3 ms·
Most of the time, I agree with you. Especially with a lot of the pointless pedantry that people argue about on here. However, the question of whether X should
by asfasgasg 8y ago
Most of the time, I agree with you. Especially with a lot of the pointless pedantry that people argue about on here.
However, the question of whether X should be termed an investment or speculation can be quite important in people's lives. Marketing in general is really important, especially marketing around which many people base serious financial decisions. If the label you put on the box leads people to expect one thing, and what's in the box is something else, that's problematic. This is part of why the SEC cares so much about who various securities are marketed to. And since, so far, the SEC has not stopped in to stop BTC et al from being marketed to The Average Jane, it's important to unofficially call out unrealistic claims and misleading terminology.
- Jommi 8y agoI initially agreed with the parent comment, but you drive a good bargain as well with yours. Still, I think the actual problem is not that it needs to be defined, but that we are trying to define it in the scope of singular current definition, while we actually need to implement a new definition, possibly with the help of mixing current definitions.
- asfasgasg 8y agoThe whole reason I made my comment was going through a back and forth with myself about whether there was a case to be made here. I'm still not positive, so I hope I'm not driving that bargain harder than it deserves to be driven. I do 100% agree that the default stance on debating definitions should be that one ought not, and one ought instead be more specific. Maybe the real thing to take care of is that most investors are really innocent and we have to be very careful about what kinds of expectations we give them (if we care about ethics, at any rate).