@tecate if I owe you $100 in 6 months, what's riskier putting $100 cash in a bank account, or buying $100 in Bitcoin?
Why respond to a question with a question? Go back and answer the question that was posed to you and thereafter, I can respond (although I would contend it's ground I've covered already).
I am a proponent of Bitcoin, but I am able to step back and critique it, much to often technological developments are seen as the be-all and end-all. I feel through your discussions on this thread you try to defend Bitcoin against every critique.
Give yerself a pat on the back. Precisely as I told you, over the course of three years of discussion on here, I have cited/acknowledged many facets of bitcoin in its current state which are problematic. You didn't dispute this - because the posts are there. Everyone carries an inherent bias - but if you're telling me that I'm not being objective, you'll have to prove it. Your recent posts do no such thing.
This often leads to cherry picked examples on both your side and from contributors against.
The discussion has very much gotten entrenched. In my view that's largely due to the ridicule that was on display ref. bitcoin. However, whilst it has a long way to go, bitcoin/crypto has only gotten stronger since then.
Two firms making investments is a drop in the ocean,
Acknowledged that it's just a drop in the ocean. If the inference is that I've suggested otherwise, then prove it. That said, if you think it's not worthy of consideration, I disagree. These are the first public companies to take this approach - and so, it covers new ground. Will others follow them? Maybe they will or maybe they won't. However, they're more likely to spend a bit more time considering it - seeing as others have been bold enough to go that direction.
I could easily say Bitcoin is not going to be widely adopted citing the example of Overstock that allow (not sure if they still do) users to buy in bitcoin, but only a tiny % of revenues are actually from Bitcoin. Or I could argue
As I alluded to in my last post, you seem to be looking for an argument or a reason to disagree when there is none. Firstly, there's no connection between these examples and your overstock example. The latter has to do with a day to day transactional use case. Over the course of my time here, I've consistently agreed that bitcoin is hamstrung in that regard (at least until layer 2 solutions are developed further and gather more momentum). In which case, what's the argument about? You seem to be trying to contrive one.
The current discussion (ref. MicroStrategy/Square/Stone Ridge) is valid as they're the first movers in this context. You're criticising me for suggesting that this type of use case is widespread or will be widespread when I've said no such thing. So much for 'stepping back'.
Whilst Bitcoin has benefits and is an interesting development, there are social, political, cultural and economic aspects that impact the success of it.
Territory I've gotten to long before you. I'm on record with examples that feed into those very aspects - and how they could hold back the further development of bitcoin. Yet you say I'm the one that's not objective.
Choosing a long term view on Bitcoin, is an investment decision,
Over a couple of posts already, I agreed that there was an investment aspect to these decisions - but you seem to be hell bent on finding a point of disagreement.
I would not purchase Bitcoin to manage my liquidity or liabilities over the short term. Why? Because it is a fact that it is a volatile asset, so I can be less certain on the future price vs I can on the dollar or for example Oil, a very large market that trades on futures.
Again, I've never disputed the inherent volatility of bitcoin (save to remind people that it will dissipate over the longer term and there's already evidence of that). As regards your opinion here - it's exactly that. I invited you over a couple of posts to listen to Saylor and the rationale he presents on that. Another poster did so also. It seems that you haven't. Could it be that it's you that's guilty of what you accuse me of - and you're not 'stepping back' far enough?
Aside from all that, you seem to make this case disregarding the risk asymmetry at play here. Furthermore, it's interesting that you refer to volatility and oil in the same breath given its history in 2020.
The volatility you refer to in terms of the USD is against other currencies if I hold USD and my liabilities are in USD then the volatility is irrelevant. If I hold USD and my liabilities are in EUR, I can hedge that via the very large liquid market. The hedging market in Bitcoin is not huge and I have observed large bid/offer spreads, I don't have exact figures but it is fair to assume the FX derivative market of hedging BTC against fair currencies is tiny compared to that of G7 currencies.
Saylor talks about precisely this - and if you genuinely have an interest, then go and listen to him and critique him on that basis. He doesn't arrive at the same conclusion as you do in terms of avoiding usd risk.
On bitcoin futures, that market has developed in leaps and bounds over the course of the past 12 months. Can you point to these wayward spreads?
In this case, specifically, I was responding to your article you posted most recently on the premise of BTC being used as a treasury asset, My opinion is a firm buying BTC is making a trade with a long term view and not using it as a short term, which EmmDee clarified this firm is doing. This to me is no different than the same firm saying they are going to invest 250m in Tesla Stock.
Once again, listen to Saylor's rationale. It's not as simple as you present it.
To add, my interpretation was you were suggesting Bitcoin be used as a treasury asset, whereas the press release clarifies it is an investment. My argument is that BTC is not a short term investment, I don't have any argument against Investment managers trying to find some yield and investing in BTC as part of their strategy.
This in the same breath as you go on about cherry picking? This is the title of MicroStrategy's press release ->
'MicroStrategy Adopts Bitcoin as Primary Treasury Reserve Asset'
Those are not my words - those are MicroStrategy's. If you take issue with this, it's all the more reason you should go and listen to Saylor's rationale for this decision.
Now you're the one trying to oversimplify to meet your own narrative here. There are several factors at play here - hedging usd risk, use of bitcoin proportionately as a treasury asset where it's not the only treasury asset held and where there's room for a company to do so/size that asset holding responsibly, etc. The last point is that they're factoring in assymetric risk - which is the upside/investment aspect you refer to.
I don't think this goes anyway to help adoption of BTC as a currency, but does help legitimize it as an investment.
We were not and we are not discussing the adoption of bitcoin as a currency over the course of this entire thread - let alone since discussion of MicroStrategy/Square/Stone Ridge's use of bitcoin in some way as a treasury reserve asset. Why would you bring it up in this context?
