Topic: The Winkle Twins - page 2. (Read 4251 times)

 +1

Sounds like a smart answer to me.  

What was he supposed to say?  I guess he could have said he appreciates their support or something and still evade the question.

Here's some gossip:

At the Bitcoin London 2013 conference, there was a panel of a few start ups.

A question from the audience for a 23-year old start up CEO:

"What's it like to have the Winklevoss twins as your investors?"

"No comment"

Off course they want to make money. Who doesn't want to make money with Bitcoins?
Off course, adoption and business is what drives bitcoins, and speculation, but.. we need drivers/leaders, or the value of Bitcoins will diminish.

Not saying they are the best people for it.. However, if they came up with the FB idea.. they must have some sort of value to add in the industry.

Personally, I think the guys, in spite of their perceived arrogance, are quite brilliant and should be given more respect then they have been.

First, the fact that they even came up with the idea (or helped come up with the idea) of Facebook should lend some credit to their ability to be inventive and see where the future is going.

The fact that they see Bitcoin as a worthwhile investment should be taken seriously (based on their past successful ideas) and the fact that they are so bold about it, in spite of the heat they keep taking for it, is a big deal too!  It is not easy being in the public eye and having your every move scrutinized.  I feel for them really and I respect them for that.

Just my thoughts.

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/07/02/bitcoin-exchange-traded-offering-seen-facing-tough-regulatory-scrutiny/

qft

Of course they want to make money, that's what every investor in the world wants!  Now, the way they go about making money is providing a valuable service to the rest of the BTC economy.  If they succeed in doing this, we're all better off, both them, and us.

I'm from Canada where gold, silver mining is BIG...
There are probably 100s if not 1000s of dodgy junior gold mining stocks globally...
Probably 90% of which are outright scams...
They are designed to sell a "Great Story About Finding Gold" to investors...
Then pump and dump as much stock as possible to complete morons...
While the principals keep paying themselves $200k/year... and keep "looking for gold" eternally.

The LAST thing these guys wanna do is actually find gold...
Then you gotta build a mine, break a sweat, etc...

90% of the stocks on the late Vancouver Stock Exchange were gold mining scams...
Now this exchange is called the Toronto Venture Exchange.

So you buy one of these bankrupt junior gold mining companies...
Pump some capital into the corporation... and buy BTC...
So you have a listed Corporation whose assets are 100% BTC...
You can have 10% gold and 10% silver and 80% BTC = nice diversified commodity miner.

Or you could do it in London or Ireland, whatever...
It's only a matter of time before this becomes common.

Wait, so what would happen if they bought a junior miner? What if they bought an ASIC miner/farm? I'm not familiar with what you mean at all.

Weird is not a criteria for ETF approval/disapproval.

The "pro" said BTC is really a commodity (I agree)...
But that a "commodity pool" would likely not be approved by SEC or a Futures Exchange.

So you are back to:

(1)  Offshore hedge fund like the one in Malta.

(2)  A listed company that holds most of it's assets in BTC...
For example, takeover a junior gold miner and put all assets into BTC.

The Winkle Twins probably know their "trust" is a longshot.

Wouldn't this depend on the definition of the nature of Bitcoin? Some would argue that it's more akin to a security than a currency. I've also heard people suggest that spectacles like this (SEC filings and regulations) are a way to formally define Bitcoin before moving forward with whatever plans these big players have.

Interesting, thanks for sharing!

^I mean if the SEC was investigating Pirate@40's BTCST scam...why would they have if Bitcoins aren't securities?  Wouldn't that prima facie not be in their jurisdiction?

I hope someone better versed in security law can weigh in here, i'm just speculating

That pro is also assuming Bitcoin is a currency. I argue (along with Germany) that it behaves like a commodity.

Besides, a bitcoin ETF wouldn't be the worst thing the SEC approved

Herb Greenberg's Weird ETFs Revisited

It will probably NOT be approved by the SEC...
In which case they will have to go offshore hedge fund for accredited investors.

Discussed by a pro here:

[–]etfamigo 5 points 4 months ago

So hey. I structure ETFs for a very large company.

A couple of three things: 1) The biggest issue you're going to run into is related to the concept of exemptive relief- that is, ETC (formerly a company called Faithshares, kind of funny) does not have the requisite permission from the SEC to launch non-index based products. Don't worry about making a bitcoin index, the SEC will only allow securities-based indices. Bitcoins, like all currencies, are not actually securities. 2) The best route for you would be a commodity pool built through the 19b-4 process, whereby you partner with an exchange to request permission from the SEC. Best case scenario this will take at least six months to get through, but honestly, you would not get through. 3) Seed is the last thing you should worry about. Lead market makers/IBs will put this up, provided you have (very) strong relationships with them. 4) Ok, serious here. The biggest issue is the lack of arbitragibility (not a word, but bear with me) between the ETF and the underlying bitcoins. This market is pathetically small and insanely illiquid. It simply is not a mature enough space to package into a product.

PM me if you have questions.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/19hxuv/bitcoin_etf/

 

I agree they seem to be in it for the long haul.  An ETF is a very positive because it opens up the BTC market to anyone with a brokerage account that has access to US markets.  It makes it easy for someone's mom or aunt or sister or son to buy "just a few bitcoins, just in case."  The costs involved setting up an ETF are not insignificant (I would think in the 6-7 figure USD range given the legal, regulator etc hurdles) and it seems as if this would be an expensive way to liquidate their positions.

Whatever the cost of their investment and relative to their other holdings their BTC portion is small percentage-wise (even now) and they do not seem stupid enough to cash out something that has a lot of potential for something that they do not need now.  Would you cash out a few percent of your portfolio if it had a huge appreciation potential and you didn't need it?

 

If this is true they would've done this earlier. They bought at a very cheap price. When they announced months after purchasing, their 1% stake was worth $11M

Yes, I suspect they have pump and dump planned, but not all at once and not for awhile.
They'll let it grow and pump and sell some off and then let what's left grow etc.

That's what the who nasdaq thing is about.

They are in it to make money. Don't judge them by the film. They appear to be successfull business men who are ruthless sometimes but that's how they make money. I don't like them personally but their investment and interest in bitcoin is probably a good thing until they sell their stock!

Nagle, it's you! Missing you over at the speculation forum. What would you say is the Bitcoin endgame at this point?