Hardly surprising, I think it's fairly obvious that their analysts will poo poo any idea or instrument that doesn't land control firmly in their lap. The artic

Hardly surprising, I think it's fairly obvious that their analysts will poo poo any idea or instrument that doesn't land control firmly in their lap. The article doesn't reference any actual research, but merely a poll of a banks researchers. It does contain some interesting, and somehwat ironics points and even a jab at entrepreneurship: The people who maintain the Bitcoin network can change the money supply through a majoritarian process. And that means that the supply of bitcoin is a function of what the majority of these people think at any given time. They are not economists or monetary experts, but technology and programming experts, and entrepreneurs. I find that unsettling and I think most people would feel the same way. This bit especially coming from Goldman and Sachs :) I think there're a large number of people the world over who've lost so very much that would much rather that companies like the author's had absolutely no involvement in any decision making process. Deregulation and the variety of absolutely absurdl and nonsensical financial instruments it created certainly haven't done anyone other than speculators any good. Beyond that the article doesn't present any counter point to these sort of statements, for example why it's preferable that a reserve bank or government control the money supply and how such (non-democratic) institutions better serve any public interest. Nor even a comparison with control of interest rates and so on. Perhaps I'm naive, but given the choice between a large group of programmers and entrepreneurs on the one hand, and economists and bankers on the other hand, I know which I'd chose.