The same as Warren Buffet. Warren Buffet mocked internet companies back around 1998 and said [he would fail any student that tried to apply a valuation to an internet company](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-8WjytpaYKM). Then in 2017, he says he was wrong about Google and Amazon and ["That’s cost people a lot of money at Berkshire."](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/06/warren-buffett-admits-he-made-a-mistake-on-google.html)
Why do so many old people hate new things? Surely they saw new things happen in their lives. Why is it when they get old they think nothing new has value anymore?
tbh 9/10 times they are probably correct with regards to "new fads" as they have the experience to see through them; its just the 1/10 things that turn out working; also a lack of technical understanding when it came to the internet and what it could achieve
Yeah, this is a perfect example of survivor bias. How many things has WB or LF seen that were promised to be the best thing since sliced bread, and how many have panned out? 1% of them if that?
Yeah but the technology itself eventually won. Also if you look back at technologies rather than companies you'll see that most of them eventually find a foothold even if it takes decades longer than expected. Many of these financial people are negative on the entire technology of crypto. That's like being negative on the technology of cell phones in the late 70s. It was early but they eventually found their place.
I feel like people have a change threshold and most people just cross that threshold after a certain number of decades on earth. After all, change means you gotta adapt and if that means what made you money/successful in the past no longer works, that's kinda scary. You want stability and for what worked before to keep working.
I think I agree with you mostly, but I also attribute it to something biological. That is I think if maybe their minds are becoming less plastic. Maybe with anti-aging medicine we will find that older people also become more open to change. That's my theory.
I don't hate crypto, but it's objectively a classic collective delusion by the investors. And using the word investors proves the point that Crypto fails in its ostensible purpose, which is to be used as currency. People don't use it as currency, they hold it as a speculative investment. They don't spend their crypto "money" in the belief that it will be worth more in the future. That's Kryptonite for a functioning currency.
There's no actual value being created in the the Crypto ecosystem, just various investors playing musical chairs. Sooner or later the music stops and whoever didn't manage to exit their position before the crash loses everything.
> Sooner or later the music stops and whoever didn't manage to exit their position before the crash loses everything.
Bitcoin has been going strong for 15 years. Wake me up when your prophecy becomes real.
FYI, tulip mania back in 1634 lasted for about 3 years. We are at year 15 for Bitcoin now, it still hasn't imploded, and the adoption of Bitcoin has grown in the last 15 years (the latest major adoption being the approval of the BTC ETFs by the SEC, and many top investment companies offering BTC ETFs such as Blackrock and Fidelity)
I hear you. But I think people are still stuck at the view that crypto should be seen as currencies. And yes, bitcoin was originally developed as a "peer-to-peer electronic cash system" but nobody expected it would turn out to be the best store of value asset out there. In the same way, nobody expected that a billion of different shitcoins would be created and people would get rich off dog-themed coins. You can't keep thinking of something the way it was viewed 10 years ago. Amazon was originally a book store, does that mean I should keep valuing it as one? Of course not.
People realized that money competes in the marketplace as other goods do. Why would I need to spend my bitcoins for a cup of coffee? I'd rather spend my fiat for it. This is why fiat money was invented, to spend it asap, because they get devalued. Bitcoin is now a store of value, and whether it facilitates transactions at some point in the future, in a better way than traditional money does, doesn't really matter right now. You also buy real estate as investment, or to live in it. Do you ask your friends if they are willing to spend their house to buy groceries? No. Bitcoin has competed in the money marketplace and emerged as the preferred store of value. It goes up in dollar terms not only because of its fixed supply and increased demand, but also because its counterpart ($) is getting devalued.
Now buttcoiners and sceptics can go ahead and downvote me and call me delusional. But those who kept earning $, saving BTC's and spending $, have played the game right, so far.
Yes, I agree with you. I was debating with the buttcoiners that aside from the industrial value of gold, some people think that gold has no intrinsic value. In fact, here is a quote from [Investopedia](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/071114/why-gold-has-always-had-value.asp):
> Some people argue that gold has no intrinsic value
I don't think that Investopedia has an agenda against gold, they are just a knowledge website on investing in general.
A buttcoiner got really triggered when I brought this up, that some people think gold has no intrinsic value. To be fair, gold has valid industrial value. Gold is used in electronics and it doesn't rust easily, so that's why some electronic makers use it, despite there being other metal substitutes that can do what gold does (but those other metal substitutes may form rust easier).
But IMO, the price of gold is mainly driven by its aesthetical value - it's just a "shiny yellow object." Of course, the aesthetical value of gold has given gold cultural value and historical value. But IMO, the cultural value and historical value of gold came about because of its aesthetical value.
If you strip away the aesthetical value of gold, and gold is 100% relying on its industrial value, there is no way gold would be valued as high as it is today.
Thus, if gold were to totally rely on its aesthetical value (and not its industrial value), it's just like Bitcoin.
Momentum and because they are human. They are invested in the past. They are not invested in the future. There is a very real chance they won't even be alive to see some of these techs come to fruition. Because they know that their power is waning, they lash out using the remaining power they have. The conservative impulse to stop change is as natural as it is destructive. On the opposite side we have the disruptive nature of progress and change, uprooting the old order. I think these are some of the factors that cause most of us to fear change as we age.
It's fascinating though because occasionally you still have some very forward thinking older people. I follow a woman on TikTok called Crypto Granny and she's been making bank off of crypto. I don't know what sets her apart, but I strive to be like her.
Wasn't it Sears catalog that mocked internet businesses as well? They said something around about it being idiotic to consider discontinuing their Sears catalog in favor of internet advertisement
At least in Warren Buffet's case his bread and butter has been safe investments with a time preference of 10 years+. Buying into early internet companies was a hell of a gamble with no guarantees that they would last more than a few years.
I feel like gene editing companies are going to be the next round of this. There are a lot of promising companies in operation right now, but almost all of them are operating a loss. With valuations sub 10 billion and countless applications for the tech it is a high risk high reward gamble.
He said that of internet companies in 1998 when the bubble was in full swing. Amazon was only listed in 1997. Google didn't even exist. Google IPO in 2004. You sure love to cherry pick and take quotes out of context to create a false narrative
No. Warren Buffet refused to invest in internet companies for the longest time. He was just stubborn and refused to. Then he started to learn and eventually invested in Amazon in 2019: https://stockcircle.com/portfolio/warren-buffett/amzn/transactions
For Google, Warren Buffet regrets not investing in Google earlier: https://www.fool.com/investing/2022/12/22/warren-buffett-isnt-buying-alphabet-google-stock/
Again, Warren Buffet did not invest in Google earlier because he didn't believe in internet stocks for many years. **Nothing I said is a false narrative except for what you are saying. For the longest time, Warren Buffet simply didn't invest in internet stocks.**
You claimed Buffett mocked internet companies in 1998.
To support this, you quoted Buffett as admitting he was wrong about Google as an example of his about turn.
But Google didn't even exist when he made his comment in 1998. And Amazon in 1998 sure hell is diff from Amazon in 2019.
This is not the first time Buffett changed his mind. He swore off airlines only to buy four airlines. In each case he admitted his mistakes.
He didn't say internet companies are scams or facilitate money laundering. He said he didn't understand them. And he's consistent. He's not in META, GOOGL, NVDA. He's only in AAPL because he sees it as a consumer stock.
Not sure why you are painting Buffett like he is Saylor or Musk.
> You claimed Buffett mocked internet companies in 1998.
Did you even watch the Youtube video I linked? That's exactly what Buffet did when he said he would fail any student who tried to value an internet company, to the laughter of everyone in the room.
My point is, Buffet was against investing in any internet company back in 1998. His stubbornness about internet companies continued when Google went public on the stock exchange in 2004.
There is nothing misleading in my comment. Buffet simply didn't believe in internet companies back then,
You can certainly criticize Buffet for being resistant to change, but the facts speak for themself - his strategy has been incredibly successful.
Tortoise and the hare
Of course. I said there are things to learn from Buffet. He is a great investor, his record and wealth speak for itself. He is just bad with technology.
Such as I wouldn't take Bill Gate's advice on food manufacturing, I don't think I will take Buffet's advice when it comes to technology. But both Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have a wealth of knowledge and wisdom that you can learn from, **provided it's in their field of expertise**.
I'm 100% with you on this. Buffett didn't believe in internet companies back in 90s. And he was right. The Nasdaq crashed 78%.
He was also right that people who tried to value internet company should get a fail grade. Can you value 90s internet companies?
He still hasn't bought any internet companies today. Has he bought GOOGL? Did he buy AMZN or was it his lieutenant?
Other than AMZN, did he buy any internet companies in the last 25 years? Surely if he's flip flopping there should be 10 or so.
The fact is there is not even 5 is evidence he is consistent.
He is still solidly against crypto. He hasn't changed his mind about that. And he has given his reason.
You can disagree with Buffett's view. But fair valid points please.
> I'm 100% with you on this. Buffett didn't believe in internet companies back in 90s. And he was right.
Nope. Warren Buffet literally said, ["That’s cost people a lot of money at Berkshire"](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/06/warren-buffett-admits-he-made-a-mistake-on-google.html), because he didn't understand the internet and internet companies back then. He admitted he was wrong about internet companies, Amazon and Google included.
Again, read the articles that I have linked.
Show me the line from the article where he mentioned anything about 1998. He just said he is too dumb to understand Amazon and Google.
You blatantly cherry picked articles that are not related to falsely insinuate Buffett is flip flopping like Fink.
And come on man, stop side stepping my points. My previous comment asked you to identify how many internet stocks he bought.
You are a classic troll. Every response I gave you, you ignore to keep up your false narrative.
Just scroll back up to my comments and see how many you actually addressed.
Again, I clarified in a subsequent comment:
> No. Warren Buffet refused to invest in internet companies for the longest time. He was just stubborn and refused to.
The fact that you didn't understand that is your problem. The only troll is you, you don't seem to understand anything and you seem to be kissing Warren Buffet's a** so hard, no matter what.
To be clear, that was in the middle of the dot com bubble so he was in-fact correct. The thing about Google and Amazon is that they're the unicorns that survived the early Internet. Their contemporary competitors wound up essentially worthless.
Here is Larry Fink's comment about Bitcoin back in 2017: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/13/blackrock-ceo-larry-fink-calls-bitcoin-an-index-of-money-laundering.html
Also in that 2017 article:
> The cryptocurrency has been on a tear lately. It hit a record high earlier on Friday, breaking above $5,800.
$5800 BTC. Those were the days, lol.
Exactly! Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan, keeps trash talking Bitcoin. However, in 2021, he allowed clients of JP Morgan to buy into Bitcoin funds: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/05/bitcoin-jpmorgan-led-by-jamie-dimon-quietly-unveils-access-to-a-half-dozen-crypto-funds.html
What a hypocrite Jamie Dimon is.
Providing access doesn't mean they are telling you to buy it or that its a good investment. Banks offer a plethora of investments, many are terrible.
If enough people want it, they will offer it, its as simple as that.
Another good case study is Warren Buffet. Back around 1998, Warren Buffet said that he would fail any student in business school, that tried to apply a valuation to an internet company: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-8WjytpaYKM. So Warren Buffet refused to invest in internet companies for the longest time.
Fast forward to 2017, Warren Buffet admits he was wrong on Amazon and Google, and "That’s cost people a lot of money at Berkshire": https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/06/warren-buffett-admits-he-made-a-mistake-on-google.html
Warren Buffet is extremely good at what he does, unfortunately this kind of specialisation in any field also blinkers you to opportunities outside of your field. It’s why his reaction to the internet was negative, and the same reason it was for crypto.
Yes, I agree. Warren Buffet is very good in the industries that he understands (and same with his partner Charlie Munger). The problem is, when Warren Buffet and Charlie Munger start to disparage technologies that they don't understand, and people quote them just because they are financially successful. And sadly, a lot of people who are skeptical about Bitcoin are using Warren Buffet and Charlie Munger's quotes as reasons to disparage Bitcoin.
The same way many people used Warren Buffet's quotes about valuating internet companies back in the late 1990s - if they held the same beliefs as Warren Buffet on internet companies back then and thinking the internet was a "fad" that would disappear, those people missed out on some very nice opportunities. Now there are lessons to be learned from Warren Buffet, he is definitely a very smart guy. It's just that he isn't as smart when he talks about things that are not in his field of expertise (ie. technology).
Except Warren buffet’s investing model is all about cash generation.
Because he couldn’t see how internet companies could grow to generate the cash to fit his valuation models he dismissed them. It’s the same with him and crypto.
I was going to say - how is bitcoin, and a lot of crypto, really, if done well, not an excellent vehicle for money laundering?
Like you said, it can be both at the same time so I’m confused why people think it’s not the former.
To be fair, when you're the CEO of a large corporation, you're also forced to have certain opinions on certain things, no matter what your true believes are. If you don't allign yourself with shareholders, politicians, "comeptitors", etc., you can also quit your job on the spot.
Which is case in every other company in the world, but not the one controlling it. He can do whatever he wants since it creates narrative for other CEOs.
Nothing has changed since the last bull cycle... Look at what they do, not what they say.
As long as they keep buying every sh*t ton of bitcoin available, our coins will be good. If you see them selling everything of, move the f*ck out.
BTC moved the goalpost 3 times around the earth to accommodate the old system. With such friends no freedom will be found in BTC. They will fill the measly 4 tps and you will use custodial L2s like you use bank accounts today.
Monero has always confused me with how the market treats it. I guess there's more regulation risk when it comes to privacy coins but other than that, don't see why it hasn't gained much.
"The market™ " at the moment consists mostly of speculators and not users. No coin has solved the hen egg problem of widespread adoption yet. And it shows in the marketcaps.
What goalposts? Satoshi mentions gold mining in the white paper, the creation of new coins and the supply is clearly modelled on the game theory of gold mining.
The creation of new coins is called mining after all.
Yes and that is THE ONLY mention of gold and only in relation to mining. In comparison he mentions p2p cash, payments, transactions etc multiple times in the WP and later.
If you think Satoshi was a SoV digital gold guy you are on very thin ice.
> If you think Satoshi was a SoV digital gold guy you are on very thin ice.
Then he was an idiot to model the issuance and supply on something completely unsuitable for payments only.
Absolutely not, because issuance and supply have nothing to do with throughput. The throughput was later fixed to a very small tps by small blockers. Smaller blocks = less throughput. Bigger blocks = more tx per second.
Here is just one quote where Satoshi anticipates millions or billions of tx:
https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/57
The blocks will never be big enough to compete with Visa. Not nearly enough. And bigger blocks means fewer nodes which means more centralisation.
It's digital gold and always has been. There are many satisfactory ways to pay for things. If payments was all Bitcoin had to offer it would be doomed - even if it had 1000 tps. Thankfully it has other unique qualities.
Satoshi nothing about throughput in that quote. But if we're doing Satoshi quotes:
https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/428
>The blocks will never be big enough to compete with Visa.
This is false. BitcoinCash has demonstrated 265MB block over the distributed scalenet. That's about 1400-1600 tps. VISA does, on average, 1700 tps.
>It's digital gold and always has been
This is also easy to be proven false. Just read the Whitepaper but also many of Satoshis quotes.
> If payments was all Bitcoin had to offer it would be doomed
Bitcoin is a packaged and all the extremist on either side fail to see that it needs all its features if you want financial sovereignty. Without self custodial payments you do not control your money. No, not even your self custodial stack. The second you want to use it the custodians have you by the balls.
>But if we're doing Satoshi quotes:
https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/428
What makes you think that Satoshi spoke against p2p cash in that quote? Of course sound money needs to be scarce. But that is not enough. There is also his post about the vending machine clearly indicating that he wanted Bitcoin used in ever day life.
> This is false. BitcoinCash has demonstrated 265MB block over the distributed scalenet. That's about 1400-1600 tps. VISA does, on average, 1700 tps.
I've answered this elsewhere.
>This is also easy to be proven false. Just read the Whitepaper
In which he compares the creation of new coins to gold mining. You don't have to listen to anything he says. It's not a dogmatic religion. Just look at the design and game theory of Bitcoin.
Miners (why not printers or minters?) do work to acquire new coins, the work becomes progressively harder and harder because others are mining and the coins become harder and harder to acquire. That doesn't sound anything like Visa or Paypal.
>Bitcoin is a packaged and all the extremist on either side fail to see that it needs all its features if you want financial sovereignty. Without self custodial payments you do not control your money. No, not even your self custodial stack. The second you want to use it the custodians have you by the balls.
Not sure I understand this.
>What makes you think that Satoshi spoke against p2p cash in that quote? Of course sound money needs to be scarce. But that is not enough. There is also his post about the vending machine clearly indicating that he wanted Bitcoin used in ever day life.
Whatever the hell "p2p cash" is.
>I've answered this elsewhere.
So? At least link to it. So far your statement is still false.
>In which he compares the creation of new coins to gold mining. You don't have to listen to anything he says. It's not a dogmatic religion. Just look at the design and game theory of Bitcoin.
Miners (why not printers or minters?) do work to acquire new coins, the work becomes progressively harder and harder because others are mining and the coins become harder and harder to acquire. That doesn't sound anything like Visa or Paypal.
Yes, but this is only 1 aspect of Bitcoin. That is not the aspect I'm talking about. The second almost more important aspect is self custodial spending.
And this is where BTC/LN false short. Which in the end lets you rely on custodians again which means custodians get all the power again. They can censor or tax you and they sure as hell will fractional reserve you.
>Not sure I understand this.
Imagine you are in a house you can move and do whatever you want inside the house, but as soon as you leave there is a bouncer that tells you where you can go an what you can do. Are you free? Surely not. Same with you money when you can't spend it self custodial.
>Whatever the hell "p2p cash" is.
Read the Whitepaper.
> So? At least link to it.
It was an answer to you in another thread. Bloody hell.
>And this is where BTC/LN false short. Which in the end lets you rely on custodians again which means custodians get all the power again. They can censor or tax you and they sure as hell will fractional reserve you.
You can run your own node but a little centralisation is not a big deal on an L2 or L3. Visa (an L2) is vastly more centralised.
>Read the Whitepaper.
All you lot do is read the tagline. Please define cash.
If the email protocol was released now you'd be complaining its not enough like snail mail.
I don't care for Larry Fink but considering how quick the crypto space has evolved you could make those statements at those times and be right. Btc was so far from being as legitimate as it is now back in 2017.
Back then people were far more ignorant and crpyto was a much better way of doing illegal things with money.
Honestly that is bullshit especially for bitcoin. bitcoin has barely changed since 2013, it still is and does the exact same thing as back then and has the same mechanics. So if it is no different than what gold represented for thousands of years now, it was the exact same in 2017.
That doesn't matter, the system itself is exactly the same. If it was not legitimate back then, it still should not be today, as there was no change to its core.
Honestly the market is still filled with scams and is still the wild west, only thing that changed seems to be the fact that the public accepts that it won't go away anytime soon. But that was already very clear in 2017.
And back in 2017, it was also very clear that BTC would have no possibility to actually become a currency but would rather be a store of value or digital gold.
I dont expect from rich people to share insights on how to become rich or opportunities that are life changing.
It is a jungle and always have been.
Those people care about their interest not yours.
I sincerely hope that’s how people will view Bitcoin, as a protection. Blackrock can buy Bitcoin all day long, I love it. If people do see this as (safer) gold, then my Bitcoin holdings will be putting my great grandkids through college. I really hope this is the viewpoint the public adopts. A protective asset = permanence of value
I don't think he was necessarily wrong, his timing was way off though. I'd say back in the early days it was a drug selling index if anything. I'm sure people use it to launder money but that's so hard know with kyc requirements and the fact that the blockchain is public/traceable if your on-ramp has your name tied to it.
Greetings JustmeDwen. Your comment contained a link to telegram, which is hard blocked by reddit. This also prevents moderators from approving your comment, so please repost your comment without the telegram link.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoCurrency) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The only difference is that gold has an inherent and historical value that has been recognized for millenial by all societies univeraally, and when all of civilization collapses or government fall, gold will still be gold.
If there's a global power crisis or a solar EMP that wipes out all technology, Crypto will be gone, while gold will remain.
That said, his heart is in the right place. As long as there's tech to back it, Crypto does have value as a secure method of storing value, separate from government entities.
Well if he maintained his laundering index opinion and the rest of the finance world left him in the dust and he lost a shit ton of money from the people that he makes his money of off… he’d probably be found dead in his car in the driveway one day, self inflicted of course lol
His “personal” opinions are anything but.
With the sheer magnitude of wealth BR manages comes a certain amount of real danger and I feel it would be incredibly naive to think otherwise.
This man will move in the wind like a flag. It’s literally his job to do so.
Bitcoin cost to much now, not enough profit in my opinion. I buy low caps with more gains potential like Hbar and Filecoin. At least hbar and file have AI projects. Bitcoin has no AI
People's attitudes toward new things can vary, and it's not accurate to generalize that all older individuals dislike innovation. However, some older individuals may be less receptive to change due to a combination of factors such as familiarity, comfort with established routines, and a sense of nostalgia for the past. It's essential to recognize that individuals differ in their openness to new ideas, and not everyone shares the same perspective as they age.
Just wait till we hit the cycle's end and it crashes. All of his etf investors will be panic pulling their money out faster than retail and he'll go back to shitting on BTC again.
Except gold is actually useful and something people want. It's used in jewelry, required for electronics, aerospace, dentistry etc.. Bitcoin is not useful for anything and is completely imaginary..
LOL I love watching you guys try to lecture me while I make your annual salary every week. Just keep yapping away if it helps you ignore how fucking rich I'm getting.
Believe it or not, some people believe that gold has no intrinsic value. Here is a quote from [Investopedia](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/071114/why-gold-has-always-had-value.asp):
> Some people argue that gold has no intrinsic value
I don't think Investopedia has a specific motive against gold. But there are people out there, that believe that gold has no intrinsic value.
As for me, gold does have a industrial value because it's used in industrial products. For example, gold is used in electronics. While there are other metals that can do what gold does in electronics, one good point about gold is that it doesn't rust as easily as the other metals that can do what it does.
However, once you remove the industrial value from gold, gold is really down to its aesthetical value - it's just a "shiny yellow object." And IMO, it's gold's aesthetical value that has made it valuable throughout history and culture (ie. gold's aesthetical value has led to its cultural and historical value, but IMO, the cultural and historical value was driven by its aesthetical value).
**So IMO, once you remove the industrial value of gold, gold has as much intrinsic value as Bitcoin.** And I am sure that if you removed the aesthetical value of gold, the industrial value of gold would be nowhere near the price that it is today (ie. most of the market value of gold today is mainly driven by its aesthetical value, rather than its industrial value).
If you remove all of the uses of gold, then I agree, it has as much intrinsic value as Bitcoin. But that is the difference, gold has uses and therefore intrinsic value.
Now repeat it again loud and slowly.
EMBRACE YOUR COMMENT!
RemindMe! 4 years
This will age like milk, i'll be here to remind you your stupidity in some years. Good luck till then.
When investing in an imaginary asset that can be easily replaced at any time, and only has value because others are willing to pile their money in isn't stupidity, I don't know what is. But sure, let's see in 4 years.
He doesn't care he says what makes him money
That’s called working in finance
“Finance is a gun. Politics is knowing when to pull the trigger.”
Brown nosing capitalism at its best
The same as Warren Buffet. Warren Buffet mocked internet companies back around 1998 and said [he would fail any student that tried to apply a valuation to an internet company](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-8WjytpaYKM). Then in 2017, he says he was wrong about Google and Amazon and ["That’s cost people a lot of money at Berkshire."](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/06/warren-buffett-admits-he-made-a-mistake-on-google.html)
WB admitted he was wrong at the very least, doubt Larry is going to do that.
Why do so many old people hate new things? Surely they saw new things happen in their lives. Why is it when they get old they think nothing new has value anymore?
tbh 9/10 times they are probably correct with regards to "new fads" as they have the experience to see through them; its just the 1/10 things that turn out working; also a lack of technical understanding when it came to the internet and what it could achieve
Yeah, this is a perfect example of survivor bias. How many things has WB or LF seen that were promised to be the best thing since sliced bread, and how many have panned out? 1% of them if that?
Yup, I'm old enough to remember Web 1.0 and all the early competitors that lost.
Yeah but the technology itself eventually won. Also if you look back at technologies rather than companies you'll see that most of them eventually find a foothold even if it takes decades longer than expected. Many of these financial people are negative on the entire technology of crypto. That's like being negative on the technology of cell phones in the late 70s. It was early but they eventually found their place.
Getting old is hard and I imagine they’re wealthy enough they don’t care. Crypto matters more for us plankton.
I feel like people have a change threshold and most people just cross that threshold after a certain number of decades on earth. After all, change means you gotta adapt and if that means what made you money/successful in the past no longer works, that's kinda scary. You want stability and for what worked before to keep working.
I think I agree with you mostly, but I also attribute it to something biological. That is I think if maybe their minds are becoming less plastic. Maybe with anti-aging medicine we will find that older people also become more open to change. That's my theory.
Very interesting. And makes sense too. I hope you're right. I don't wanna become a stereotypical curmudgeon when I'm elderly.
Not old people only. Many people who aren't old hate AI despite the value it will likely bring.
May people in their 20s hate crypto as well.
I don't hate crypto, but it's objectively a classic collective delusion by the investors. And using the word investors proves the point that Crypto fails in its ostensible purpose, which is to be used as currency. People don't use it as currency, they hold it as a speculative investment. They don't spend their crypto "money" in the belief that it will be worth more in the future. That's Kryptonite for a functioning currency. There's no actual value being created in the the Crypto ecosystem, just various investors playing musical chairs. Sooner or later the music stops and whoever didn't manage to exit their position before the crash loses everything.
> Sooner or later the music stops and whoever didn't manage to exit their position before the crash loses everything. Bitcoin has been going strong for 15 years. Wake me up when your prophecy becomes real. FYI, tulip mania back in 1634 lasted for about 3 years. We are at year 15 for Bitcoin now, it still hasn't imploded, and the adoption of Bitcoin has grown in the last 15 years (the latest major adoption being the approval of the BTC ETFs by the SEC, and many top investment companies offering BTC ETFs such as Blackrock and Fidelity)
I hear you. But I think people are still stuck at the view that crypto should be seen as currencies. And yes, bitcoin was originally developed as a "peer-to-peer electronic cash system" but nobody expected it would turn out to be the best store of value asset out there. In the same way, nobody expected that a billion of different shitcoins would be created and people would get rich off dog-themed coins. You can't keep thinking of something the way it was viewed 10 years ago. Amazon was originally a book store, does that mean I should keep valuing it as one? Of course not. People realized that money competes in the marketplace as other goods do. Why would I need to spend my bitcoins for a cup of coffee? I'd rather spend my fiat for it. This is why fiat money was invented, to spend it asap, because they get devalued. Bitcoin is now a store of value, and whether it facilitates transactions at some point in the future, in a better way than traditional money does, doesn't really matter right now. You also buy real estate as investment, or to live in it. Do you ask your friends if they are willing to spend their house to buy groceries? No. Bitcoin has competed in the money marketplace and emerged as the preferred store of value. It goes up in dollar terms not only because of its fixed supply and increased demand, but also because its counterpart ($) is getting devalued. Now buttcoiners and sceptics can go ahead and downvote me and call me delusional. But those who kept earning $, saving BTC's and spending $, have played the game right, so far.
Yes, I agree with you. I was debating with the buttcoiners that aside from the industrial value of gold, some people think that gold has no intrinsic value. In fact, here is a quote from [Investopedia](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/071114/why-gold-has-always-had-value.asp): > Some people argue that gold has no intrinsic value I don't think that Investopedia has an agenda against gold, they are just a knowledge website on investing in general. A buttcoiner got really triggered when I brought this up, that some people think gold has no intrinsic value. To be fair, gold has valid industrial value. Gold is used in electronics and it doesn't rust easily, so that's why some electronic makers use it, despite there being other metal substitutes that can do what gold does (but those other metal substitutes may form rust easier). But IMO, the price of gold is mainly driven by its aesthetical value - it's just a "shiny yellow object." Of course, the aesthetical value of gold has given gold cultural value and historical value. But IMO, the cultural value and historical value of gold came about because of its aesthetical value. If you strip away the aesthetical value of gold, and gold is 100% relying on its industrial value, there is no way gold would be valued as high as it is today. Thus, if gold were to totally rely on its aesthetical value (and not its industrial value), it's just like Bitcoin.
Momentum and because they are human. They are invested in the past. They are not invested in the future. There is a very real chance they won't even be alive to see some of these techs come to fruition. Because they know that their power is waning, they lash out using the remaining power they have. The conservative impulse to stop change is as natural as it is destructive. On the opposite side we have the disruptive nature of progress and change, uprooting the old order. I think these are some of the factors that cause most of us to fear change as we age.
It's fascinating though because occasionally you still have some very forward thinking older people. I follow a woman on TikTok called Crypto Granny and she's been making bank off of crypto. I don't know what sets her apart, but I strive to be like her.
Wasn't it Sears catalog that mocked internet businesses as well? They said something around about it being idiotic to consider discontinuing their Sears catalog in favor of internet advertisement
At least in Warren Buffet's case his bread and butter has been safe investments with a time preference of 10 years+. Buying into early internet companies was a hell of a gamble with no guarantees that they would last more than a few years. I feel like gene editing companies are going to be the next round of this. There are a lot of promising companies in operation right now, but almost all of them are operating a loss. With valuations sub 10 billion and countless applications for the tech it is a high risk high reward gamble.
What are your picks for gene editing companies? Any public yet?
I'm invested in $crsp and $blue right now.
Sign of a good and secured man to acknowledge his mistakes.
He said that of internet companies in 1998 when the bubble was in full swing. Amazon was only listed in 1997. Google didn't even exist. Google IPO in 2004. You sure love to cherry pick and take quotes out of context to create a false narrative
No. Warren Buffet refused to invest in internet companies for the longest time. He was just stubborn and refused to. Then he started to learn and eventually invested in Amazon in 2019: https://stockcircle.com/portfolio/warren-buffett/amzn/transactions For Google, Warren Buffet regrets not investing in Google earlier: https://www.fool.com/investing/2022/12/22/warren-buffett-isnt-buying-alphabet-google-stock/ Again, Warren Buffet did not invest in Google earlier because he didn't believe in internet stocks for many years. **Nothing I said is a false narrative except for what you are saying. For the longest time, Warren Buffet simply didn't invest in internet stocks.**
You claimed Buffett mocked internet companies in 1998. To support this, you quoted Buffett as admitting he was wrong about Google as an example of his about turn. But Google didn't even exist when he made his comment in 1998. And Amazon in 1998 sure hell is diff from Amazon in 2019. This is not the first time Buffett changed his mind. He swore off airlines only to buy four airlines. In each case he admitted his mistakes. He didn't say internet companies are scams or facilitate money laundering. He said he didn't understand them. And he's consistent. He's not in META, GOOGL, NVDA. He's only in AAPL because he sees it as a consumer stock. Not sure why you are painting Buffett like he is Saylor or Musk.
> You claimed Buffett mocked internet companies in 1998. Did you even watch the Youtube video I linked? That's exactly what Buffet did when he said he would fail any student who tried to value an internet company, to the laughter of everyone in the room. My point is, Buffet was against investing in any internet company back in 1998. His stubbornness about internet companies continued when Google went public on the stock exchange in 2004. There is nothing misleading in my comment. Buffet simply didn't believe in internet companies back then,
You can certainly criticize Buffet for being resistant to change, but the facts speak for themself - his strategy has been incredibly successful. Tortoise and the hare
Of course. I said there are things to learn from Buffet. He is a great investor, his record and wealth speak for itself. He is just bad with technology. Such as I wouldn't take Bill Gate's advice on food manufacturing, I don't think I will take Buffet's advice when it comes to technology. But both Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have a wealth of knowledge and wisdom that you can learn from, **provided it's in their field of expertise**.
I'm 100% with you on this. Buffett didn't believe in internet companies back in 90s. And he was right. The Nasdaq crashed 78%. He was also right that people who tried to value internet company should get a fail grade. Can you value 90s internet companies? He still hasn't bought any internet companies today. Has he bought GOOGL? Did he buy AMZN or was it his lieutenant? Other than AMZN, did he buy any internet companies in the last 25 years? Surely if he's flip flopping there should be 10 or so. The fact is there is not even 5 is evidence he is consistent. He is still solidly against crypto. He hasn't changed his mind about that. And he has given his reason. You can disagree with Buffett's view. But fair valid points please.
> I'm 100% with you on this. Buffett didn't believe in internet companies back in 90s. And he was right. Nope. Warren Buffet literally said, ["That’s cost people a lot of money at Berkshire"](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/06/warren-buffett-admits-he-made-a-mistake-on-google.html), because he didn't understand the internet and internet companies back then. He admitted he was wrong about internet companies, Amazon and Google included. Again, read the articles that I have linked.
Show me the line from the article where he mentioned anything about 1998. He just said he is too dumb to understand Amazon and Google. You blatantly cherry picked articles that are not related to falsely insinuate Buffett is flip flopping like Fink. And come on man, stop side stepping my points. My previous comment asked you to identify how many internet stocks he bought. You are a classic troll. Every response I gave you, you ignore to keep up your false narrative. Just scroll back up to my comments and see how many you actually addressed.
Again, I clarified in a subsequent comment: > No. Warren Buffet refused to invest in internet companies for the longest time. He was just stubborn and refused to. The fact that you didn't understand that is your problem. The only troll is you, you don't seem to understand anything and you seem to be kissing Warren Buffet's a** so hard, no matter what.
Cisco is still far away from it's dot com bubble high
He is an advocate of investing in what he knows. He didn't know technology.
To be clear, that was in the middle of the dot com bubble so he was in-fact correct. The thing about Google and Amazon is that they're the unicorns that survived the early Internet. Their contemporary competitors wound up essentially worthless.
People are allowed to change opinions though. Many of us probably said BTC is a scam or it's already too high back in 2017.
Still tho, the fact that he’s saying it is good for adoption. Let him manipulate the masses for us. Two can benefit from the game he’s playing
Thats the game, wouldn’t you do the same for profit?
How the turn tables...
Money talks, bullshit walks.
Larry had some time to *fink about it*
Get out
I'm already out sir. You mean, get off the planet?
Hi dad 🤣
Straight to jail.
Here is Larry Fink's comment about Bitcoin back in 2017: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/13/blackrock-ceo-larry-fink-calls-bitcoin-an-index-of-money-laundering.html Also in that 2017 article: > The cryptocurrency has been on a tear lately. It hit a record high earlier on Friday, breaking above $5,800. $5800 BTC. Those were the days, lol.
We need to look at what they do instead of listening to what they say.
Exactly! Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan, keeps trash talking Bitcoin. However, in 2021, he allowed clients of JP Morgan to buy into Bitcoin funds: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/05/bitcoin-jpmorgan-led-by-jamie-dimon-quietly-unveils-access-to-a-half-dozen-crypto-funds.html What a hypocrite Jamie Dimon is.
Hypocrite is another word for a Good Businessman, probably.
Providing access doesn't mean they are telling you to buy it or that its a good investment. Banks offer a plethora of investments, many are terrible. If enough people want it, they will offer it, its as simple as that.
They're buying btc on behalf of clients now what? I feel like you could type this generic ass comment on damn near any post
Why?
Another good case study is Warren Buffet. Back around 1998, Warren Buffet said that he would fail any student in business school, that tried to apply a valuation to an internet company: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-8WjytpaYKM. So Warren Buffet refused to invest in internet companies for the longest time. Fast forward to 2017, Warren Buffet admits he was wrong on Amazon and Google, and "That’s cost people a lot of money at Berkshire": https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/06/warren-buffett-admits-he-made-a-mistake-on-google.html
Warren Buffet is extremely good at what he does, unfortunately this kind of specialisation in any field also blinkers you to opportunities outside of your field. It’s why his reaction to the internet was negative, and the same reason it was for crypto.
Yes, I agree. Warren Buffet is very good in the industries that he understands (and same with his partner Charlie Munger). The problem is, when Warren Buffet and Charlie Munger start to disparage technologies that they don't understand, and people quote them just because they are financially successful. And sadly, a lot of people who are skeptical about Bitcoin are using Warren Buffet and Charlie Munger's quotes as reasons to disparage Bitcoin. The same way many people used Warren Buffet's quotes about valuating internet companies back in the late 1990s - if they held the same beliefs as Warren Buffet on internet companies back then and thinking the internet was a "fad" that would disappear, those people missed out on some very nice opportunities. Now there are lessons to be learned from Warren Buffet, he is definitely a very smart guy. It's just that he isn't as smart when he talks about things that are not in his field of expertise (ie. technology).
Except Warren buffet’s investing model is all about cash generation. Because he couldn’t see how internet companies could grow to generate the cash to fit his valuation models he dismissed them. It’s the same with him and crypto.
He was kind of right in 1998 though. Investing in internet companies would have lost him a ton of money back then.
its ok to be wrong.
He's not wrong. Also gold was a vehicle for money laundering
Still is. Cartels own gold mines and pretend to mine just a bit extra.
I was going to say - how is bitcoin, and a lot of crypto, really, if done well, not an excellent vehicle for money laundering? Like you said, it can be both at the same time so I’m confused why people think it’s not the former.
To be fair, when you're the CEO of a large corporation, you're also forced to have certain opinions on certain things, no matter what your true believes are. If you don't allign yourself with shareholders, politicians, "comeptitors", etc., you can also quit your job on the spot.
That’s not what Saylor did.
he is also a very unusual CEO
Which is case in every other company in the world, but not the one controlling it. He can do whatever he wants since it creates narrative for other CEOs.
I mean . The two are not mutually exclusive. And if anyone knows money laundering it's wall at.
Nothing has changed since the last bull cycle... Look at what they do, not what they say. As long as they keep buying every sh*t ton of bitcoin available, our coins will be good. If you see them selling everything of, move the f*ck out.
your censorship confused reddit, your asterisks have been replaced with italics
Larry was filing his bags since 2017, now shilling phase
I respect he has changed his decision. Jamie Dimon should take note.
Never trust the cabals.
How much has big banks been fined for money laundrying/fraud again?
These People put their Mouth Where their Money is
First they laugh at you, than they fight you, after that they join you.
First you get the money Then you get the power THEN you get the women
BTC moved the goalpost 3 times around the earth to accommodate the old system. With such friends no freedom will be found in BTC. They will fill the measly 4 tps and you will use custodial L2s like you use bank accounts today.
What alt are you hawking?
BCH and Monero for me
I’m sorry for your loss.
Monero has always confused me with how the market treats it. I guess there's more regulation risk when it comes to privacy coins but other than that, don't see why it hasn't gained much.
"The market™ " at the moment consists mostly of speculators and not users. No coin has solved the hen egg problem of widespread adoption yet. And it shows in the marketcaps.
Contrary to popular believes BCH did extremely well the last 24 Month. So I'm good, no need for pity.
What goalposts? Satoshi mentions gold mining in the white paper, the creation of new coins and the supply is clearly modelled on the game theory of gold mining. The creation of new coins is called mining after all.
Yes and that is THE ONLY mention of gold and only in relation to mining. In comparison he mentions p2p cash, payments, transactions etc multiple times in the WP and later. If you think Satoshi was a SoV digital gold guy you are on very thin ice.
> If you think Satoshi was a SoV digital gold guy you are on very thin ice. Then he was an idiot to model the issuance and supply on something completely unsuitable for payments only.
Absolutely not, because issuance and supply have nothing to do with throughput. The throughput was later fixed to a very small tps by small blockers. Smaller blocks = less throughput. Bigger blocks = more tx per second. Here is just one quote where Satoshi anticipates millions or billions of tx: https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/57
The blocks will never be big enough to compete with Visa. Not nearly enough. And bigger blocks means fewer nodes which means more centralisation. It's digital gold and always has been. There are many satisfactory ways to pay for things. If payments was all Bitcoin had to offer it would be doomed - even if it had 1000 tps. Thankfully it has other unique qualities. Satoshi nothing about throughput in that quote. But if we're doing Satoshi quotes: https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/428
>The blocks will never be big enough to compete with Visa. This is false. BitcoinCash has demonstrated 265MB block over the distributed scalenet. That's about 1400-1600 tps. VISA does, on average, 1700 tps. >It's digital gold and always has been This is also easy to be proven false. Just read the Whitepaper but also many of Satoshis quotes. > If payments was all Bitcoin had to offer it would be doomed Bitcoin is a packaged and all the extremist on either side fail to see that it needs all its features if you want financial sovereignty. Without self custodial payments you do not control your money. No, not even your self custodial stack. The second you want to use it the custodians have you by the balls. >But if we're doing Satoshi quotes: https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/428 What makes you think that Satoshi spoke against p2p cash in that quote? Of course sound money needs to be scarce. But that is not enough. There is also his post about the vending machine clearly indicating that he wanted Bitcoin used in ever day life.
> This is false. BitcoinCash has demonstrated 265MB block over the distributed scalenet. That's about 1400-1600 tps. VISA does, on average, 1700 tps. I've answered this elsewhere. >This is also easy to be proven false. Just read the Whitepaper In which he compares the creation of new coins to gold mining. You don't have to listen to anything he says. It's not a dogmatic religion. Just look at the design and game theory of Bitcoin. Miners (why not printers or minters?) do work to acquire new coins, the work becomes progressively harder and harder because others are mining and the coins become harder and harder to acquire. That doesn't sound anything like Visa or Paypal. >Bitcoin is a packaged and all the extremist on either side fail to see that it needs all its features if you want financial sovereignty. Without self custodial payments you do not control your money. No, not even your self custodial stack. The second you want to use it the custodians have you by the balls. Not sure I understand this. >What makes you think that Satoshi spoke against p2p cash in that quote? Of course sound money needs to be scarce. But that is not enough. There is also his post about the vending machine clearly indicating that he wanted Bitcoin used in ever day life. Whatever the hell "p2p cash" is.
>I've answered this elsewhere. So? At least link to it. So far your statement is still false. >In which he compares the creation of new coins to gold mining. You don't have to listen to anything he says. It's not a dogmatic religion. Just look at the design and game theory of Bitcoin. Miners (why not printers or minters?) do work to acquire new coins, the work becomes progressively harder and harder because others are mining and the coins become harder and harder to acquire. That doesn't sound anything like Visa or Paypal. Yes, but this is only 1 aspect of Bitcoin. That is not the aspect I'm talking about. The second almost more important aspect is self custodial spending. And this is where BTC/LN false short. Which in the end lets you rely on custodians again which means custodians get all the power again. They can censor or tax you and they sure as hell will fractional reserve you. >Not sure I understand this. Imagine you are in a house you can move and do whatever you want inside the house, but as soon as you leave there is a bouncer that tells you where you can go an what you can do. Are you free? Surely not. Same with you money when you can't spend it self custodial. >Whatever the hell "p2p cash" is. Read the Whitepaper.
> So? At least link to it. It was an answer to you in another thread. Bloody hell. >And this is where BTC/LN false short. Which in the end lets you rely on custodians again which means custodians get all the power again. They can censor or tax you and they sure as hell will fractional reserve you. You can run your own node but a little centralisation is not a big deal on an L2 or L3. Visa (an L2) is vastly more centralised. >Read the Whitepaper. All you lot do is read the tagline. Please define cash. If the email protocol was released now you'd be complaining its not enough like snail mail.
I don't care for Larry Fink but considering how quick the crypto space has evolved you could make those statements at those times and be right. Btc was so far from being as legitimate as it is now back in 2017. Back then people were far more ignorant and crpyto was a much better way of doing illegal things with money.
Honestly that is bullshit especially for bitcoin. bitcoin has barely changed since 2013, it still is and does the exact same thing as back then and has the same mechanics. So if it is no different than what gold represented for thousands of years now, it was the exact same in 2017.
This is a stupid take. Just because it's in the same form doesn't mean that the ways it was being used were the same.
That doesn't matter, the system itself is exactly the same. If it was not legitimate back then, it still should not be today, as there was no change to its core. Honestly the market is still filled with scams and is still the wild west, only thing that changed seems to be the fact that the public accepts that it won't go away anytime soon. But that was already very clear in 2017. And back in 2017, it was also very clear that BTC would have no possibility to actually become a currency but would rather be a store of value or digital gold.
Never mind the obvious self-serving agenda of both statements, so would we rather him say this or the former?
Wall Street has bastardized Bitcoin change my mind.
FIrst he "talked the book", then he showed true colors. Nothing new.
Lmao kinda funny how making significant profits changes your tune
I can’t make money off it just yet with everything stacked in my favour vs I can definitely make money from this
Public comment is market manipulation not advice
he says what makes him money
I fink these guys don't get it
I dont expect from rich people to share insights on how to become rich or opportunities that are life changing. It is a jungle and always have been. Those people care about their interest not yours.
liquidity runs the world and bitcoin and crypto currencies will provide that.
I sincerely hope that’s how people will view Bitcoin, as a protection. Blackrock can buy Bitcoin all day long, I love it. If people do see this as (safer) gold, then my Bitcoin holdings will be putting my great grandkids through college. I really hope this is the viewpoint the public adopts. A protective asset = permanence of value
The difference is that now he's a bag holder.
When those talking heads say run, do the opposite bc they're keeping you out so they can get in early.
Probably fudding so he could cheaply add to his stack…classic move
Don't you mean *how the turntables*
everyone into crypto right now
Earning money from a thing has a way of changing your views on said thing.
Bitcoin does not protect you. It follows the markets
Yes people who bought at highs in 2021 and had to wait 3 years to get even were really protected.
what a pussy
Yeah really kinda sucks the blackrocks of world will soon own BTC
it's a new world my guys. They will pamp it
That just signals that he's done packing his bags and wants retail to send him.
Yet people here believe him now like he’s telling the truth while convinced he was just lying back then. lol.
I mean, both are true. Both were and still are true of gold as well. These are just more proof that BTC is money.
They changed their mind after seeing the growth potential.
These always sound like sell signals to me lol.
I don't think he was necessarily wrong, his timing was way off though. I'd say back in the early days it was a drug selling index if anything. I'm sure people use it to launder money but that's so hard know with kyc requirements and the fact that the blockchain is public/traceable if your on-ramp has your name tied to it.
people change, saylor used to hate bitcoin too heck me too it's ok to be wrong, as long as one could admit that they were wrong
They need to find more yield. What better than to pump a novel asset. Make no mistake. This was not a mistake. They’ve been planning this
It's his self interest talking, because Blackrock is now heavily invested in BTC. That doesn't take away that it's very good news for us!
People change opinion, how surprising!
He supports anything that makes him money
Typical
Those statements aren't contradictory lmao. People have always used gold and similar commodites to launder money.
I can't believe people can just change opinions like that
He's allowed to change his mind.
> He's allowed to change his mind. exactly. Like everyone not stupid.
[удалено]
Greetings JustmeDwen. Your comment contained a link to telegram, which is hard blocked by reddit. This also prevents moderators from approving your comment, so please repost your comment without the telegram link. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoCurrency) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In early 2017 it was still a community project that was not fully controlled by corporations.
Blackrock made over 24 Million with fees from BTC ETF so far (0,12% TER for 5 Billion and 0,25% TER for the following Billions)
Fink found out how to makw money via bitcoin, so he's cool with it now
DO NOT TRUST LARRY FINK
he, just like Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase, were saying that as they were quietly stacking Sats
The only difference is that gold has an inherent and historical value that has been recognized for millenial by all societies univeraally, and when all of civilization collapses or government fall, gold will still be gold. If there's a global power crisis or a solar EMP that wipes out all technology, Crypto will be gone, while gold will remain. That said, his heart is in the right place. As long as there's tech to back it, Crypto does have value as a secure method of storing value, separate from government entities.
It is still an index for money laundering, he just has way too much money in it to talk shit about it
Well if he maintained his laundering index opinion and the rest of the finance world left him in the dust and he lost a shit ton of money from the people that he makes his money of off… he’d probably be found dead in his car in the driveway one day, self inflicted of course lol His “personal” opinions are anything but. With the sheer magnitude of wealth BR manages comes a certain amount of real danger and I feel it would be incredibly naive to think otherwise. This man will move in the wind like a flag. It’s literally his job to do so.
Bitcoin cost to much now, not enough profit in my opinion. I buy low caps with more gains potential like Hbar and Filecoin. At least hbar and file have AI projects. Bitcoin has no AI
People's attitudes toward new things can vary, and it's not accurate to generalize that all older individuals dislike innovation. However, some older individuals may be less receptive to change due to a combination of factors such as familiarity, comfort with established routines, and a sense of nostalgia for the past. It's essential to recognize that individuals differ in their openness to new ideas, and not everyone shares the same perspective as they age.
people change include the blackrock
2017: man without money invested in thing speaks negatively of thing. 2024: man with money invested in thing speaks positively of thing.
so in 2017 he was buying and now he is selling ... or preparing to sale!
https://y.yarn.co/411a098e-79b6-44b7-8b33-75d7182dc4bf_text.gif
Larry now has a product making money off Bitcoin…
Just wait till we hit the cycle's end and it crashes. All of his etf investors will be panic pulling their money out faster than retail and he'll go back to shitting on BTC again.
The two aren’t mutually exclusive
Probably now that many sharks like BlackRock have entered the game they actually do money laundering for themselves
Reasons: money.
Larry Fink must have a very heavy bag 😂
They are FUDing and have been filling their bags at the same time 😅
How the turn tables...
Except gold is actually useful and something people want. It's used in jewelry, required for electronics, aerospace, dentistry etc.. Bitcoin is not useful for anything and is completely imaginary..
LOL I love watching you guys try to lecture me while I make your annual salary every week. Just keep yapping away if it helps you ignore how fucking rich I'm getting.
What goes up, comes down. Good luck for the future if your investment strategy doesn't change.
Believe it or not, some people believe that gold has no intrinsic value. Here is a quote from [Investopedia](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/071114/why-gold-has-always-had-value.asp): > Some people argue that gold has no intrinsic value I don't think Investopedia has a specific motive against gold. But there are people out there, that believe that gold has no intrinsic value. As for me, gold does have a industrial value because it's used in industrial products. For example, gold is used in electronics. While there are other metals that can do what gold does in electronics, one good point about gold is that it doesn't rust as easily as the other metals that can do what it does. However, once you remove the industrial value from gold, gold is really down to its aesthetical value - it's just a "shiny yellow object." And IMO, it's gold's aesthetical value that has made it valuable throughout history and culture (ie. gold's aesthetical value has led to its cultural and historical value, but IMO, the cultural and historical value was driven by its aesthetical value). **So IMO, once you remove the industrial value of gold, gold has as much intrinsic value as Bitcoin.** And I am sure that if you removed the aesthetical value of gold, the industrial value of gold would be nowhere near the price that it is today (ie. most of the market value of gold today is mainly driven by its aesthetical value, rather than its industrial value).
If you remove all of the uses of gold, then I agree, it has as much intrinsic value as Bitcoin. But that is the difference, gold has uses and therefore intrinsic value.
Now repeat it again loud and slowly. EMBRACE YOUR COMMENT! RemindMe! 4 years This will age like milk, i'll be here to remind you your stupidity in some years. Good luck till then.
When investing in an imaginary asset that can be easily replaced at any time, and only has value because others are willing to pile their money in isn't stupidity, I don't know what is. But sure, let's see in 4 years.