having to invest in bitcoin.

[Lucius]

It's crazy how inconsistent he is. I can't wait for him to backtrack on the 'pet rock' comment he made at Davos in a few months, but I'm enjoying how mad he is that they keep asking him about Bitcoin.

The media is always looking for a story, and they know that there are people who will always say something bad about Bitcoin. It's a bit funny and even tragicomic that they ask the same questions to people like Dimon, Buffett or Peter Schiff, given that we all know what they think about Bitcoin. However, it is even more strange to me that after all that has been said, a huge percentage of people still have a huge fascination with their opinions, as if the future of Bitcoin depends on what they say.

not only larry fink, michael saylor who is the ceo of microstrategy who currently holds hundreds of thousands of bitcoins used to reject bitcoin and say that bitcoin is not trustworthy, but now you can see how they are investing heavily in it.
~snip~

There is that famous tweet from 2013 where Saylor literally says that the days of Bitcoin are numbered, but it seems to me that the reason for such a statement was the fact that he lost significant funds when Mt.Gox was hacked. We can say that he has completely "converted", but that does not mean that in 10 years he will not change his mind again.

[South Park]

Their original statements and opinions on Bitcoin haven't changed. They have just learned how to go with the flow and not piss in the wind. What they are doing now is profiting from a brand-new way of making money of investors, and not by trying to increase adoption of BTC. They couldn't care if BTC adoption skyrocketed or plummeted to the ground if it made them richer. That's why I wouldn't pay too much attention on their statements. 

That is the correct way to view the change on some of their stances, they only care about making money and they will use any tool they have at their disposal to achieve that goal of theirs, back then when they made those statements, bitcoin was too small to accommodate them and they thought this will always remain the case, now that things have changed they have no problems in trying to use bitcoin for their benefit, but their overall opinion about this market should have not changed at all.

[thecodebear]

Basically Fink realized the bitcoin market is now big enough for a big player like Blackrock to make a decent amount of money off ETF fees. Very much doubt he is any kind of bitcoiner. He's the CEO of a financial firm, he wants to make money and grow the business, end of story. Finance guys want to make money. They probably don't generally care what the investment is, the care about the money it makes them.

If he was actually a supporter he would perhaps be mentioning buying a bunch of bitcoin for himself. I am sure he owns zero sats.

[pinggoki]

That's how the business world works, you go where the wind takes you or where you think it's favorable to you and your interests, Larry Fink is a businessman at heart and it's no surprise that he's going to be a turncoat when it comes to bitcoin because bitcoin's proven already that there's a new age for the financial institutions and what better way to survive than to adapt to the changes, that's the only thing that will happen here, at the end of the day, if favoring bitcoin generates him more profit then that's where he would go, I would do the same thing in a heartbeat if I was him too. Don't believe anything that he says though as if they're the gospel or the word of the Lord, Larry being a turncoat means that he's going to be changing his stance quickly as soon as something negative happens in the bitcoin market.

[Pmalek]

If he was actually a supporter he would perhaps be mentioning buying a bunch of bitcoin for himself. I am sure he owns zero sats.

If he was a supporter and bitcoiner, he would guide people to buying bitcoin without a trusted middleman who erns commission fees every time someone makes a deal. Nevertheless, These businessmen might be owning some bitcoin and crypto in general on the side, no matter what they say. The volatility and regular price movements allow them to enter and exit the market frequently and perhaps even anonymously.   

[tabas]

It seems to take more time for Jamie Dimon to do so because he more regularly and aggressively talked about Bitcoin in the past. It's hard for him to change his statement publicly as it is like his public admit on his wrong thinking.

IIRC, he has said something good about Bitcoin and that also caused him to do so because his company launched their own coin. I remember his story several years ago when he talked nonsense about Bitcoin but that can be the sign that he's into it. He doesn't have to change because I think he's already in and just trying to play the emotions of the people that follows him.

Same for Peter Schiff.

His kid is into Bitcoin and I think who's harder to change the heart of is Warren Buffett. He's the typical and traditional investor that don't understand Bitcoin yet or he does but just don't like the attributes of it as an asset.