Do we really need Wall-Street money for the next rally?
At $5000 capitalization is 65B. At rally time 1$ of fresh money create 10$ of capitalization. It's just 6B of fresh money. It's just 6$ per head of first world's population. No need for Wall-Street yet.
Topic: this is why big Wallstreet money will NOT be coming in soon - page 2. (Read 4507 times)
Old-school "experts" are often not qualified to comment on Bitcoin.
Also, (some) Wall Street money is already coming in now.
Do you mean now or NOW, like its CCMF time? Also, (some) Wall Street money is already coming in now.
...wall street has already jumped in bed.
What a sad state of affairs we are in that we call actually using bitcoin as an electronic payment network and a currency "ideology" - as if these things are second hand to price speculation and pumping. It's as if bitcoin has been swallowed up by a commercial borg of greedy people who want to use it as an advertising slogan just to get as much 'investor' money in, perform speculation, and profit off of other speculators, without neccessarily doing what is actually good for bitcoin and increasing its adoption. All these investment derivatives are just a construct surrounding bitcoin that doesn't really have anything to do with Bitcoin itself.
Wall Street money comes with strings attached.
Let them keep their fiat investments.
Let them keep their fiat investments.
..... and let them come last.
Wall Street money comes with strings attached.
Let them keep their fiat investments.
Let them keep their fiat investments.
I don't understand this fetish with getting "wall street into bitcoin" anyway. Everytime I see it brought it up, it's about 'setting something up so people can invest'. but 'investments' into bitcoin via buying some bitcoin derivative is not what we need and will not help bitcoin. What bitcoin needs is for every day people to have the ability to buy bitcoins (safely) and actually use them as a form of money on the internet, send them to other users, and use bitcoin's features. Bitcoin is supposed to be a form of money - not some kind of mutual fund investment scheme.
It's the same thing with people on this forum. Everyone is always talking about bitcoin like some kind of "investment". But I thought bitcoin was supposed to be the future of money and payments.
Bitcoin is what it is. It does what it does and can be used in the ways it can be used. Ideology really has no place except to the individual. It's the same thing with people on this forum. Everyone is always talking about bitcoin like some kind of "investment". But I thought bitcoin was supposed to be the future of money and payments.
I don't understand this fetish with getting "wall street into bitcoin" anyway. Everytime I see it brought it up, it's about 'setting something up so people can invest'. but 'investments' into bitcoin via buying some bitcoin derivative is not what we need and will not help bitcoin. What bitcoin needs is for every day people to have the ability to buy bitcoins (safely) and actually use them as a form of money on the internet, send them to other users, and use bitcoin's features. Bitcoin is supposed to be a form of money - not some kind of mutual fund investment scheme.
It's the same thing with people on this forum. Everyone is always talking about bitcoin like some kind of "investment". But I thought bitcoin was supposed to be the future of money and payments.
It's the same thing with people on this forum. Everyone is always talking about bitcoin like some kind of "investment". But I thought bitcoin was supposed to be the future of money and payments.
So the old school investors are worried they need to take responsibility for someones money instead of spending it and losing it willy nilly
I wonder if anyone else sees it that way
I wonder if anyone else sees it that way
I think "mental midget" pretty much sums up the OP.
exactly
The OP is rubbish, the reason why a custody is used is because it is necessary; a funds manager cannot store wheelbarrows full of stocks, bonds or whatever personally
in the case of BTC a simple bank vault will do for cold storage of private keys, and for the fiat a bank account
restricting access to both is a formality
that issue is a non-issue
The OP is rubbish, the reason why a custody is used is because it is necessary; a funds manager cannot store wheelbarrows full of stocks, bonds or whatever personally
in the case of BTC a simple bank vault will do for cold storage of private keys, and for the fiat a bank account
restricting access to both is a formality
that issue is a non-issue
We need more "problems" to be solved that easily.
exactly
The OP is rubbish, the reason why a custody is used is because it is necessary; a funds manager cannot store wheelbarrows full of stocks, bonds or whatever personally
in the case of BTC a simple bank vault will do for cold storage of private keys, and for the fiat a bank account
restricting access to both is a formality
that issue is a non-issue
The OP is rubbish, the reason why a custody is used is because it is necessary; a funds manager cannot store wheelbarrows full of stocks, bonds or whatever personally
in the case of BTC a simple bank vault will do for cold storage of private keys, and for the fiat a bank account
restricting access to both is a formality
that issue is a non-issue
The problem is simple to solve. Just get someone trustworthy ... to hold the assets.
In all seriousness, yes. A bank only has to hire someone knowledgeable and trustworthy to help them set up facilities and procedures for safekeeping.
Old-school "experts" are often not qualified to comment on Bitcoin.
Also, (some) Wall Street money is already coming in now.
Also, (some) Wall Street money is already coming in now.
The problem is simple to solve. Just get someone trustworthy like MtGox to hold the assets.
The problem is simple to solve. Just get someone trustworthy like MtGox to hold the assets.
I do not get his argument, read the stuff three time - maybe a language thing. Is he saying that it is a technical problem? A fund manager at a custody bank should not alone be in control of the private key? Multisig solves that doesn't it? Or is it a law problem?
Legislation is easy once the political will money is there. Long term non-issue.
FTFY
Legislation is easy once the political will is there. Long term non-issue.
Great, another institutional naysayer stating why it won't work. I bet he still writes checks.
This reminds me of the mental midgets in the early 90's declaring why the internet won't work.
In other news, Benjamin Lawsky, superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, says why the fuck not?
http://upstart.bizjournals.com/entrepreneurs/hot-shots/2014/03/11/ben-lawsky-to-accept-bitcoin-application.html
"The department also announced today that it intends to propose the regulatory framework under which these applications will be processed no later than the end of the second quarter of 2014."
This reminds me of the mental midgets in the early 90's declaring why the internet won't work.
In other news, Benjamin Lawsky, superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, says why the fuck not?
http://upstart.bizjournals.com/entrepreneurs/hot-shots/2014/03/11/ben-lawsky-to-accept-bitcoin-application.html
"The department also announced today that it intends to propose the regulatory framework under which these applications will be processed no later than the end of the second quarter of 2014."
Jump to: