Topic: Pitching Bitcoin to a Whale Tank (Read 152 times)

My answer to the question is very simple my we need an alternative system to the banking system. Imagine wanting to send money urgently to let’s say a sick friend out of your country and you head to the bank and you are asked to fill so much forms that kills time and not just that you may have to wait because the bank doesn’t work on weekends and transfers takes some amount of hours to days.  This is just one of the many disadvantages of the banking system and using the crypto-currency technology you don’t experience it.

I agree with the last part, the 'judges' followed the conventional rule book of investing, asking similar questions about cash turn over, sales, whether the owners are working full-time or part, how sustainable the business model is and what their equity would be.
Bitcoin does not follow any of those rules, meaning they would expect it to fail overtime, or 3 out of 4 of them would.

There was not any risk in bitcoin at the time, there was the perceived risk of scam, lots of ponzi schemes made people wary of magical internet money.

- Jay -

Back in 2017, I was still not into the Bitcoin space; I was just hearing the name Bitcoin around, not even knowing where to buy or sell it. I even thought that Bitcoin was like a physical asset then, but I am glad to be one of the beneficial users of Satoshi's technology (Bitcoin). Satoshi created Bitcoin in order to give ordinary people (like myself) the chance to be in total control of their financial lives in a decentralized manner. I learned that Bitcoin is an open-source project, and no one has the power to own or be in total control of it entirely. It is design for public, open for anyone to participate, so I don't need to wast a lot of time trying to convince a whale.

I agree with you, Lucius. Bitcoin was created to give ordinary people the chance of taking financial control back from financial elites like the banks and other companies, not just one individual owning everything to them self.

Of course, this is always an option that Satoshi was probably counting on, otherwise the whole project would have failed long before it started. The whole thing should have passed under the radar of the big players, all with the aim of getting as many ordinary people as possible to get involved and support Bitcoin on a personal level. I would say that the mission was successful, because until the big bull run of 2017 there was no interest of big players and companies in Bitcoin, of course with some exceptions such as Tim Draper or the Winklevoss twins.

---

What kind of risk are you talking about? In 2010, you could mine Bitcoin with a personal computer and the reward per block was 50 BTC. There wasn't any risk, it's just that most people didn't know about Bitcoin, or thought it was just one of a series of internet scams.

Personally, I don't like shark tank, but I agree with you about the point they wouldn't care about the technology. They will ask and look if the project is already making money or not. I really think that they also would not find bitcoin interesting because of the risk involved in it back in 2010.

I have watch a few episodes of the show SharkTank, and I don’t think they would have bought the idea of investing in bitcoin or even care about the tech. It’s a big risk, even in 2010. I have never seen a episode of the show where a contestant was pitching gold to the judges. The investors only care about profits, royalties and equity. They want companies and start ups that look promising and have already started making money from the business, most times the contestants are offered unfair deals and they take it without doing the math. I wonder how that would work for a volatile asset like bitcoin if they ask for double their investments plus royalties.

Every day different individuals join the forum with different purposes, so what are you saying? Some people have the Bitcoin ban in their country and may have lost interest in the forum; it's not something to lament about; there are still those in the forum who still maintain the old ethos of the forum; that's also why the moderators, DT1 and DT2 members, are there; they can flag some shitposters who might not get a chance of being selected in any signature. But, well, all the augments don't answer the OP's question.


Of course, I expect them to be awear that Bitcoin will eliminate the need for a third party to handle our fund, the bank loan out our money, or use it to do business, but in Bitcoin, there is more profit when the price is bullish.

Bitcoin technology is not for those who think it's not for them; they have the brains to read and understand it, but when they are not convinced, then I can't do anything but go on with people who think it's of value to them.

Sir Lucius stated that having 100,000 people with 1 bitcoins among themselves is preferable than whales of whatever have all the Bitcoin to them selfs. Perhaps Satoshi did not design the technology for everyone or for only one person, but for people who find it good to use.

Mr.Strange 👺

In this hypothetical situation, I am referring to people with the ability to make huge chunks of purchase.

That is true, I went to far back in the scenario I was trying to draw out.

And it is somewhat expected that they would discover late or decide to buy late. Their first impression to be to dismiss it, they have already created a hack for the current financial system, why create another that is totally open to anyone. Whatever amount they had bought early on would have also been eventually absorbed by the market and their influence reduced, cause there are surely people who own hundreds and thousands of bitcoin.

- Jay -

Imagine if in early stages some real philanthropist got to bitcoin already. Indeed this will be controlled badly. Maynr there are some who realize it and still believe but would you think riches care if they arent gonna benefit a lot of money in that during the time definitely no. So I think these whales on bitcoin has deserved their position since they care on what Satoshi builds and understand how it works differently on the whales that playing the market now.

If you already imagined the year 2010 as some kind of example, then we should know that back then it was not necessary to buy Bitcoin, considering that everyone could mine it with their personal computer and only 20 mined blocks a day would bring you as much as 1000 BTC. In other words, you only needed a little knowledge and curiosity if you wanted to invest in Bitcoin back then.

However, I am not aware that at that early stage some famous people recognized Bitcoin as something worth investing in, although I know of some stories about how some "famous" people lost their BTC when Mt.Gox collapsed. Therefore, I conclude that there are few who know how to recognize the right opportunity in time, and it is not something that should be associated exclusively with Bitcoin.

In addition to all of the above, I don't think it would be good if the rich understood in time what it was all about, because Bitcoin was not designed to be bought by rich individuals or companies, but to be something completely different. The later they realized, the better for everyone else - because it is better for 100 000 people to have 1 BTC each, than for one person to own everything.

Back then, People didn't know if they were whales, sharks or whatever we say. They understood the technology and had to run nodes to use Bitcoin. So, whoever doesn't understand the technology satoshi invented, ask questions only if they are interested. Right now, this forum is full of shit posters and bounty hunters. We write here to get paid for signature campaigns. But it wasn't like this back then. The forum was full of tech geek people. Those people had an interest, and they understood the technology.

I don't think satoshi had to convenience anyone, as he said. Right now, How many of us know how bitcoin works? It becomes too easy to download wallet software and do transactions within a few minutes. We don't have to understand how it works. Most people consider Bitcoin as a way to become rich. The thought wasn't same back then. People gave more priority on Privacy and be their own bank.

I follow shark tank a lot and enjoy the creativity the show portrays. It got me thinking of a hypothetical situation which led to this thread.

Imagine the year is 2010, you are a Shark Whale tank contestant using the pseudonym 'We are all satoshi'. At the time relatively no one has heard about Bitcoin and do not understand how it works.
You are trying to convince some whales and institutional investors that putting their money into bitcoin is a wise financial decision and would bring more returns on their investment than all other ventures out there in value and utility.

---

I think they would have 2 major questions:
1. The Technology.
2. Their stake.

On the technology, one would talk about how efficient and effective the bitcoin network is and how it seamlessly allows financial transactions between one party and another. A demonstration there to create a wallet easily for one of the judges and send them some sats (showing it is divisible) would show how easy it is to use. You can also talk about the bitcoin whitepaper.
Keeping it short and ending with the famous phrase would give lots of dramatic effect  :

On their stake in it, being a decentralized technology, they do not get any whale privilege, you only own as much of bitcoin as you possess. No one can give you a contract or some paper work for it, not even satoshi.
If you buy 10,000BTC you own 0.05% of the total supply,
If you run a node or build a rig, you own a bit of consensus privilege or a bit of the total hashrate.

---

Do you think any of them would have been convinced to invest back then?

What reply would you give to their expected questions,

• why do we need an alternative to banks, or
• how can money work without regulation

Maybe we can pick up one or two phrases to pitch Bitcoin to others, not particularly whales.

- Jay -