Crypto Conversation

[Jeffrey]

You might be for a short time. I would be wealthier in the long run because I would hold my Bitcoin and watch it appreciate over time while the dollars would lose value.

Also false. I WOULD be for the short term and MIGHT be for the long term. You may never be again.

[Jeffrey]

Serious question for the community — does this thread do more harm or good being open?

Many people are buying Bitcoin and the BS Wheat is pushing. I think it’s very helpful to have knowledgeable people prove why they think it’s BS.

I think it’s also critical that Wheat is posting in good faith. I strongly believe he is, and don’t think it’s fair to challenge it, given his educational background.

[Jeffrey]

OPK, if you think I’m wrong, please educate me. I’m happy to hear counterpoints to my understanding of these new assets.

As long as we can all play nice, which I think everyone has, why would you want to limit the discussion? Isn’t this sort of thing that the off topic board is for?

I strongly believe this has always been Wheat’s true opinion, perspective, and attitude.

We all made bad decisions when we were teenagers. Wheat happened to make a horrible decision but let’s give him a break (like I am!).

[Jeffrey]

My current focus is which bank is first to get SEC approval to offer their clients exposure to Bitcoin ETF’s …Morgan Stanley or UBS. Both have filings in the works with the SEC.

Why should I care? The SEC is notorious for approving toxic investments!

[Jeffrey]

“The term toxic asset was coined during the financial crisis of 2008 to describe the collapse of the market for mortgage-backed securities, collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and credit default swaps (CDS). Vast amounts of these assets sat on the books of various financial institutions. When they became impossible to sell, toxic assets became a real threat to the solvency of the banks and institutions that owned them.”

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t...using%20bubble.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

“The term toxic asset was coined during the financial crisis of 2008 to describe the collapse of the market for mortgage-backed securities, collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and credit default swaps (CDS). Vast amounts of these assets sat on the books of various financial institutions. When they became impossible to sell, toxic assets became a real threat to the solvency of the banks and institutions that owned them.”

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t...using%20bubble.

These toxic assets you bring up were created by banks to boost profits. Banks were to blame for the damage caused by them and one of the stated reasons Bitcoin was created.

The reason the filing from these two US banks to access Bitcoin ETF’s is important,(UBS and Morgan Stanley) is because I believe they will be the first of every major bank to adopt access to bitcoin, (something I’ve been saying for over a year I thought was coming).

This brings more adoption, probably millions of more people using Bitcoin as a store of value asset in the coming year.

Hundreds of millions of people have a belief in Bitcoin. Not just me. Large institutions and some of the most educated people in the world, support Bitcoin. (and a bunch of uneducated people like me too.

Bitcoin adoption is growing and this is a good place for finding an understanding of why. It should be discussed, imo.

I post here in good faith. Always have.

I’ll take a break from this thread and let it calm down since my posts seem to incite people and revisit in a few months.

[Kdogg]

These toxic assets you bring up were created by banks to boost profits.

There is an argument that these ETFs and ETNs are solely created for the same reason. Both were created to profit from the sale, trading and management of the product. In this case ETF/ETNs are superfluous because Bitcoin can be bought/sold directly and doesn’t necessarily need a structure product which only offers ease. A mortgage in itself it’s toxic. A financial product made out of them can be. Moreover there is the threat of unforeseen consequences of crafted financial products and the contamination they can inflict.

[Jeffrey]

A mortgage in itself it’s toxic. A financial product made out of them can be. Moreover there is the threat of unforeseen consequences of crafted financial products and the contamination they can inflict.

I believe you meant to write a mortgage in itself is NOT toxic. A mortgage also has a real asset as collateral. Even then, a financial asset made from them can be toxic.

IMO, Bitcoin based products can be toxic. Especially, since there is NO real asset serving as collateral.

[JNort]

Because, this.



At least, that’s my question to the community. This is not a discussion, it is repetitive rants of the same points over and over and over. At least that’s how I see it. But that’s why I’m asking.

Eh I like this thread. It’s helped me learn a lot and I learn something on every page it seems. The only repetitive part is it’s almost always the same few people who contribute.