Winkelvoss Capital says Bitcoin is a 10x better inflation hedge than gold

[StinkyToes]

https://winklevosscapital.com/the-case- ... k-bitcoin/

The PP was devised before Bitcoin was a thing. Is it time for PP to adapt? Would a 20/20/20/20/20 portfolio split between stocks, bonds, cash, gold, and Bitcoin be superior to the current version? What about a 24/24/24/24/4 portfolio? Or maybe 25/25/25/12.5/12.5?

Thoughts?

[mathjak107]

when bitcoin has a 5000 year history i will think about it

[Hal]

The reason the PP uses gold is that after the USD, it's the next most used currency/money. Have a listen to the HB radio show for more details.

By all means, use it in your variable portfolio if you wish.

[PrimalToker]

Gold has been used as money for 6,000 years, in many cultures all over the world and is still money today. Bitcoin has never been money. How can it be better than gold when it hasn't been around long enough to build a reputation? It's pure speculation.

[Tyler]

Men working to start a bitcoin ETF promote bitcoin.

I don't completely dismiss Bitcoin as an upstart alternative currency. But I will say that if the only points in the section "the problem with gold" are asteroids and the third-best Die Hard, then I'm not too worried about gold in my lifetime.

[europeanwizard]

By all means, use it in your variable portfolio if you wish.

Exactly. The PP method doesn't say you should never use bitcoin. It just says that as the basis, stick to the usual suspects. You can actually make your VP as large as you want it to be. My VP is ~6% of my PP. Half of that is in Bitcoin.

[mukramesh]

Men working to start a bitcoin ETF promote bitcoin.

I don't completely dismiss Bitcoin as an upstart alternative currency. But I will say that if the only points in the section "the problem with gold" are asteroids and the third-best Die Hard, then I'm not too worried about gold in my lifetime.

I thought this was a joke... then I read the article

[Smith1776]

I agree that Bitcoin has potential. I'm not willing to dismiss it completely. However, I still think it's a work in progress.

Even Satoshi himself said that Bitcoin would have to be hard forked at some point in order to solve the network's many scaling issues.

[senecaaa]

Even Satoshi himself said that Bitcoin would have to be hard forked at some point in order to solve the network's many scaling issues.

Well, that was before they found different ways to scale like the Lightning Network.

Anyway, Winkelvoss Capital owns so much Bitcoin they can do nothing else but recommend it I guess. A much better recommendation is that Paul Tudor Jones started including Bitcoin in his hedge fund.

[mathjak107]

keep in mind tudor's funds have done awful for a long time .... they guessed wrong so much they had to close a fund and give investors back what was left ....

they had many good people leave the last few years , including my daughter in-law who worked for them for many years .

many who worked for tudor started their own firm and are doing so much better now . my daughter inlaw went with them . she runs the tax dept .

so take what he does with a grain of salt . he has been wrong for many years.

paul tudor jones also rates bitcoin dead last as a store of value




https://www.forbes.com/sites/colinharpe ... 08fa38d50d

[senecaaa]

paul tudor jones also rates bitcoin dead last as a store of value




https://www.forbes.com/sites/colinharpe ... 08fa38d50d

Yeah I saw that, but in the past he hated bitcoin as most ppl do here now. So quite an improvement
Anyway, I agree to keep it in the VP. Let's talk again in 10 years to see how it did.

[Libertarian666]

https://winklevosscapital.com/the-case- ... k-bitcoin/

The PP was devised before Bitcoin was a thing. Is it time for PP to adapt? Would a 20/20/20/20/20 portfolio split between stocks, bonds, cash, gold, and Bitcoin be superior to the current version? What about a 24/24/24/24/4 portfolio? Or maybe 25/25/25/12.5/12.5?

Thoughts?

The PP was also devised before Beanie Babies were a thing.
That doesn't mean Beanie Babies should be part of the PP.

[dualstow]

Remember that silly Grayscale commercial from about 12 months ago for digital currency that was particularly anti-gold? They haven’t run it lately, although there is a new one. Can’t remember if the new one is also Grayscale or someone else. They talk about gold, wampum, etc, and then denigrate how we put “all that value into paper. That’s why it’s time to go digital, blah blah.”

Wait- how is digital better than paper again? I think I’d rather have wampum after my experience of trying to recover the bitcoin that Marc (from this forum) gave me. I was given 8 or 9 words in my passphrase, but they want 12 to unlock it.

Gold may fall again, but it sure looks better than it did 12 months ago, and all I need is my key and ID for my bank box.

Here’s that Grayscale commercial.
https://youtu.be/_BIDcmh_6Es

Men working to start a bitcoin ETF promote bitcoin.

I don't completely dismiss Bitcoin as an upstart alternative currency. But I will say that if the only points in the section "the problem with gold" are asteroids and the third-best Die Hard, then I'm not too worried about gold in my lifetime.

[senecaaa]

Wait- how is digital better than paper again?

There is a huge list of things how bitcoin is better than paper (let me know if you are curious how), but it is still very new of course. That's why the UX is still very clumsy.

BTW Bitcoin is deflationary by definition, which is a property that can come in handy in a portfolio (not necessarily in the PP).

[dualstow]

I like the idea of bitcoin as stored value. if I had some I’d give it to Tim Pool.
But i wish it were just linked to the dollar — I guess there are a few digital coins that are. You can see from the payment app thread that I like Apple Cash and Paypal.

As an inflation hedge, I just don’t know.

[dualstow]

I'll just leave this here

BLOCKCHAIN AND TRUST <<< SCHNEIER ON SECURITY

In his 2008 white paper that first proposed bitcoin, the anonymous Satoshi Nakamoto concluded with: "We have proposed a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust." He was referring to blockchain, the system behind bitcoin cryptocurrency. The circumvention of trust is a great promise, but it's just not true. Yes, bitcoin eliminates certain trusted intermediaries that are inherent in other payment systems like credit cards. But you still have to trust bitcoin -- and everything about it.
...

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/ ... _and_.html

[bitcoininthevp]

Bitcoin fairs very well when you compare properties side by side to gold.

But one glaring difference is that gold has already monetized. It has already become something that people treat as (the worlds second favorite) money.

Bitcoin is aspiring money and is making a great trek in the direction of monetizing. But it is not even close to done monetizing.

So if you want an asset that is money, which the PP requires, gold is it.

If you want an asset that could be more money-like in the future, bitcoin is it. And this speculation, if correct, could still have 100x upside in price appreciation. But lets not kid ourselves that this is a speculation.

[dualstow]

...

So if you want an asset that is money, which the PP requires, gold is it.

If you want an asset that could be more money-like in the future, bitcoin is it. And this speculation, if correct, could still have 100x upside in price appreciation. But lets not kid ourselves that this is a speculation.

If the world were to agree on a new form of money, governments included, they should start from scratch instead of rewarding people who hoarded it (and burned through the world's oil in the process of mining it) before it was money. They should use something besides bitcoin. A naive thought, perhaps, but I might be in the majority.

[Kriegsspiel]

If the world were to agree on a new form of money, governments included, they should start from scratch instead of rewarding people who hoarded it (and burned through the world's oil in the process of mining it) before it was money. They should use something besides bitcoin. A naive thought, perhaps, but I might be in the majority.

On the other hand, one would think that letting a lot of private entities compete in a Who Wants To Create Moneyouttaair game to come up with the best one, using their own time and resources, would be a more efficient way to have it happen. So, let all the people develop their own blockchain, pioneer the technology, and then start using the best one?

Hell, maybe it's not even the best outcome for the whole world to pick one; if Asia likes to use Ethereum, and the Americas likes Bitcoin, and Europe prefers Litecoin, maybe that would work. Those are the only ones I know, but I hope that made sense. Come at me bros.

[Libertarian666]

...

So if you want an asset that is money, which the PP requires, gold is it.

If you want an asset that could be more money-like in the future, bitcoin is it. And this speculation, if correct, could still have 100x upside in price appreciation. But lets not kid ourselves that this is a speculation.

If the world were to agree on a new form of money, governments included, they should start from scratch instead of rewarding people who hoarded it (and burned through the world's oil in the process of mining it) before it was money. They should use something besides bitcoin. A naive thought, perhaps, but I might be in the majority.

Hey, I have an idea!
What if money consisted of a relatively rare metal with a lot of desirable characteristics?
I wonder why no one has ever thought of that before...

[dualstow]

Gold isn’t perfect either, but I will (and do) take it over bitcoin any day.

[bitcoininthevp]

...

So if you want an asset that is money, which the PP requires, gold is it.

If you want an asset that could be more money-like in the future, bitcoin is it. And this speculation, if correct, could still have 100x upside in price appreciation. But lets not kid ourselves that this is a speculation.

If the world were to agree on a new form of money, governments included, they should start from scratch instead of rewarding people who hoarded it (and burned through the world's oil in the process of mining it) before it was money. They should use something besides bitcoin. A naive thought, perhaps, but I might be in the majority.

Gold rewarded those hoarding it over its monetization history. And most of that hoarding was done via pillaging and war, not simple burning of energy. Speaking of which...

Most of bitcoin mining is done using renewable energy. This incentivizes additional clean energy developments. It also frees up clean energy production in areas where it currently wouldn't make sense (Australian outback and whatnot).

"governments included". Governments money printing monopolies will not want to adopt any sort of fixed supply currency or one they cannot control. Bitcoin is inherently anti governments.

"They should". Money, Bitcoin, and life is about incentives, not "should".

[bitcoininthevp]

If the world were to agree on a new form of money, governments included, they should start from scratch instead of rewarding people who hoarded it (and burned through the world's oil in the process of mining it) before it was money. They should use something besides bitcoin. A naive thought, perhaps, but I might be in the majority.

On the other hand, one would think that letting a lot of private entities compete in a Who Wants To Make Moneyouttaair game to come up with the best one, using their own time and resources, would be a more efficient way to have it happen. So, let all the people develop their own blockchain, pioneer the technology, and then start using the best one?

Hell, maybe it's not even the best outcome for the whole world to pick one; if Asia likes to use Ethereum, and the Americas likes Bitcoin, and Europe prefers Litecoin, maybe that would work. Those are the only ones I know, but I hope that made sense. Come at me bros.

This sounds reasonable on the surface, many moneys. However due to the schelling point of such things as money, a single victor will eventually emerge, especially in free markets.

[bitcoininthevp]

...

So if you want an asset that is money, which the PP requires, gold is it.

If you want an asset that could be more money-like in the future, bitcoin is it. And this speculation, if correct, could still have 100x upside in price appreciation. But lets not kid ourselves that this is a speculation.

If the world were to agree on a new form of money, governments included, they should start from scratch instead of rewarding people who hoarded it (and burned through the world's oil in the process of mining it) before it was money. They should use something besides bitcoin. A naive thought, perhaps, but I might be in the majority.

Hey, I have an idea!
What if money consisted of a relatively rare metal with a lot of desirable characteristics?
I wonder why no one has ever thought of that before...

Gold standard has been tried and failed due to golds property of being in the physical world leading to centralization of it by entities with monopolies on violence.

[dualstow]

If the world were to agree on a new form of money, governments included, they should start from scratch instead of rewarding people who hoarded it (and burned through the world's oil in the process of mining it) before it was money. They should use something besides bitcoin. A naive thought, perhaps, but I might be in the majority.

Gold rewarded those hoarding it over its monetization history. And most of that hoarding was done via pillaging and war, not simple burning of energy. Speaking of which...

True, but that doesn’t mean the experiment should be repeated anew.
The original hoarders are dead, gold is well estabished, nothing is perfect, and I have to go with *something*. That’s gold.
Ideally, though, see “start from scratch” above.

Most of bitcoin mining is done using renewable energy.

Says CoinShares, “ a cryptocurrency asset management and analysis firm.”
I’m reluctant to cite shitty Vox, but be skeptical.

analysts are skeptical
...
it’s challenging to figure out just what the energy supply is. Since the network is spread all over the world, bitcoin miners often want to remain anonymous and keep their operations opaque.

https://www.vox.com/2019/6/18/18642645/ ... able-china

"governments included". Governments money printing monopolies will not want to adopt any sort of fixed supply currency or one they cannot control. Bitcoin is inherently anti governments.

I know, but i’m not.

"They should". Money, Bitcoin, and life is about incentives, not "should".

Sounds like an argument for murdering your neighbor for his cash and his wife if one can get away with it. No, life is very much about should, and incentives too.