5 ms·

A CEO of a publicly listed company doesn't liquidate all their shares because there might be a perceived conflict of interest. That would signal disbelief at th

A CEO of a publicly listed company doesn't liquidate all their shares because there might be a perceived conflict of interest. That would signal disbelief at the top and send the share price tumbling. Similarly, I struggle to see how the founder of Litecoin believes that Litecoin could be the future of money when he liquidates all his LTC. And I don't see any upside to LTC's market share after he publicly declares that he is no longer invested in Litecoin.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
cvaidya1986 9y ago
Well said.
- martin_andrino 9y ago
  Thanks for your contribution.
stanislavb 9y ago
A very reasonable comment. I can't see that as a right move in the sense the author of LTC is stating. Also, now it makes more sense to me why Satoshi is/was anon.
mephitix 9y ago
I'm also struggling to understand this, but I guess the only way I can is by thinking of this as a CEO who decided to take a $1 salary + decided not to take any stock awards, but still wants to work at their company because they truly believe in the products they build, without any cash. The difference though from CEOs like Steve Jobs of course is the lack of equity. In this case it's like the founder of Litecoin is saying "I want Litecoin to evolve in a decentralized and organic way. It is meant to evolve without a singular influence, including myself". Cryptocurrencies are (supposed to be) decentralized so having a large stake/hash power/etc. probably goes against that philosophy.
- owebmaster 9y ago
  > In this case it's like the founder of Litecoin is saying "I want Litecoin to evolve in a decentralized and organic way. It is meant to evolve without a singular influence, including myself". He might be saying this but thinking: "great, now is the best time to cash this thing out and let it burn". Well played and probably more is coming.
  - jsonhero 9y ago
    Why say anything at all if that was the case?
    - owebmaster 9y ago
      Because he doesn't wanna live the rest of his life hiding from people that Lost everything?
prepend 9y ago
If he believes that Litecoin is the future of money and not a wealth accumulator then it may make sense. He wants LTC to serve as digital cash and change how everyone pays everyone. You can believe that without believing that LTC will increase in value. It’s a bit different than stock as stock is equity in a firm. As a currency, you don’t want volatility and increases in value. You want stability and durability.
- PeterisP 9y ago
  These things are not independent. If LTC will be the future of money, then it will increase in value. The opposite is not necessarily true (in fact, a sustained increase in value makes it less likely for it to be used as cash), but no, IMHO you can't seriously believe that LTC will change how everyone pays everyone but this magically won't cause an increase in value.
  - Yizahi 9y ago
    US dollar in the 20th century was the future of money and it steadily decreased in value.
    - PeterisP 9y ago
      The total value of US dollars in circulation steadily and rapidly increased during the 20th century as it become used as the worldwide currency in many aspects. The per-USD value was lowered (as explicitly intended) by increasing the money supply to ensure that there would be an inflationary, not deflationary regime - e.g. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m2 https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m2 shows a nearly 50-fold increase of USD supply just since 1959. If LTC gains widespread adoption and utility, the total value of all LTC in circulation will unavoidably have to increase; in essence, the total circulation value (supply * velocity * value) of a currency has to match, by definition, the total value of goods and services traded in that currency. Since LTC supply is limited by technical means and can't/won't be increased (like USD), this inevitably will mean a significant value increase of each LTC.
buttershakes 9y ago
I couldn't agree more with this sentiment. Charlie has been the driving developer and force behind litecoin since its inception, and while he may continue to fill that role, nothing signals actual stake in the success of a project like ownership. If Satoshi dumped his coins and then said he wanted the project to succeed the price of Bitcoin would be negligible, a very clear market signal that he didn't believe in it's future prospects. It's like saying, I got mine, thanks guys. Also, with respect to this being like a CEO taking a $1 salary. Most CEOs have massive stock and performance incentives linked with their company's success. Charlie has none.
- scoggs 9y ago
  I know this is a stretch and quite a loop of a situation to jump through to make my thoughts true but could we liken his sale of his LTCs in a similar vein to a Facebook's Lead Developer deciding to deactivate their account because they spend too much time on FB being distracted when they should be working? I know the financial ties and importance of that developer's personal use of their product is very different from LTC and it's Charlie's situation, but will 100% of people really not believe he wanted to focus where he wanted and also remove certain aspects of criticism? Is it possible that he both knew that criticism would come either way and less criticism would come from the choice to sell his LTCs away considering he knows, himself, that he will have more time and energy to improve LTC since he knows he's being honest (I assume of course)?
  - buttershakes 9y ago
    I totally believe that it is possible he wanted to do that. Why not sell all of his LTC at $10? Why continue to focus his time and energy on it? There is only one reason, which is that it hadn't made him enough money yet. Now that it has, the idea that he will focus substantially all of his time on it to make it even better rings pretty hollow. Maybe he will do that instead of spending his tens of millions (or more) on other pursuits. Altruism is a pretty rare quality, financial motivation has an uncanny way of actually getting things done.
    - 9y ago
spdy 9y ago
He just banked for what ever reason he has and is probably right. Many CEO's drop shares when the outlook is good and something is on the horizon - regulations and a bubble. Price rallied from $3 to $360 within 8 months and only once in 4 years went over $30 he could easily have 20k+ LTCs that's a nice payout :) His side project / startup just went public now he does not have to worry about money anymore and can do whatever he wants. Thats the best goal you can achieve in modern society "breaking the wheel".
bpicolo 9y ago
This comment is a prime example of why Charlie feels like he can't win here.
aws_ls 9y ago
Definitely a negative thing for LTC. And a double plus for Bitcoin cash. The other positive, of course, being of Coinbase now supporting it. In the past few days and weeks, LTC was increasingly being seen as a Bitcoin's currency complement. This is a game changer. No words(the OP post) are strong enough replacement of actual skin in the game. If Satoshi's coins move, all of a sudden, it will be a big downer for Bitcoin, this is no different. Instead it may have helped had he declared something like he won't sell it for next n years. That would have shown real skin in the game. Please note I'm not doubting his intentions. But saying just what it seems like from the outside.
prostoalex 9y ago
> A CEO of a publicly listed company doesn't liquidate all their shares because there might be a perceived conflict of interest That’s because their company’s product is something other than “company shares”, save for a few public companies around the first dot-com boom and some fine businesses traded over-the-counter. Since CEOs are usually in charge of championing their product, and since in cryptocurrency case the product is the instrument of ownership, the gray line between honestly championing one’s product and peddling securities that are potentially worthless does create a conflict of interest.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

cvaidya1986 9y ago

Well said.

martin_andrino 9y ago
Thanks for your contribution.

stanislavb 9y ago

A very reasonable comment. I can't see that as a right move in the sense the author of LTC is stating. Also, now it makes more sense to me why Satoshi is/was anon.

mephitix 9y ago

I'm also struggling to understand this, but I guess the only way I can is by thinking of this as a CEO who decided to take a $1 salary + decided not to take any stock awards, but still wants to work at their company because they truly believe in the products they build, without any cash. The difference though from CEOs like Steve Jobs of course is the lack of equity. In this case it's like the founder of Litecoin is saying "I want Litecoin to evolve in a decentralized and organic way. It is meant to evolve without a singular influence, including myself". Cryptocurrencies are (supposed to be) decentralized so having a large stake/hash power/etc. probably goes against that philosophy.

owebmaster 9y ago
> In this case it's like the founder of Litecoin is saying "I want Litecoin to evolve in a decentralized and organic way. It is meant to evolve without a singular influence, including myself". He might be saying this but thinking: "great, now is the best time to cash this thing out and let it burn". Well played and probably more is coming.
- jsonhero 9y ago
  Why say anything at all if that was the case?
  - owebmaster 9y ago
    Because he doesn't wanna live the rest of his life hiding from people that Lost everything?

prepend 9y ago

If he believes that Litecoin is the future of money and not a wealth accumulator then it may make sense. He wants LTC to serve as digital cash and change how everyone pays everyone. You can believe that without believing that LTC will increase in value. It’s a bit different than stock as stock is equity in a firm. As a currency, you don’t want volatility and increases in value. You want stability and durability.

PeterisP 9y ago
These things are not independent. If LTC will be the future of money, then it will increase in value. The opposite is not necessarily true (in fact, a sustained increase in value makes it less likely for it to be used as cash), but no, IMHO you can't seriously believe that LTC will change how everyone pays everyone but this magically won't cause an increase in value.
- Yizahi 9y ago
  US dollar in the 20th century was the future of money and it steadily decreased in value.
  - PeterisP 9y ago
    The total value of US dollars in circulation steadily and rapidly increased during the 20th century as it become used as the worldwide currency in many aspects. The per-USD value was lowered (as explicitly intended) by increasing the money supply to ensure that there would be an inflationary, not deflationary regime - e.g. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m2 https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m2 shows a nearly 50-fold increase of USD supply just since 1959. If LTC gains widespread adoption and utility, the total value of all LTC in circulation will unavoidably have to increase; in essence, the total circulation value (supply * velocity * value) of a currency has to match, by definition, the total value of goods and services traded in that currency. Since LTC supply is limited by technical means and can't/won't be increased (like USD), this inevitably will mean a significant value increase of each LTC.

buttershakes 9y ago

I couldn't agree more with this sentiment. Charlie has been the driving developer and force behind litecoin since its inception, and while he may continue to fill that role, nothing signals actual stake in the success of a project like ownership. If Satoshi dumped his coins and then said he wanted the project to succeed the price of Bitcoin would be negligible, a very clear market signal that he didn't believe in it's future prospects. It's like saying, I got mine, thanks guys. Also, with respect to this being like a CEO taking a $1 salary. Most CEOs have massive stock and performance incentives linked with their company's success. Charlie has none.

scoggs 9y ago
I know this is a stretch and quite a loop of a situation to jump through to make my thoughts true but could we liken his sale of his LTCs in a similar vein to a Facebook's Lead Developer deciding to deactivate their account because they spend too much time on FB being distracted when they should be working? I know the financial ties and importance of that developer's personal use of their product is very different from LTC and it's Charlie's situation, but will 100% of people really not believe he wanted to focus where he wanted and also remove certain aspects of criticism? Is it possible that he both knew that criticism would come either way and less criticism would come from the choice to sell his LTCs away considering he knows, himself, that he will have more time and energy to improve LTC since he knows he's being honest (I assume of course)?
- buttershakes 9y ago
  I totally believe that it is possible he wanted to do that. Why not sell all of his LTC at $10? Why continue to focus his time and energy on it? There is only one reason, which is that it hadn't made him enough money yet. Now that it has, the idea that he will focus substantially all of his time on it to make it even better rings pretty hollow. Maybe he will do that instead of spending his tens of millions (or more) on other pursuits. Altruism is a pretty rare quality, financial motivation has an uncanny way of actually getting things done.
  - 9y ago

spdy 9y ago

He just banked for what ever reason he has and is probably right. Many CEO's drop shares when the outlook is good and something is on the horizon - regulations and a bubble. Price rallied from $3 to $360 within 8 months and only once in 4 years went over $30 he could easily have 20k+ LTCs that's a nice payout :) His side project / startup just went public now he does not have to worry about money anymore and can do whatever he wants. Thats the best goal you can achieve in modern society "breaking the wheel".

bpicolo 9y ago

This comment is a prime example of why Charlie feels like he can't win here.

aws_ls 9y ago

Definitely a negative thing for LTC. And a double plus for Bitcoin cash. The other positive, of course, being of Coinbase now supporting it. In the past few days and weeks, LTC was increasingly being seen as a Bitcoin's currency complement. This is a game changer. No words(the OP post) are strong enough replacement of actual skin in the game. If Satoshi's coins move, all of a sudden, it will be a big downer for Bitcoin, this is no different. Instead it may have helped had he declared something like he won't sell it for next n years. That would have shown real skin in the game. Please note I'm not doubting his intentions. But saying just what it seems like from the outside.

prostoalex 9y ago

> A CEO of a publicly listed company doesn't liquidate all their shares because there might be a perceived conflict of interest That’s because their company’s product is something other than “company shares”, save for a few public companies around the first dot-com boom and some fine businesses traded over-the-counter. Since CEOs are usually in charge of championing their product, and since in cryptocurrency case the product is the instrument of ownership, the gray line between honestly championing one’s product and peddling securities that are potentially worthless does create a conflict of interest.