Bridgewater’s Ray Dalio Softens Stance on Bitcoin, Says It Has Place in Investors’ Portfolios

[Daal]

https://www.coindesk.com/bridgewate...oin-says-it-has-place-in-investors-portfolios

At this point who else needs to say BTC is a valid before the resident ET skeptics believe it is a valid store of value? Warren Buffett? Jerome Powel? Joe Biden? If PTJ, Druckenmiller and Dalio aren't enough, maybe the Jesus Christ will do? lmao

 

[Laissez Faire]

Since when is Dalio's opinion or any of those other mentioned gospel?

Bitcoin have no inherent value. The crypto crowd claims that can be said about fiat currency, too. The difference is that a fiat currency is backed by the country who issues that currency.

What is a Bitcoin backed by? Nothing.

Governments could render Bitcoin 'worthless' very quickly by regulating it or with an outright ban. If so should happen, Bitcoin would only survive as a black market currency for illegal transactions or where you otherwise would want to hide from the governments. So, for that purpose it could have some utility.

That said, if I were flush with money like Dalio, I would probably have bought some BTC too.

 

[AbbotAle]

1. Bitcoin is backed by raw energy and that's a good thing.

2. Any government that bans Bitcoin would in effect be saying 'it works', think about it. That would be great for Bitcoin and what it's trying to do. Plus, very dangerous for any government to ban it if most of the others don't. Can you imagine the laughing heard around the world if the Land of the Free bans Bitcoin and makes it un-free?

Governments therefore have to work with Bitcoin, not so much the coin per se, rather the technology that can be built on it. This is why tech visionaries like Marc Andreessen are investing hundreds of millions in the new digital economy which Bitcoin will help drive. A simple rule in life should be don't bet against Marc Andreessen when it comes to the future of tech.

Also, your arguments are old and worn out. We've heard them all 10,001 times before and for years now. In effect they're like a scratched record or a parrot.

By all means be negative towards Bitcoin but at least come up with some new and novel critiques. But there's a paradox to coming up with new negative ideas - you'll have to do some serious study into Bitcoin which will take at least several months. Do that work, and you're almost certain to become a buyer of Bitcoin...

 

[Daal]

1. Bitcoin is backed by raw energy and that's a good thing.

2. Any government that bans Bitcoin would in effect be saying 'it works', think about it. That would be great for Bitcoin and what it's trying to do. Plus, very dangerous for any government to ban it if most of the others don't. Can you imagine the laughing heard around the world if the Land of the Free bans Bitcoin and makes it un-free?

Governments therefore have to work with Bitcoin, not so much the coin per se, rather the technology that can be built on it. This is why tech visionaries like Marc Andreessen are investing hundreds of millions in the new digital economy which Bitcoin will help drive. A simple rule in life should be don't bet against Marc Andreessen when it comes to the future of tech.

Also, your arguments are old and worn out. We've heard them all 10,001 times before and for years now. In effect they're like a scratched record or a parrot.

By all means be negative towards Bitcoin but at least come up with some new and novel critiques. But there's a paradox to coming up with new negative ideas - you'll have to do some serious study into Bitcoin which will take at least several months. Do that work, and you're almost certain to become a buyer of Bitcoin...

Well said. Andreessen is one of these assholes who can see the future in tech and make very smart and profitable bets. But he doesnt let other people came in with him, only him and his buddies, the cool kids club. Everybody else has to just watch and praise him for his foresight.

Well BTC is the exception, its one of the few times you dont have to suck Andreessen cock to participate. You dont have to be in the cool kids club, everyone can get in. Well not everyone but whoever lets their biases on the side and joins the trend before it matures. I was never invited to the early Facebook/Uber funding rounds, its always these tech assholes like Thiel, Andreessen, Sequoia, etc. Well, I was "invited" to the BTC round and I made my purchases. Worse case I lose what I can make it back in 1/2 years. Best case I make a boatload of cash, I will take these odds

 

[formikatrading]

I think you have to be open-minded about bitcoin without being part of the cult / religion of bitcoin. Being open-minded means that you can see both the potential for it but also the risks. For the most part, I look at it like any other asset class with a certain level of detachment. I have some small positions that I'm just HODLing and then trade GBTC for risk on / risk off plays.

 

[Laissez Faire]

1. Bitcoin is backed by raw energy and that's a good thing.

How so?

2. Any government that bans Bitcoin would in effect be saying 'it works', think about it. That would be great for Bitcoin and what it's trying to do. Plus, very dangerous for any government to ban it if most of the others don't. Can you imagine the laughing heard around the world if the Land of the Free bans Bitcoin and makes it un-free?

Not really.

Also, your arguments are old and worn out. We've heard them all 10,001 times before and for years now. In effect they're like a scratched record or a parrot.

Perhaps. I'm not really knowledgeable in this area and didn't parrot anyone. It's just common sense from my point of view.

I would 10/10 times own fiat currency issued by the US Government or any other developed country over BTC if I had to choose either.

But I wouldn't be opposed to place a bet on BTC on the basis simply being that is price is likely to continue going higher for a while still.

 

[RedDuke]

Since when is Dalio's opinion or any of those other mentioned gospel?

Bitcoin have no inherent value. The crypto crowd claims that can be said about fiat currency, too. The difference is that a fiat currency is backed by the country who issues that currency.

What is a Bitcoin backed by? Nothing.

Governments could render Bitcoin 'worthless' very quickly by regulating it or with an outright ban. If so should happen, Bitcoin would only survive as a black market currency for illegal transactions or where you otherwise would want to hide from the governments. So, for that purpose it could have some utility.

That said, if I were flush with money like Dalio, I would probably have bought some BTC too.

Great summary. I am of the same opinion that if someone is wealthy, buying into BTC is no big deal, but it is a big deal for most.

Wish I knew someone that wealthy, to ask them if they even are aware of stable coins manipulation like USDT. Every new investor I met over last few years, has no clue and shocked once I explain to them what BitFinex and perhaps others can do.

3 years ago it was retail bubble that burst, now let's see how far institution bubble will go.

So many incredible bubbles right now all over the place.

 

[AbbotAle]

1. Because Bitcoin mining generally uses stranded energy. It's also highly likely that Bitcoin mining in the future is going to be a major driver of clean energy tech. Jack from Twitter is already hinting at this.

2. Why would a government ban it if it doesn't work as money/savings? Hence proving the point that it does work as money/savings. As far as criminals using it, sure, they use pretty much everything that non-criminals use, including loo paper. Banning Bitcoin because of its limited criminal use would do any country far more damage than not banning it. I'd personally love to see some governments ban it to see how they get on in the future.

3. You did parrot everyone because if I had $1 for everyone in the past (and future) that said Bitcoin is not backed by anything I'd have enough cash to buy all 21million coins. Then, I'd fork the chain to produce 42m coins in total and own them all as well because I'd get another $1 for saying 'muh, governments will ban it'.

Do the work, buy some, but if you just buy without doing the work to understand it, in order to only make money, chances are you'll lose and you'll get panicked out if/when it has another big dump. The only way for people not to panic sell is to understand it. Holding Bitcoin is not as easy as it looks...

As far as the Bitcoin cult goes, sure, there are some nutters out there but the majority aren't and if there's any cult it's actually the non-Bitcoiners because that's where the majority of the screaming and screeching comes from (not saying that's you by the way LS).

 

[AbbotAle]

Wish I knew someone that wealthy, to ask them if they even are aware of stable coins manipulation like USDT. Every new investor I met over last few years, has no clue and shocked once I explain to them what BitFinex and perhaps others can do.

A great litmus test re understanding the Cryto currency ecosystem is if they mention the manipulation and/or potential fraud at tether. If they do, you know they haven't done their homework.

2021 is going to be the year of stablecoins and this time next year we're going to be amazed at what they've help to achieve (talking about the tech built around them). Some of the best work is already coming out of Asia, Asia is eating almost everything compared to the US and the West in general. Politicians should take note but having said that they're probably more focussed on the mens/womens toilet debate (sadly not joking).

PS. You don't have to be rich to buy Bitcoin. Many are buying tiny amounts every day/week. So if some Mr Big buys $10m, a Mr Small can buy $10 or $100.

Right now buying $10 of Bitcoin costs around 3 cents in comms.

 

[Laissez Faire]

1. Because Bitcoin mining generally uses stranded energy. It's also highly likely that Bitcoin mining in the future is going to be a major driver of clean energy tech. Jack from Twitter is already hinting at this.

Highly likely? Really?

I fail to see how Bitcoin mining is anything other than a waste of energy and resources.

2. Why would a government ban it if it doesn't work as money/savings?

One word: Control.

Isn't that precisely one of the main arguments for Bitcoin? I.e., a currency that governments can't control or influence?

If you fail to grasp that, then, well...

I never said they would ban it because or to prevent criminals from using it. I said that if they ban it - BTC would not have any commercial value and be left to use for those who desire to hide their transactions and transact in secret.

3. You did parrot everyone because if I had $1 for everyone in the past (and future) that said Bitcoin is not backed by anything I'd have enough cash to buy all 21million coins. Then, I'd fork the chain to produce 42m coins in total and own them all as well because I'd get another $1 for saying 'muh, governments will ban it'.

Did you ever hear about a thing called financial bubbles?

Just because the price of BTC continues to rise does not mean it's not a bubble. And just because governments didn't ban it yet does not mean it can't happen.

The bottom line for me is that it's a very risky asset to own unless you're willing to take that risk.