Topic: Berkshire Hathaway was built atop a system that Bitcoin was created to destroy. (Read 177 times)

How is Bitcoin destroying any system? The days of cheap coins are gone now. If Bitcoin were to replace fiat money, the rich people would just transfer their fiat wealth to Bitcoin. Some of the OG hodlers who used to be poor or middle class would be elevated to millionaires, but that's it. And don't forget that most of the billionaires own assets - stocks, property and so on. That value is not changing if Bitcoin replaces fiat, it will be simply counted in Bitcoin.

That's correct, but one important point to consider as well is that Buffett is not only speaking for himself, but also for all the shareholders and stakeholders, among which are almost 400,000 employees. He might think that this is the best way to protect their combined interests. He might also really truly believe that Bitcoin / decentralized financial systems are trash. Now in his eyes it should absolutely be trash because outrageous rent-seeking at close to zero marginal cost becomes significantly harder in openly accessible systems. Buffett wants systems that generate revenue, ok, I get that. But for how long did banks not innovate and instead played the cat and mouse game because there was no competition on the horizon at all?

Revenue from transaction cost was the easiest money banks could ever earn. Only later on when big scandals happened and they fucked up big time here and there came stronger regulation into play, but it still was pretty much the same process for banks to transfer either 10 USD or 10 mio. USD. Yet they took a more or less flat percentage cut of the sum transacted. Closed doors on the weekends, no service after 6 PM and before a AM and so on and so forth.

With a competitive system that never sleeps, the banks realized they have to get their ass moving and they can't offer their services at too expensive prices in order to not create further incentives for the competition to innovate even harder.

Among the most important characteristics of Bitcoin is that it didn't have to get a banking license, a process that used to be so hard that its only goal was to preserve monopolistic rent-seeking banking infrastructure for the long-term. While banks complained about some regulation, they wanted harder regulation wherever it led to insurmountable barriers to entry for potential competitors like banking start ups or financial applications taking business away from them. This has of course changed significantly, not least because the whole world went mobile.

Bitcoin does not need permission to co-exist. People are free to choose whether or not they want to use Bitcoin in order to either transact globally or just take some of their financial wealth with them no matter where they are going. Unlimited capital mobility is again something that takes away leverage from banks over their customers. They can't freeze your accounts nor put you under pressure in any other way they'd subtly love to.

And of course there is the competitive character of Bitcoin towards FIAT and that is something policy makers now more and more are forced to have on their radar when making important economic decisions. They are still doing whatever they want as it seems, but this is a question of time I suppose when Bitcoin as a system becomes such a viable alternative for the vast majority of the people around the globe that policy makers will indeed think twice before making their decision.

The following had interesting implications.


When it comes to investing in stocks, old school types like Buffett and Munger are known for not investing in things that are not reliable enough to be worth betting their life on. Its an interesting strategy and mentality to have. Emphasizing long term value growth and delayed gratification. With extreme stubbornness in never deviating from the gameplan. The doggedness of how Buffett and Munger do things shines through here. Its a great example of how stubbornness and rigidity can be used as strengths.

At the same time, Munger and Buffett's stubborn refusal to consider new and emerging technologies which lack proven timelines measured in decades, could be the downside of stubbornness. Making for an interesting contrast.

I'm not sure if Bitcoin is that antagonistic that it was created to destroy the current economic system, the one which capitalists like Buffet have taken advantage of. Or it was simply created to be an alternative to fiat.

But be that as it may, you cannot expect these people who have benefited so much from the current system to show strong support for that which tries to disrupt such system itself. They have already made successful empires with this system.

At the very least, he doesn't do those predatory-style deals anymore. In the past though when he was still in his early stages? Warren Buffett isn't the sort of "investing sweetheart" most people see him as.

With Warren's wealth, it is impossible not to have a network that confers advantage when making deals and access to many phones and certainly political influence and the ability to gather first-class information.

However, he does not close "shark" style deals and has a "friendly" attitude in general. I think that the philosophy is that there are so many companies, stocks and possible deals to make that making enemies, sharking companies or making hostile acquisitions is simply not needed. You can simply take advantage of the market craziness and do really well.

It's hard to support these people nowadays, thinking that bitcoin is some sort of anti-capitalism weapon that is supposed to bring the power back to the masses when in reality it's far lesser than that. These visionaries getting more out of hand and out of pocket by the day. Coz OP thinks bitcoin is some sort of savior that will topple the whole capitalist system to its toes when it can't be any farther from the truth. In reality the coin even thrives in this system, and would not even become this big if not for countries that follow capitalist ideology. Out of pocket bitcoin evangelists who make bitcoin look as if it could solve all the problems in the planet.

It comes from the term 'Cantillion effect' which when applied to this means that those closest to the printer take advantage of central bank policies to get rich, while those same policies erode the economic capacity of the majority of the population.


I agree, and I would add that Buffett and value investing, while not fighting against the establishment, are well aware that cash is devaluing, and the way to fight it is to buy shares in companies that beat inflation.

I did called it was the guy who constantly believe on whatever internet has to spew non sense on them. Never once believe any  story from the internet. About Warren I don’t want to talk about him like a jerk, but I don’t believe on whatever he said too, to me most of the information he giving should be taken with a pinch of salt, to no believe it even if it made sense or logical, we had seen enough guy who vouch for his best philosophy on investing and get their lifesaving destroyed, I’m lucky to get to know it much earlier and grow suspicion on all his buzz, equal all of them to internet and not worth to believe on.

How? Bitcoin and Berkshire Hathaway are in totally different categories. The former being a currency/SoV, while the latter being a holdings company for multiple revenue-generating businesses.

I do agree that they are financially privileged hence why they have those opinions though. They just didn't look at Bitcoin with a wider lens. Like as if the entire world was only the United States.

Nah, Bitcoin and Value Investing (Warren's Buffet well-known strategy) are perfectly compatible because there is enough market and enough investment opportunities for all. Warren does not invest (at least not Berkshire's money) in bitcoin, gold or any commodity, only in companies or entities that have a balance sheet because that is how him and his team decide if a business has potential or not, not by looking at scarcity or demand which is what you'd do with crypto.

His company or personal relevance however are not threatened by bitcoin or crypto, at most he may have opportunities for investment in companies that operate in that area someday.

I don't know what that means, but personally I wouldn't lump Munger and Buffett into the same group as all the other people you mentioned--at least not Buffett, who seems to have had a decent sense of morality about him all through his long business life.

Bitcoin isn't going to topple whatever it is you think they built their businesses on, either.  If it was going to do that, surely there would have been some signs that progress was being made after 13 years, no?  I don't see Wall Street cowering in their wingtips because of crypto.  And everyone is free to have an opinion about bitcoin; a lot of people don't like it or don't understand it, but I wouldn't blast anyone for that.  Bitcoin will survive no matter what any CEO or banker says.  It's the government and their proclamations that ought to be listened to, and very carefully at that.

That WSJ op-ed from Munger was beyond idiotic. He's exemplar of Cantillionaire privilege.


Whenever I hear Buffet, Munger, Jamie Dimon, Larry Fink or any other High Priests of the Gerontocracy complaining about Bitcoin specifically, or crypto-currencies in general, I feel like that?s what I?m listening to: a bunch of super-rich Sith Lords frantically  trying to pull up the ladder behind them.

Wrote a slight rant about it here:

https[Suspicious link removed]mplar-of-cantillionaire-privilege/