You made a comment that we should trust Fidelity's opinion on Bitcoin because they have $7 trillion AUM. However,, the creation of BTC in part came as a response to the lack of trust in Financial Institutions in the aftermath of the financial crisis (
Link). I have seen it referenced in this thread the pro that BTC is 'trustless', so I find it ironic that the very institutions that shouldn't be trusted in the eyes of Bitcoin, are the institutions you trust to legitimize BTC. Quite a conundrum, and I recognise you've got yourself ok with that due to earlier posts.
I did NO such thing! Once again, you misrepresent what I've said. What I actually said was that despite Fidelity having skín in the game, they're still more credible than his Dukeness on the basis that I know what he has 'added' to this discussion. He's not credible in this discussion. I read what he had to say - and I've read many different versions as to how various individuals and organisations have justified an investment strategy that incorporates cryptocurrency within it. It's something that makes sense to me. That's not to say that I'm not open to hearing the contrarian view. However, to my eyes, his Dukeness' view has been shot a few years ago already.
You come on here and lecture me about bias - whilst indulging your own. You've suggested as part of this that you are a much higher mortal capable of being genuinely independent of bias. You know what that was? Horsedung. You lied with regard to suggesting you were a 'bitcoin proponent' - and complained when I kept challenging you on it until you finally admitted the truth. You have never once given his dukeness the same treatment - and I'm sorry but there's no way anyone that embraces this discussion on a reasoned basis thinks the guy does the same thing. There is no open mind to be had there. And in rounding on one (without being able to back it up I might add) and doing a chuckle bros routine with the other, you've betrayed all that you claimed (the impartial view) to be a complete sham. The irony is that I did see you as a neutral up until recent revelations. But I'm often wrong on things - and this is definitely an example of that.
I hope that sufficiently clarifies things for you.
I tend to favour academic literature on the topic of Blockchain / BTC. Medium posts / articles by institutions are inherently biased, for example, Fidelity has a vested interest through their custody business of promoting the success of BTC.
I'd sooner favour the business section of the Daily Sport than anything that the Duke has to say on this subject. There's other things the publication might want to big up but ego is not one of them.
You seem to have overlooked it for some reason but I explicitly acknowledged that Fidelity Digital Investments has a vested interest - but I'd still put that ahead of your new found friend. They still have an industry-leading reputation to maintain at least whereas...(!!).
The evidence exists today, there has been very little institutional pickup.
I believe it has been discussed already. Bitcoin/crypto has been one of the first emerging asset classes that rose independent of /without the involvement of Wall Street.
Institutional entry has been slow but the interest is there. It's not just a case of these guys rocking up and taking a position. All manner of services have been built out over the course of time these discussions have been ongoing on AAM. The arrival of custodians and all manner of ancillary services that institutions demand. Either a lot of people are going to a lot of time/expense for no reason or they know different. Regulation still isn't ironed out - that's ongoing.
I don't really see this changing in the near term,
I disagree but that's ok.
I can comment from experience as I was involved in the rollout of the CME Futures and there was very little appetite on Wall Street.
And can you comment on the uptick in terms of open interest in CME bitcoin futures - which has doubled in recent months? I'm in full agreement that they have gotten off to a slow start but it seems to me that this is changing.
Most of the interest came from Main street, and this was during the peak of 2017.
See above - wall street had no hand, act or part in crypto up until now-ish.
Futures are non-deliverable so just a cash product but are a good indicator of the institutionalization of BTC, the volume history shows they have largely gone nowhere since inception. Maybe this will change but the evidence thus far suggests it won't.
Have futures volumes been low up until now? Definitely. Beyond that we'll disagree as from what I'm seeing, the way is being paved for greater institutional access and involvement. Futures can be physically deliverable also - as in the offering from Bakkt. A lot was expected of them initially but they under-whelmed. Despite that - just like CME bitcoin futures, they've seen a considerable uptick in volumes more recently.
Can you please explain to me why you do not think I am a BTC proponent? Let me be clear.....I am a proponent of the returns BTC has provided and continues to provide, but I am not a proponent of the vision. In particular and rightly as you have accepted the problems that BTC aims to solve doesn't need BTC to solve them.
Once again, you're misrepresenting what I stated. We agreed that there were other means of coming at remittances/money transfers. I didn't say that those other means were the same or offer the very same as bitcoin. That's in relation to that specific use case. There are other use cases as you know.
If you're not a proponent of the vision, then how are you a proponent at all? I've said it before - someone who has just benefitted from the speculative side or actively traded but otherwise doesn't give a fiddlers about bitcoin isn't a proponent.
As an Example (not cherry-picking), often sighted is the cheap money transfer anywhere in the world and the ripoff fees. I agree that given it is a global currency it is not affected by borders, and that is positive. However, what is often cited is Western Union and workers sending money back home, what is the real problem there? It isn't a technological problem, it is the legal problem of illegal immigrants and illegal work. I worked in the US legally for many years and often transferred money back to GBP / EUR, I never had to use Western Union and continually the fees got cheaper (Transfer wise / Worldfirst). BTC would be quicker, but ultimately today that trade would still be USD --> BTC --> EUR, so you have to weigh up the volatility risk vs the fees paid to go straight from USD --> EUR. Anyway, the point being BTC may allow illegal immigrants to send money home cheaper but it does not solve the problem. I would also summize that as illegal immigrants are taking advantage of, if they were to start using BTC they would be taking advantage of as they would still require to convert for example $ to BTC.
Much of what you state above is true. However, without btc being a prospect, then change in this regard can take longer still. Maybe you think they'll just change the rules of the game and then the reason for bitcoin to exist goes away. When there's centralised systems at play, governments and authorities (and others when they're enabled) will meddle.
As regards the need to convert - its logical that this needs to happen in these early days. Bitcoin was born into a FIAT world. So there will be exchange for the foreseeable. There will be a level of volatility for the foreseeable. That's entirely logical to me. On that exchange friction, last Monday, Brian Brooks (Comptroller of the Currency in the US) stated that DeFi will render many of the financial services rendered by high street banks obsolete going forward. If you have digital FIAT and decentralised exchanges, there's not going to be any need to take anything like the fat margin that's being taken now in exchanging digital currencies.
So the question I want to ask you, is why do you want BTC support the exploitation of illegal workers?
That's completely disingenuous as a question. You don't go from A to D without passing through stages B and C. You know full well that with something like this, there is a process to go through to get volume up to a sufficient level. In the meantime, if people offer add-on services that implicate bitcoin, what's wrong with that? People make up their own mind as to what they use. Practically everyone I know that first came into contact with crypto bought a micro quantity at a bad rate. As they educated themselves, they've progressed to smarter transactions implicating crypto. There's no reason that ordinary people in the context you mention can't do the same thing.
.