Can the Winklevoss twins actions be explained? - page 2.

minerpumpkin

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

A pumpkin mines 27 hours a night

Quote from: Chef Ramsay on May 05, 2015, 10:23:56 AM

Quote from: samson on May 05, 2015, 05:34:52 AM

What makes you think they didn't sell at least some or even a big chunk of their coins ?

If you take them at their word, they've said many times in interviews that they haven't sold a coin. I presume they relish their credibility and are pushing a big vote of confidence in bitcoin. And of course, they're already sitting pretty so they have the means to see this through and make even bigger money in the future. Also, rich folk have an ego to upkeep among their peers so being the first to create a monster US based exchange and ETF while making stacks off of it in such an emerging market, will make them superstars at some point.

Yeah, I agree! They don't want another "Facebook" happening right in front of them! They have enough money not to care if things go wrong, but a high incentive to do everything in their power to make sure Bitcoin succeeds - actually, we (who are invested in BTC), couldn't have it any better Cheesy

RodeoX

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1147

The revolution will be monetized!

You get rich thinking about money in the long term. I think they are looking at 5 - 10 - even 20 years. Sure they could have sold and bought back, but they know no more about the future than you and I.
In ten years you may have to spend $5k per coin. As long as the economy continues this pace of growth there is no reason why these prices wont happen.

Or it could all go away next year. You can use bitcoin right now as a currency, or you can hold. This is why I consider bitcoin to be a very risky investment, but the best currency available.

Chef Ramsay

legendary

Activity: 1568

Merit: 1001

Quote from: samson on May 05, 2015, 05:34:52 AM

What makes you think they didn't sell at least some or even a big chunk of their coins ?

If you take them at their word, they've said many times in interviews that they haven't sold a coin. I presume they relish their credibility and are pushing a big vote of confidence in bitcoin. And of course, they're already sitting pretty so they have the means to see this through and make even bigger money in the future. Also, rich folk have an ego to upkeep among their peers so being the first to create a monster US based exchange and ETF while making stacks off of it in such an emerging market, will make them superstars at some point.

minerpumpkin

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

A pumpkin mines 27 hours a night

Quote from: oblox on May 04, 2015, 11:47:14 PM

A couple reasons I can think of:

1. Liquidity issues--they wouldn't have been able to exit a position size that large at the peak. They would have needed to sell into the rally, potentially curbing it in the process through distribution.
2. Short vs Long-term capital gains--depending on when they invested in 2012, they might not have held their positions over a year qualifying them for LT cap gains.

Yeah, I think there isn't even the slightest possibility to sell about $100m on the BTC market, without causing it to crash completely. I also believe that they have a bigger vision of BTC in mind. Why double your net-worth if you can increase it by 10x? You know? Wink

gentlemand

legendary

Activity: 2590

Merit: 3015

Welt Am Draht

Quote from: samson on May 05, 2015, 05:34:52 AM

What makes you think they didn't sell at least some or even a big chunk of their coins ?

They need their stash to create COIN, but they did at least buy a ticket to never get into space with Richard Branson.

samson

legendary

Activity: 2097

Merit: 1070

What makes you think they didn't sell at least some or even a big chunk of their coins ?

Elwar

legendary

Activity: 3598

Merit: 2386

Viva Ut Vivas

They are looking long term to make a business out of those bitcoins which would pay out more over time than what they could sell them for.

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1070

Quote from: techgeek on May 04, 2015, 11:52:46 PM

If they sold off most of their coins over set period within those rally, I think the market could of actually collapsed going back to low $50 range or less.

they could always buy back when the price had fall(which is the case right now), also a little sell here and there would not cause any crash no matter the amount the quantity sold

i think they didn't do it because they wanted to see how the scene would evolve from there

techgeek

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 1000

If they sold off most of their coins over set period within those rally, I think the market could of actually collapsed going back to low $50 range or less.

When people see the reaction of a huge sell off, people are going to do the same (majority) and few will buy.

Its more of a emotional state for investors to see.

oblox

legendary

Activity: 1442

Merit: 1018

A couple reasons I can think of:

1. Liquidity issues--they wouldn't have been able to exit a position size that large at the peak. They would have needed to sell into the rally, potentially curbing it in the process through distribution.
2. Short vs Long-term capital gains--depending on when they invested in 2012, they might not have held their positions over a year qualifying them for LT cap gains.

necrita

newbie

Activity: 49

Merit: 0

When the winklevosses were prudent to make a wise investment in BTC in 2012, why did they not sell a large percentage in the great BTC rally of 2013?

It's widely speculated that they own 1% of coins in circulation. Which means during the rally their BTC holdings were worth at least $100 million. When their combined net worth is about $200 million why would they not sell out. It would have increased their net worth by 50% overnight.
Did the BTC market not have enough liquidity to make them whole, if they decided to cash out a percentage of their holdings?
There are people on the forums who were apparently able to cash out $1MM worth of BTC on finex.

Topic: Can the Winklevoss twins actions be explained? - page 2. (Read 2153 times)