Topic: Don't rely on Venture capital money - these guys don't know what they're doing (Read 4311 times)

I had already answered to that:


For similar network security, we are either getting ridiculous monetary inflation or higher transaction fees.

On top of that I seriously doubt the average joe cares about going through the pain in the ass to get involved with bitcoin only to save 1-3% (right now that high bitcoin monetary inflation allows it) for the stuff he has to buy online.
If you convert BTC to USD to avoid volatility you pay fees for that too (less, but still). And if you buy bitcoin just to convert it to USD right after to avoid volatility and if you buy BTC only when you intend to spend it online that doesn't add any demand pushing the price up, since the merchants just dump the BTC anyway.


In other words, the whole system as a currency is a mess, especially long term.

im so confused if Bitcoin and BTCeanies are the same thing lol I feel like an idiot

You're mistaken on so many levels, hard to choose where to start.
I'll assume that by BTCeanie BTCabies you meant Bitcoin.  No biggie, many still confuse the two--not going to take offense or dwell on that any longer.  To the chase: Amazon didn't invest $75 million in either Bitcoin or Coinbase, $75 million is the total raised by coinbase.  Amazon's just one of the "investors."

What i do find offensive is your implications of some sort of a mass divestment from BTCeanies.  No one in his right mind is "cashing out their Beenie [sic] Baby investment."  True, some weak hands are being shaken out, but serious people with understanding of BTCeanie BTCabies technology are increasing their BTCeanie holdings, secretly.

If you was good with investing, you'd know that BTCeanie BTCabies is a long-term investment, not some overhyped internet get-rich-quick scheme like Bitcoin.
The fundamentals are improving all the time, don't miss the rocketboat.

  ~Happy Investing!

If I am not mistaken, I believe that Amazon's original business plan was to build a $75 million platform designed specifically (and solely) to profit from people cashing out their Beenie Baby investment.

Average Joe should use it for all of his online purchases through Amazon, Best Buy, Target, any retailer who sells gift cards through gyft.com. Why?
Because Joe gets 3% discount for using bitcoin, that's why. And Joe can insulate himself completely from bitcoin price fluctuations by converting USD->BTC at the time of purchase at a place like coinbase.

This is after an 87% crash

Have you actually read the WSJ article? Very superficial understanding about bitcoin and the blockchain.
Plenty of hype articles during 2014 right before crashes too.

A fad on the WSJ front page still getting tens of millions of dollars of VC funding this month alone, after 6 years?!

If it is a fad why are you here on a Sunday?

My main question still remained unanswered:

If there is no guarantee that the bitcoin's price is gonna go up and allow the average Joe to profit from it, why should he buy bitcoin to use it as a currency?

I don't see why not, the analogy works as a distinction between a bubble and the actual revolutionary technological advancement (which is not "bitcoin VS the blockchain" but "bitcoin VS a distributed ledger technology that makes sense").

"major technological achievement that has half of the computer science world excited"
Not sure about that claim. There are a lot of computer scientists who are either bashing it or at least acknowledging its big limitations (while admitting that the underlying idea behind the technology is worth it and actually revolutionary, but the blockchain implementation might not the the best one).
Same with the "few percent of the economic world". Are you sure you are not biased with these claims?


I'm not saying crypto or distributed ledger technologies are a fad. I'm saying that the bitcoin blockchain implementation and especially the idea of a stand-alone currency that is needed in the system is probably a fad.

Beanie Babies?
*ducks*

(Partly) quoting my response from the wall thread...

I can't be arsed to take this discussion any more serious than I do until you come up with some more insightful comparisons than "Bitcoin = pets.com". Same idea as the claims that "Bitcoin = tulip bubble" or "Bitcoin = beanie babies".

There's really no point in arguing with someone who equates a major technological achievement that has half of the computer science world and a few percent of the economical world excited with an online store for pet food, even if both of them underwent a speculative mania phase.

I see a $75m investment as a positive. Not all VC investments make money, that much is widely acknowledged, and using the Dotcom bubble example, the ones that invested on the back of hype and minimal understanding of a new technology were burnt ie, I have an idea and a domain name but no product as yet, no proven sales = here have $10m. Perhaps 2014 was Bitcoin's dotcom burst.

But this is not what I see with Coinbase. I see some people in an industry that may be disintermediated making a bridging play. Sure, they aren't investing in btc directly, because at the moment it is volatile, in a bear market and there are security issues. Despite this, they've collectively put $75m into one of the major players in the space. If bitcoin grows and becomes a financial force then Coinbase will be valued much much higher than the valuation at which they invested. That's a VC play. I think that is their play.

Coinbase has potential to grow and offer other services. They have well respected VC's on their board and Gavin Andressen as an advisor. No guarantee of success but good odds. They also are pro-regulation and would probably become the go-to business for Wall St types to use. They could be the digital clearinghouse as Oda said upthread. I'd say this would see them merge or be acquired by a company worth many times Bitcoins market cap

The NYDFS hasn't spent the last year working on BitLicenses because Beaniebabies, I would assume their research and other contributors see some kind of use for Blockchain / Bitcoin.

yeah.  So?  That as good a reason as any and a better reason than most for people to buy BTC.  As long as they are willing to put in the effort required to know how to hold on to them.


The average Joe wants to make money just like everyone else.  'World adoption' is the worst idea ever for Bitcoin.  Indeed, efforts in that direction were a driving force inducing me to sell more a year ago when I was doing that.


'Illicit' is, I suppose, defined as anything that corp/gov doesn't like.  And they like very little that gets in the way of their crony relationships with one another.  So as far as I'm concerned when it comes to 'illicit activities', bring it on.  There are lots of ways to catch crooks who do bad things.  I'm not inclined to give away every freedom I have, or every possible way to express dis-satisfaction with the corruption in the system just so some fat ass cop can 'do his job' without doing any real work.

I've never favored being anything but completely straight-up with Mr A. V. E. Joe about Bitcoin and have never personally done so.  There are absolutely risks and the very nature of the solution is not clear in part because it is different things to different people.  If Joe want's to take the time to figure things out, I'm OK with that.  Some Joe Sixpack types end up being a fair bit more competent than many self-garlanded 'experts' if they take an interest in applying themselves.

Some people don't, but others do actually see things where others don't. A lot of those people wouldn't even have all the money they do, if they weren't somehow apt at judging opportunities and making the right decisions at the right time - even (or especially!) when others tell them they're wrong in their actions.

Doesn't matter. That money is helping the Bitcoin infrastructure developing and getting better. Sometimes it's only due to bold and adventurous people that something actually turns out to work well. You can't make big gains if there's no risk involved, that's just the way it is!

That is still "speculative reasons".

The average Joe wants something that is useful, that has a purpose, if the only purpose is "I will get more dollars when I will be able to sell it higher" (IF it goes higher), that is not gonna work to bring "world adoption" to bitcoin.

As I explained, there really isn't any point for the average joe to actually use bitcoin as a currency or as a store of value, aside from illicit activities.
The only real reason seems to be musical-chairs speculation as an end in itself, and that is not exactly something the average joe might know how to do profitably or be interested in in the first place.

Back when Bitcoin was in the low single digits, I argued that the average Joe who could afford to might pick some Bitcoin as a long-shot bet just in case because the pay-off, in the relatively unlikely event that there was one, could be large.

Also for the reasons of reward size, that the actual amount of BTC need not be very large in order to make things pay off in a moderate to good scenario.

At $1000, we were approaching what I considered the 'moderate win' scenario.  I took some profits and re-balanced my portfolio there which was in-line with the plan I made when I was buying.

Different times now.  I'd not make any suggestions at this point.  Personally I would still probably make a modest bet today if I had a strong desire to diversify.

Nobody answered my question tho.


Why should the average Joe buy bitcoin? For what purposes?

Good post, it's nice to see somebody who is trying to be objective and look at things for what they are.

Nice arguments, you definitely sound like a smart, critically thinking investor.


Again, not investments in bitcoin itself, VC money can fail, and even if it doesn't, it does not imply a high BTC price and doesn't imply BTC will survive.


You are easily impressionable by hype articles. I guess you're one of the dudes that said "you bear trolls are idiots, Barry Silbert just said that Wall Street money is going to flow in bitcoin directly this year (2014) in a massive way!" at the beginning of 2014 but got screwed right?

Again; bla bla bla bla bla bla pure 100% horseschit.

Go read this idiot; http://www.nasdaq.com/article/big-wall-street-players-investing-in-bitcoin-startup-cm435611#ixzz3PeetWZxz

Whilst you are right and that we should not rely on it, it is still great for the overall bitcoin economy.

Does that give an indication that the number of people owning bitcoin but especially USING IT AS A CURRENCY (and not just for speculative purposes as an end to itself) is anyway significant? No. The only indication of how many people owning bitcoin is this:
https://bitscan.com/bitnews/item/how-many-people-really-own-bitcoins-and-why-does-it-matter

Low numbers, and that was in january-february 2014, any new guys coming in that were not traders got screwed with it because of price.
Don't know how many more people actually got into the game and sticked to it after that.

Aside from reasons related to drugs or wild speculation (profitable and easy trading of a volatile asset), who is using BTC? Mostly people who already own bitcoin for these purposes.

Why should the average Joe buy bitcoin and use it as a currency, if he is not interested in the use cases I just mentioned?
I mean, why are you here? Why do you own bitcoin? For speculative purposes amirite?
Me too tbh, to trade it.
Now why should the average Joe give two shits about all that?

-as a store of value? bitcoin is a shitty store of value, you said it yourself in a post recently. And 2014 clearly shows it (a whole year of terror if you hodled like a fool).

-because no fees? Volatility can fuck that over real good, so no point in saving 1-3% when you can lose 10-30% in a few days. You might argue that over time (IF bitcoin succeeds) volatility will gradually decrease. While I have doubts about that, in the long run bitcoin transaction fees will be higher anyway. I guess you know that miners “need to be paid” in order for bitcoin and the blockchain to exist, whether thanks to ridiculous inflation, or transaction fees. The blockchain is not gratis.
Peter Todd said it himself: “regarding fee economics, we’re fucked”.


So why should the average Joe put up with bitcoin’s volatility and the possibility of having his funds easily stolen (if he has to move his money around, you can’t just keep it in cold storage forever you know) and no consumer protection?
Why?


For musical chairs-ponzi speculative purposes or drugs, that’s why. But guess what, not enough people care about that to justify a high BTC price.


The masterplan for bitcoin’s world adoption and earth domination might not work out as expected I’m afraid…




As you said, these companies "accepting bitcoin" is just self-promotion and marketing, since they actually DON'T really accept bitcoins.

Who said “big money dislikes bitcoin”? Some big money bought it and is now bagholding it, as I showed in my first post.
Not only that, but VC money can easily fail, these guys are humans and not perfect. Like Tim Draper, Bill Miller, Barry Silbert and others. But most importantly, NSYE invested in an exchange not in bitcoin itself, that simply doesn’t imply that bitcoin price will be higher and that it won’t crash.
Simple as that.

They invested in an exchange in the cryptocurrency space.

What are other big money/names saying about the cryptocurrency space for example?

What is the Federal reserve bank saying about it?
Let’s have a quick look:

http://newsbtc.com/2015/01/22/federal-reserve-bank-vp-acknowledges-ripple-bitcoins-original-ledger/

What about Bill Gates about saving the unbanked and giving them access to financial services?
Let’s check it out:

http://www.coindesk.com/bill-gates-bitcoin-alone-wont-solve-global-payments-challenges/

To return to my dotcom bubble analogy, yes, bitcoin = world.com, pets.com


Now, the ripple network better represents the “internet-dotcom” analogy because it’s simply a technology (sure there is XRP the currency, but it’s not necessary to give a fuck about that as opposed to bitcoin in the blockchain system, which is a flawed concept), like the internet.

Ripple is just an example that takes what is promising about distributed ledger technology but without all the fuck ups (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10177316) that make the bitcoin blockchain not viable long term and without the NECESSARY incorporated pets.com get-rich-quick-but-without-a-real-purpose ponzi investment (bitcoin).


The analogy of the internet works because bitcoiners represent the dudes that during early internet days wanted to buy “shares of the internet”, but since you can’t technically do that, they stick to pets.com because at least that investment could make them rich quick, in theory.
The analogy works perfectly.

It’s pretty understandable why bitcoiners don’t like ripple the network. Right?


Again, ripple is just an example. Others projects in the cryptocurrency space might come up with something similar and better, replacing the ripple network and become “the internet” of my analogy.
I’m not promoting the ripple network itself, just to be clear.

Likely quite true.  People who play with more money than they can comfortably sit on for multiple years will probably need more luck than anything to not end up road-kill.

Secondly, if Bitcoin crashes and burns in the fairly long time-spans that we are talking about (which is entirely possible) there is a fair chance that a replacement will pick up where the old blockchain left off or perhaps at some strategic point shortly before.  This because the representations of value therein are by this time distributed widely enough among the people who matter to give a new effort a running start.  Probably some of the more shrewd investors (using the term loosely) consider this.  Actually, I would guess that many many replacements would do just this so the main trick will be to pick which one comes out on top...or wait long enough to find out.

I still say that VCs who plunk good money down on top of efforts which anticipate Bitcoin as an exchange currency for buying trinkets are fools.  One could barely design a more ineffective system for doing this.  The only hope for these folks is that but size bloats and Bitcoin is adopted by an internet giant, but it would take amazing marketing skill to have Bitcoin retain anything of it's initial appeal in such a scenario.  OTOH, betting against the stupidity of the masses...

we better start our own bitcoin business its good right.
we can earn and loose all we want.

question is is it right time to start btc business

Coinbase data mines the shit out of its user base. NYSE (a public clearinghouse) injects fresh capital into Coinbase to offer its support. Coincedence? I think not. NYSE is grooming Coinbase as its new foray into digital clearinghouses. As a side note, coupled with the NYSE investment, I'm sure Mr. Pandit is still butt hurt about Citigroup. What a better way to get back in the running than to take sweet revenge on your old banking buddies via BTC...

Coinbase is a great investment. If bitcoin doesn't work out, then they can easily fall back and be the most trusted P2P ripple gateway.

Which is why it's paramount to get in while you can

Welcome to the forum, newfriend!  Nice first post, much wisdom

These people have the attention span of a hammered goldfish in regards to the investment world. Do they really think those VC funds and billionaires are worried about an investment that they are prepared to take on for more then 5 to 6 years?

These price changes will be nothing once the actual technology gains traction mainstream, which is a good 3-4 years ahead. There is no way the OP can compete with that type of thinking since it is clearly obvious he lacks both financial standing and experience to support himself during these 'bear markets'.

That kind of thinking is not 'understood', only experienced. EFT, VC, and other real money are not geniuses, but still far out strips OP in terms of long term considerations.

Tim Draper tho...

I am sensing a lot of fear on this forum, but not in the bulls who have seen this all before, but in the bears who seem to have convinced themselves bitcoin will fail and are using a downsloping chart to justify it.

Yesterday US banks and senior bankers began to publicly invest in bitcoin infrastructure. In the next few days US regulation will be announced. It has begun. If you don't think the action of the last few months was bitcoin being entered by major players you deserve to be wiped out shorting a hyper volatile asset like bitcoin.

Keep droning on about Tim draper, about mining costs, coin inflation, 'it's the blockchain not bitcoin' to your merry hearts content. You will shortly be proven wrong. Most of you know it, too.

A fair bit more than 'sorta like' as I see it.

That may or may not be the case.  The truly proficient would probably recognize that a great deal of fruit is still up in the tree and would just require a certain amount of 'wasted energy' and risk of a strained back to shake it free.  On top of that, the violent shaking is likely to scare away most of the competition from the more primitive gathering groups.

So, it may be the case that you are ridiculing people for wasting all their energy pushing the tree back and forth while they could just look around in the grass for the olives that are there already.

Or they might just be bagholders.  I dunno.  They probably didn't get the funds they have by being stupid however.  Assuming otherwise could be a mistake.

I think I might follow through change my major to business administration while I can. Now to pick what business model to go for..

Yes.  If you're good at getting VC funding.  It's sorta like getting grants--a skill in itself.

Yes. I plan on making my next fortune on businesses that use the bitcoin protocol.
If you want VC money here are some things to keep in mind.

1. You will need a killer business plan, not just an idea. Even a great idea will receive no attention unless you have a detailed financial plan showing how the money you are seeking will turn into more money.

2. Remember motives. Angel investors are not angels. They are looking to make money and may not share your love of bitcoins. Look to partner with someone who understands what your doing and avoid taking money from someone who does not.

3. Have something to sell. If you have a product, apply for a patent. If you have intellectual property then copyright it and insist on viewers signing an NDA. If you want to sell a business then start the business before you pitch it.

4. Set a target and stick to it. Don't let some VCist talk you into a bad deal that gives them most of your profits and has you doing all the work.  

I understand that but I feel like its still possible to get VC funding with Bitcoin companies...

How dare you? Comparing cutting edge blockchain technology (with a built in currency-like token to secure the network) to a has-been producer of overpriced hardware on the last leg of a fad that started about 10 years ago.

Surely you can't be serious  

Ahh, gotcha.  Coinbase has been around for a bit.  Didn't get 75 mil because there's free-floating VC $$$ just looking for ground.

2013 compared to 2014, and for example Coinbase just got $75 mill alone...

"So much" compared to?

This is getting tedious.  AAPL?  You gonna trot out the Bitcoin=internet analogy next?
Yes, Bitcoin could be the next IBM, Apple or even the Easter Bunny.
Fun fact:  I doubt it tho.

Do you think its a good time to start a Bitcoin business right now? With so much VC funding flow in, while it may not be a good indicator of support of Bitcoin but the company itself benefits.

@oda:


Bitcoin = Pets.com

Distributed ledger technology = the internet


Make no mistake, I said distributed ledger technology, not its first shitty implementation (the bitcoin blockchain) that needs a ponzi currency flawed by design in order to exist.
...And definitely not the ponzi currency itself.

That's how the analogy as I used it works.


Tomorrow I will have more time to answer any points raised in this thread more carefully.

Right. Only difference between our points of view: the NASDAQ company that is equal to Bitcoin in the analogy could be WorldCom, or it could be Microsoft, Apple or any of the other major players that we take for granted now but that saw huge valuation slumps in the aftermath of the "bubble" pop.

Fun fact:

AAPL fell from ~5$ to ~1$ in the early 2000s. Surely Apple must have been dead back then.


Fun fact 2: Both of those sound like a good entry price now that it's trading at above $100, huh?

Never did.  Just pointed out that if (NASDAQ Composite)=(crypto) => (a company listed on NASDAQ, e.g. WorldCom)=(Bitcoin).  Seems self-evident, no?

@NotLambchop

Why do you think I posted a NASDAQ graph? Just now, we're almost back to the peak level (+/- a few percent).

Sure, if you put all your kid's college money into stocks of pets.com, your investment failed.

Or if you bought some index following fund at peak valuation, then sold a year later.


The point is, tech is doing fine. NASDAQ is doing fine.

Sure, I get it, you think Bitcoin is pets.com. Can't prove to you that you're wrong. Just don't bring up the "dotcom craze" as a whole as an argument against crypto: there was sharp correction, but the industry as a whole went on to change the world.

Who cares that pets.com went down when there is Google, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft running the show now?

[email protected]:
You claimed that those who have invested during the dotcom craze came out in the black after 14 years.  The DotCom analogy was brought up as a counterargument, i.e. no, no they did not.

Oh yes, I was agreeing with you. I'm taking advantage of these prices and if history is any indicator I will soon enough be called an unfair early adopter again.

Hm? That was my point, no? From $32 back to $2 made almost everyone on the outside, and even plenty of the "early adopters" declare Bitcoin dead and hopeless.

$1100 to $200 is not even close to that decline, but here we go again with the "WorldCom" comparisons... 

My advice: ignore any chance at VC in the UK. Even in London, the investors are highly risk averse and will give you terrible valuations if they do invest. Raise in silicon valley - it's BY FAR the most likely place you'll manage to raise money if you have something worth funding at the VC level.

$2! That was post rally. lol

I remember when we hit parity with the dollar. It seemed so huge, especially after growing from $0.06.

^I've never claimed that Bitcoin is dead.
Clearly some unusual stuff happened already (hashrate getting weird, bizarre pool distribution...



...cattle mutilations, lights flickering, etc., etc.).

If you feel like riding this thing down to $2, you go right ahead.

No such 'point of no return' estimate from me, I'm sure.

In my opinion, there is no clear cut point from which it "will never recover".

$2 in 2011 was almost certainly well below any such limit if you would have asked, and here we are: up by a factor 100 from then within about 3 years.

You mean "selling BTCeanies to idiots"?  eBay, to name one

I remember hearing $300 being the point of no return.  I guess we can ride this thing all the way down tho...

Name one, really, just one large company (other than the producer) investing in Beanie Babies infrastructure - one of your favorite analogies for Bitcoin.


I'm sure Coinbase investors are opportunistic. But they're not entirely stupid either: you don't pour money into something that you expect to go away next year.

Sure, but if Bitcoin dies soon they don't make money when nobody trades it. This is the way I see it, nyse wants in on the exchanges to make profit off that while the price gets pushed down more pre-etf release. Wall Street comes in at low prices and launches a massive bull run willy and Markus could only dream of.

Bitcoin is doing fine, time is on our side.  

Again:  Coinbase is not Bitcoin.  If someone wants to invest in USD, he won't invest in PayPal, he'll buy USD.

@NotLambchop Noice... So you discovered the reason why financial markets exist (other than that they're kinda hard to ban entirely )

Whether Bitcoin (or crypto) will be "tech" / NASDAQ, i.e. a long term success with a major dip in between, or WorldCom, a total failure ultimately, is a question impossible to answer with any sort of rigor, therefore: answered by markets.

Sure, 2014 mostly confirmed your point. But we should probably wait until we're back to single digits per coin before declaring Bitcoin bankrupt like Worldcom, right?

Maybe you don't believe bitcoin has a future, but Coinbase just got 75 million votes to the contrary.
As far as these guys not knowing what they are doing... I have met some of them and I assure you they have a plan and know exactly what they are doing. They did not become billionaires by stumbling around in the dark or listening to crackpot theories on the internet.

Compelling.  Continue holding WorldCom.

Now that I think of it... funny that you mention the "dotcom bubble", as a placeholder for all those broken dreams of investors, huh.

Let's take NASDAQ as a proxy for "dotcom performance"⁽¹⁾: except for the poor suckers who bought in at the very peak, then panic sold at the bottom, I'd say the technology sector is doing mighty fine:



Took about 14 years to get back to peak level. But by the looks of it, crypto moves a lot faster


⁽¹⁾ Yeah, yeah, "Bitcoin =/= NASDAQ". So diversify a small amount into alts and Ripple, and keep your eyes open for possible successors to Bitcoin, as judged by their total mcap. For now, Bitcoin does more or less equal crypto, by the analogy above, where NASDAQ equals "tech".

Bla bla bla bla, what a huge pile of bullschit. How much money do you earn by doing this?

You must have a schit life isn't it?


Grabbed youre 2e troll acount to back up yourself?

I've never heard of Jaroslaw but in all likelihood he's still trolling under a new name LOL 

I hope they'll expand in Canada so I can buy bitcoins more easily now that we found the bottom. 

Those investments are benefit to Coinbase not BTC Price!!

Bagholders now transitioning from calling 'beartroll' to being sour. Malicous stage and blaming it all on you next.

Yes he does. Only your troll brain is so small that you can't see further ahead than 2-3 months when you put your money into something. You just don't understand what a long term outlook is. It's funny that I've been hearing the exact same thing from trolls like you when I was buying in the bearish Spring and Summer of 2013, I was a stupid bagholder and they laughed at me for buying this crap and the price would never see triple digits again. Then the price went up to $1100 and the trolls became very quiet. You think this won't happen again? Perhaps it won't you can never be 100% sure but you will sure look stupid if it does. Anyone remember Jaroslaw? Funny how we never heard from him since just like I expect to hear nothing from you once the price moves up to $600 again and higher. I will still laugh at you though just like I'm still laughing at Jaroslaw.

He is right though. 
No money went into btc directly.  When investors truly believe that something such as bitcoin will go up, they buy it directly (ex. look at people buying oil and storing it is ships, they don't care that it hasn't bottomed, they know it will go up because they believe in it.)

Besides, this news caused what, btc to hold at 213 for a day, instead of 208.....woooo were doing so great. 

Let's not be unrealistic here guys, when we hear that these guys are buying btc directly, or even promoting its widespread usage, good.  For now, don't get caught sinking all your money in yet. 

Of course if you already have money sunken in such as myself, we can close our eyes and pretend that this is the turning point...... or we can relax and not set ourselves up for massive panic sales and 9 million trolling threads when the price drops back to $200 or below. 
I want btc to skyrocket of course, but at this point we waited so long, we might as well wait for it to increase because people are actually using it, not because you guys think if you don't jump in now you are going to miss the rally....that is not happening.   

Awww, you lil' trolls are totally adorbs :3

Here, I'll quote myself, from the wall thread. Ain't nobody got time to respond to the FUD individually...

I see  a lot of people in here getting excited about VC money being poured in the bitcoin space (like the NSYE news) and taking it as some guarantee that the bitcoin's price is gonna go to the moon because of that.

Wrong.

First of all, some of them are investing in bitcoin exchanges, not in bitcoin itself. BTC price could crash to $10 and exchanges would do fine. Bitcoin "investors"? not so much.

Secondly, some of the VC guys investing in this space don't know what they are doing or what they are really getting into.
Now permabulls will probably shout at me something like:
-"you troll! We are talking about Citi CEO and NSYE! Do you think you know more than them of what's going on? Hahaha"

K.


Let's take a few examples shall we?

Tim Draper. Big VC guy, billionaire. He bought BTC in the millions at $500-600. Then he posted on twitter stuff like: "if I was Russian I would buy bitcoin right now". Right before the ridiculous BTC crash.

Does it look like he knows what he's doing?
No.

What about Bill Miller? I have enormous respect for the guy, but he bought BTC at $500. Let's be honest, he screwed up big time.

What about Barry Silbert and his fund investors who can't liquidate their holdings from the fund and they are stuck with their bags?
Did he fuck up? You tell me.

Those guys are now public Bitcoin BAGHOLDERS. We are not talking about small percentages. They lost millions.

Oh, and they invested on bitcoin directly, unlike others who invested in exchanges, who are not technically dependent on the bitcoin price to rise...


You still think you should take VC money as a guarantee that nothing can go wrong (it can easily fail by definition FFS)?  Or even better, as a guarantee that any VC money in exchanges is gonna make bitcoin's price go to the moon even if the two are not directly related?


There was a lot of VC money during the dotcom bubble too. Just sayin'.