Financial planners throughout the world will soon be saying, "Your portfolio currently consists of 10% gold, 40% S&P 500, 20% in real estate, and 30% in Bitcoin."
Topic: Why aren't the worlds richest people buying up all the coins? (Read 6320 times)
I do not think we are very far off from Bitcoin finding itself into the portfolios of the wealthy.
Financial planners throughout the world will soon be saying, "Your portfolio currently consists of 10% gold, 40% S&P 500, 20% in real estate, and 30% in Bitcoin."
Financial planners throughout the world will soon be saying, "Your portfolio currently consists of 10% gold, 40% S&P 500, 20% in real estate, and 30% in Bitcoin."
Considering how something as big as the Manhattan project was able to remain top secret for as long as it did, anything is possible.
It was a lot easier to keep secrets back then.When less than 1% have the complete picture, its pretty damn easy to keep a lid on things. Everyone else is hired and on a 'need to know' basis.
In other words, they compartmentalized the craaap out of it.
I'm not sure why we don't see more of this either, but that Second Market fund and also the ETF, if we see that some time, would make it more likely. I was thinking we could see them put some of their high risk allocated investment into Bitcoin of those that follow a popular method I've seen where you divide funds up by risk among other things and assign a certain percentage to diffferent categories.
if they convert there currency to bitcoins and have all of them for themselves there is no spending and thus no economy. bitcoin needs more wealth distribution which i think is why the value is high.
Considering how something as big as the Manhattan project was able to remain top secret for as long as it did, anything is possible.
It was a lot easier to keep secrets back then. What.
You think the CIA developed ASICS?
You'll be surprised with how many of their front companies you/we unknowingly deal with on an everyday basis.
Do you really believe such powerful technology (eg. asics) would have been developed otherwise ?
The CIA may have or have not created ASICS, but they sure as hell aren't the majority thats operating them. So how does that help them control Bitcoin?
Unless we conduct a census, we have no way of knowing who is really in control of the coins and hashpower.
Considering how something as big as the Manhattan project was able to remain top secret for as long as it did, anything is possible.
Do you really believe such powerful technology (eg. asics) would have been developed otherwise ?
The CIA may have or have not created ASICS, but they sure as hell aren't the majority thats operating them. So how does that help them control Bitcoin?
What.
You think the CIA developed ASICS?
CIA <--> AsIC! zOMG!
The richest people are not buying BTC because they are not done scaring the 'poor' into buying it first.
The more I see, the more I have to think that cryptos are a false flag/hope operation that will con us into going cashless.
The more I see, the more I have to think that cryptos are a false flag/hope operation that will con us into going cashless.
This I doubt (but do not rule out.) Bitcoin itself has some flaws which would make it amenable to centralization and control, but doing so would spook the userbase and popularize one of the numerous possible alternative designs which would be less susceptible.
Most likely Bitcoin was a natural follow-on to earlier efforts such as hash-cash and was released with the level of polish that the resources allowed (minimal.) The designer(s) was/were probably independent entities who had some combination of political motivations and personal enrichment goals. And both were probably fulfilled.
----> Gavin will visit the (fascist scum) CIA ----> https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/gavin-will-visit-the-cia-6652
What does that have to do with anything? For one, it's no big deal in and of itself, and for two, Bitcoin was fairly old by the time he did his presentation. This in fact argues against your thesis. I mean, if some entity had devised Bitcoin as a nefarious plot of one-world control, the CIA probably would not have had Gavin to come and give a presentation about it as a means of trying to learn something.
Do you really believe such powerful technology (eg. asics) would have been developed otherwise ?
If BTC wasn't on their radar before gpus were integrated, it sure as hell was after. alCIAda couldn't figure it out for themselves, so they had to step in before cryptos became too big to control.
Given thier history of fabricating wars and the human suffering these maggots have imposed on our existance, its mind boggling to see how so many willing to pass this off as a tea and crumpet social.
What.
You think the CIA developed ASICS?
The richest people are not buying BTC because they are not done scaring the 'poor' into buying it first.
The more I see, the more I have to think that cryptos are a false flag/hope operation that will con us into going cashless.
The more I see, the more I have to think that cryptos are a false flag/hope operation that will con us into going cashless.
This I doubt (but do not rule out.) Bitcoin itself has some flaws which would make it amenable to centralization and control, but doing so would spook the userbase and popularize one of the numerous possible alternative designs which would be less susceptible.
Most likely Bitcoin was a natural follow-on to earlier efforts such as hash-cash and was released with the level of polish that the resources allowed (minimal.) The designer(s) was/were probably independent entities who had some combination of political motivations and personal enrichment goals. And both were probably fulfilled.
----> Gavin will visit the (fascist scum) CIA ----> https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/gavin-will-visit-the-cia-6652
What does that have to do with anything? For one, it's no big deal in and of itself, and for two, Bitcoin was fairly old by the time he did his presentation. This in fact argues against your thesis. I mean, if some entity had devised Bitcoin as a nefarious plot of one-world control, the CIA probably would not have had Gavin to come and give a presentation about it as a means of trying to learn something.
Do you really believe such powerful technology (eg. asics) would have been developed otherwise ?
If BTC wasn't on their radar before gpus were integrated, it sure as hell was after. alCIAda couldn't figure it out for themselves, so they had to step in before cryptos became too big to control.
Given thier history of fabricating wars and the human suffering these maggots have imposed on our existance, its mind boggling to see how so many of you are willing to pass this off as a tea and crumpet social.
because they are stupid...no its because they are risk averse. why should you speculate on greed if you've already got a healthy portion of wealth.
The richest people are not buying BTC because they are not done scaring the 'poor' into buying it first.
The more I see, the more I have to think that cryptos are a false flag/hope operation that will con us into going cashless.
The more I see, the more I have to think that cryptos are a false flag/hope operation that will con us into going cashless.
This I doubt (but do not rule out.) Bitcoin itself has some flaws which would make it amenable to centralization and control, but doing so would spook the userbase and popularize one of the numerous possible alternative designs which would be less susceptible.
Most likely Bitcoin was a natural follow-on to earlier efforts such as hash-cash and was released with the level of polish that the resources allowed (minimal.) The designer(s) was/were probably independent entities who had some combination of political motivations and personal enrichment goals. And both were probably fulfilled.
----> Gavin will visit the (fascist scum) CIA ----> https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/gavin-will-visit-the-cia-6652
What does that have to do with anything? For one, it's no big deal in and of itself, and for two, Bitcoin was fairly old by the time he did his presentation. This in fact argues against your thesis. I mean, if some entity had devised Bitcoin as a nefarious plot of one-world control, the CIA probably would not have had Gavin to come and give a presentation about it as a means of trying to learn something.
The richest people are not buying BTC because they are not done scaring the 'poor' into buying it first.
The more I see, the more I have to think that cryptos are a false flag/hope operation that will con us into going cashless.
The more I see, the more I have to think that cryptos are a false flag/hope operation that will con us into going cashless.
This I doubt (but do not rule out.) Bitcoin itself has some flaws which would make it amenable to centralization and control, but doing so would spook the userbase and popularize one of the numerous possible alternative designs which would be less susceptible.
Most likely Bitcoin was a natural follow-on to earlier efforts such as hash-cash and was released with the level of polish that the resources allowed (minimal.) The designer(s) was/were probably independent entities who had some combination of political motivations and personal enrichment goals. And both were probably fulfilled.
----> Gavin will visit the (fascist scum) CIA ----> https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/gavin-will-visit-the-cia-6652
The richest people are not buying BTC because they are not done scaring the 'poor' into buying it first.
The more I see, the more I have to think that cryptos are a false flag/hope operation that will con us into going cashless.
The more I see, the more I have to think that cryptos are a false flag/hope operation that will con us into going cashless.
This I doubt (but do not rule out.) Bitcoin itself has some flaws which would make it amenable to centralization and control, but doing so would spook the userbase and popularize one of the numerous possible alternative designs which would be less susceptible.
Most likely Bitcoin was a natural follow-on to earlier efforts such as hash-cash and was released with the level of polish that the resources allowed (minimal.) The designer(s) was/were probably independent entities who had some combination of political motivations and personal enrichment goals. And both were probably fulfilled.
The richest people are not buying BTC because they are not done scaring the 'poor' into buying it first.
The more I see, the more I have to think that cryptos are a false flag/hope operation that will con us into going cashless.
The more I see, the more I have to think that cryptos are a false flag/hope operation that will con us into going cashless.
The reasons are very simple:
1) Bitcoins are an INCREDIBLY risky investment. They are extremely volatile. Just a few weeks ago when Silk Road was shut down they were down to $60. Now they are about $200. They are far too risky for traditional investors. They are completely unregulated and may even become illegal at some point.
2) The bitcoin market is way too small and way too illiquid. Their market cap is the same as a medium sized company. Large investors can't buy or sell too many bitcoins without moving the market too much. A couple thousand in profits here and there are meaningless to them. They need to be able to invest hundreds of thousands at least into bitcoin and that isn't possible right now. Neither the market, nor the exchanges can handle it.
Those two reasons alone keep the worlds richest people out of bitcoins. And it keeps most institutional investors out of bitcoins too.
1) Bitcoins are an INCREDIBLY risky investment. They are extremely volatile. Just a few weeks ago when Silk Road was shut down they were down to $60. Now they are about $200. They are far too risky for traditional investors. They are completely unregulated and may even become illegal at some point.
2) The bitcoin market is way too small and way too illiquid. Their market cap is the same as a medium sized company. Large investors can't buy or sell too many bitcoins without moving the market too much. A couple thousand in profits here and there are meaningless to them. They need to be able to invest hundreds of thousands at least into bitcoin and that isn't possible right now. Neither the market, nor the exchanges can handle it.
Those two reasons alone keep the worlds richest people out of bitcoins. And it keeps most institutional investors out of bitcoins too.
Just the opposite to my way of thinking. A rich person could risk 0.01% of their wealth and have a noticeable chance of making some pretty good money. I've never thought of my Bitcoin speculation as very likely to pay-out, but I've always put the odds at much much much higher than winning the lottery (which I've never had any inclination to try BTW.)
It is true that a better way to become unbelievably wealthy is to get a job as the CEO of a financial corporation, but that is a long-shot even to those who are well positioned. And it takes a lot of effort. Buying some Bitcoin takes about 5 minutes and requires no on-going effort, particularly if the initial investment is considered a sunk cost and most likely to come to naught. Voice of experience.
In the end, I never understood why more rich people did not 'jump eeeen it' earlier on. I would have expected more of them to have more orthogonal minds than seemed to be the case else they would not have gotten where they are. Perhaps a lot of them did and it's just not all that apparent (though in the late 2011 crash time-frame it would have been pretty obvious in monitoring the exchanges.)
It seems that bitcoin's exchange rate grows roughly in proportion to the number of holders. Therefore it makes sense to buy as soon as possible.
The correct way is to determine what number of bitcoins you want and then buy it and not sell. (Think in BTC)
The wrong way is to wait until you can invest a certain amount of dollars, and then sell after a quick double. (Think in USD)
Now, the dollar richest naturally think in USD, and apply the wrong way. This keeps the majority of bitcoins always in the hands of the smart people who think in BTC.
The correct way is to determine what number of bitcoins you want and then buy it and not sell. (Think in BTC)
The wrong way is to wait until you can invest a certain amount of dollars, and then sell after a quick double. (Think in USD)
Now, the dollar richest naturally think in USD, and apply the wrong way. This keeps the majority of bitcoins always in the hands of the smart people who think in BTC.
The reasons are very simple:
1) Bitcoins are an INCREDIBLY risky investment. They are extremely volatile. Just a few weeks ago when Silk Road was shut down they were down to $60. Now they are about $200. They are far too risky for traditional investors. They are completely unregulated and may even become illegal at some point.
2) The bitcoin market is way too small and way too illiquid. Their market cap is the same as a medium sized company. Large investors can't buy or sell too many bitcoins without moving the market too much. A couple thousand in profits here and there are meaningless to them. They need to be able to invest hundreds of thousands at least into bitcoin and that isn't possible right now. Neither the market, nor the exchanges can handle it.
Those two reasons alone keep the worlds richest people out of bitcoins. And it keeps most institutional investors out of bitcoins too.
1) Bitcoins are an INCREDIBLY risky investment. They are extremely volatile. Just a few weeks ago when Silk Road was shut down they were down to $60. Now they are about $200. They are far too risky for traditional investors. They are completely unregulated and may even become illegal at some point.
2) The bitcoin market is way too small and way too illiquid. Their market cap is the same as a medium sized company. Large investors can't buy or sell too many bitcoins without moving the market too much. A couple thousand in profits here and there are meaningless to them. They need to be able to invest hundreds of thousands at least into bitcoin and that isn't possible right now. Neither the market, nor the exchanges can handle it.
Those two reasons alone keep the worlds richest people out of bitcoins. And it keeps most institutional investors out of bitcoins too.
Maybe because they are in direct contact with various string pullers that assure them that Bitcoin or any other digital currency will never be allowed to break into the mainstream.
Unless there is legal clarification that states that Cryptocurrency is going to be tolerated in the long term why should they risk offending people they rely EVER SO heavily upon.
Banks / governments / the 1% they've all got one thing in common, CONTROL, why hand that over by endorsing something that removes it completely? Would you?
BTW. I really hope I'm wrong!
Unless there is legal clarification that states that Cryptocurrency is going to be tolerated in the long term why should they risk offending people they rely EVER SO heavily upon.
Banks / governments / the 1% they've all got one thing in common, CONTROL, why hand that over by endorsing something that removes it completely? Would you?
BTW. I really hope I'm wrong!
...
I know a guy who was not rich to begin with, upper middle class maximum, but he already thought so linearly so as to dismiss bitcoin when it was small. "I don't make investments to such small things." When price had gone up 10 times, he finally bought, and invested a conservative 1% of his net worth. This gave him about 1/10000 of all bitcoins, which is clearly a large interest, since it cannot be diluted.
...
I know a guy who was not rich to begin with, upper middle class maximum, but he already thought so linearly so as to dismiss bitcoin when it was small. "I don't make investments to such small things." When price had gone up 10 times, he finally bought, and invested a conservative 1% of his net worth. This gave him about 1/10000 of all bitcoins, which is clearly a large interest, since it cannot be diluted.
...
A vast majority of my friends fall into this category (though their reasons don't necessarily follow your outline.) Most never got into Bitcoin, and the few who did lost at least a 10x potential by the time they made the jump.
This was a pool of people many of whom were extraordinarily intelligent, had plenty of disposable income, and who I'd spent at least some time explaining the very principle that you've elaborated on.
If somehow a herd of mouth-breathers start moving toward Bitcoin the results won't be an explosion; it'll be a detonation.
Jump to: