4 ms·
Whatever your views on BTC, this is a strangely arbitrarily unfair application of only the negative side of speculative volatility. He could just as legitimate
by detrites 4y ago
Whatever your views on BTC, this is a strangely arbitrarily unfair application of only the negative side of speculative volatility.
He could just as legitimately state that due to his early investment at $100/BTC, it effectively would take only $7.50 to pay out $1500 - a cost saving of 99.5% - the positive side of the relevant speculative volatility.
Instead he chooses to complain of losing a trifling 1.3% of the $1500's value, due to what would be a latency involved in choosing to buy new BTC to make the transfer, instead of using what he already has.
- mjmsmith 4y agoIsn't the point that the volatility makes it undesirable for any use other than speculation?
- detrites 4y agoSo why then would he choose to speculatively buy more crypto when he doesn't have to? It comes across as contrived. Is it really just to make that same point that's already been made ad nauseam? Yes, it's quite volatile - we know - we've known for fourteen years. If you don't like that part but still want to use crypto for some reason: maybe a potential cost-saving in some case, or just to feel "cool" - use a stable coin. AIUI, that's what they're for.
- borski 4y ago> So why then would he choose to speculatively buy more crypto when he doesn't have to? Because he’s an investor, and some speculation is part of his job. Exploring the space (and even making money in it) does not mean one can’t be a skeptic. He’s not making a moral argument; he’s making one about whether or not it has any actual value outside speculative investing. You don’t have to agree with him to understand it is a valid view of the space.