Winklevoss Twins Plan First Fund for Bitcoins

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
You know, if it was anyone but these two guys, this idea might work. But, to be honest, I just don't have much confidence in the FAIL twins. ;)

Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, the twins best known for their part in the history of Facebook, filed a proposal with securities regulators on Monday that would allow any investor to trade bitcoins, just as if they were stocks. The plan involves an exchange-traded fund, which usually tracks a basket of stocks or a commodity, but in this case would hold only bitcoins.
Click to expand...
 
How has this whole fake money scheme not blown up yet?
 
Disposed said:
How has this whole fake money scheme not blown up yet?
Click to expand...

The same way our fake dollars haven't blown up yet. They both are a perceived value currency. Time do do alittle research on how the financial system would collapse if people just stopped accepting perceived value currency.
 
Haha so after RTFA I confirmed my assumptions to be true.
Those tards want to setup a framework for bitcoins to be traded like stocks where you have to sell them your bitcoins for their stock, pay them a management fee, and basically LET them nickel and dime you out of everything you invested in bitcoins.
ie. bunch of greedy scammers looking for a 'legal' way to get their hands on the $1 Billion in bitcoins, which is only going to get more valuable as the currency inflates
 
How exactly is it like a fund if there's only one commodity it trades?
 
Jorona said:
The same way our fake dollars haven't blown up yet. They both are a perceived value currency. Time do do alittle research on how the financial system would collapse if people just stopped accepting perceived value currency.
Click to expand...

The difference is that the US Government backs the dollar as currency, meaning that while the *value* of the dollar can and does diminish over time the fact that the government of the most (second most?) country in the world is vouching for a dollar to be a financial instrument matters.

Bitcoin is no different than me saying I will start trading in blue marbles of a certain kind of striation, and a bunch of people agree that those marbles are valuable.
 
Thuleman said:
The difference is that the US Government backs the dollar as currency, meaning that while the *value* of the dollar can and does diminish over time the fact that the government of the most (second most?) country in the world is vouching for a dollar to be a financial instrument matters.

Bitcoin is no different than me saying I will start trading in blue marbles of a certain kind of striation, and a bunch of people agree that those marbles are valuable.
Click to expand...


How can I get some of that marble action of yours?

Can I purchase some marble bonds or CDs?
 
"Backs" isn't really the correct term, though. It's more like "says the dollar is valued at a certain rate". USD is a fiat currency, which means it's unbacked by anything but confidence in an authority that it has value.
 
kirbyrj said:
How exactly is it like a fund if there's only one commodity it trades?
Click to expand...

I guess it's similar to the ETF's that trade in one type of commodity (although, sometimes spread among the different players of that commodity).

I'd also guess the SEC will shoot this down rather quickly.
 
Thuleman said:
The difference is that the US Government backs the dollar as currency, meaning that while the *value* of the dollar can and does diminish over time the fact that the government of the most (second most?) country in the world is vouching for a dollar to be a financial instrument matters.

Bitcoin is no different than me saying I will start trading in blue marbles of a certain kind of striation, and a bunch of people agree that those marbles are valuable.
Click to expand...

Backs it with what? I would love to print money and back it up with more printed money and vouch for it. Should have stayed with the gold standard, at least then it had something of physical value backing it.
 
I also thought taking anything serious from someone with the last name of winklevoss you get what you deserve, plus they are already rich stop trying to cache in on a new "fad" because apparently you dont have good foresite.
 
Biznatch said:
Backs it with what? I would love to print money and back it up with more printed money and vouch for it. Should have stayed with the gold standard, at least then it had something of physical value backing it.
Click to expand...

I agree the gold standard would be alot better than the current situation, you all do know the only thing keeping the USD value is the fact that it is the currency that the world uses to trade with, (ex. oil). And if/when the rest of the world decides to use something else (like the GBP or Euro) the USD will be worthless
 
This is sheer genius!

They are enabling the classic wall street investors to invest in BTC without all the loopholes. This allows them to buy in with major funds.

This could really drive up the price!
 
Biznatch said:
Backs it with what? I would love to print money and back it up with more printed money and vouch for it. Should have stayed with the gold standard, at least then it had something of physical value backing it.
Click to expand...

If you think about it closely you will find that the gold standard is really no different from what we have today. Gold itself has no inherent value, it's just like my blue marbles, people initially liked it because it was shiny and easily plyable. The only reason gold as value is because people assigned it value. In that it's no different than today's dollar.

The gold standard isn't viable because there's just not enough gold around for the amount of currency created out of thin air by primarily speculation. At least in that respect bitcoin is just like the dollar, created out of thin air, but without a major economic power guaranteeing that it's always going to be accepted currency.
 
Biznatch said:
Backs it with what? I would love to print money and back it up with more printed money and vouch for it. Should have stayed with the gold standard, at least then it had something of physical value backing it.
Click to expand...

The USD is backed by a million bombs and a billion bullets.
 
BTC was one of the best things that happened to me.

Converted already $30,000 worth over to fiat and have another $90,000.
 
BTC was supposed to be virtual currency, not stock that permitted trades. Wall Street as fked BitCoin.
 
Thuleman said:
If you think about it closely you will find that the gold standard is really no different from what we have today. Gold itself has no inherent value, it's just like my blue marbles, people initially liked it because it was shiny and easily plyable. The only reason gold as value is because people assigned it value. In that it's no different than today's dollar.
Click to expand...
Gold has value because its quantity is inherently limited (though it also has practical uses: it's a metal that's both well-conductive and highly resistant to oxidation). If it were possible to easily produce gold in the same quantity as paper bills, for instance, its value would drop substantially.

To say that a materially-backed currency and a fiat currency are "really no different" is completely untrue, nearly to the point of being offensive.
 
Thuleman said:
The difference is that the US Government backs the dollar as currency, meaning that while the *value* of the dollar can and does diminish over time the fact that the government of the most (second most?) country in the world is vouching for a dollar to be a financial instrument matters.

Bitcoin is no different than me saying I will start trading in blue marbles of a certain kind of striation, and a bunch of people agree that those marbles are valuable.
Click to expand...

This is only partially true. The only thing backing the US dollar is confidence, not exactly the government (although they do play a role). It's the reason why the US dollar is considered the "risk free rate". The people have enough confidence in the dollar that they are able to exchange the notes for other goods. If the people ever lost confidence in the dollar than the currency would collapse. That's where bitcoins come in, they are very similar (although not exact) to the US dollar because of that perceived confidence. The difference is that it's decentralized (a good thing) so there isn't a federal reserve churning out more notes whenever they feel like it and devaluing the currency.
 
J Macker said:
This is sheer genius!

They are enabling the classic wall street investors to invest in BTC without all the loopholes. This allows them to buy in with major funds.

This could really drive up the price!
Click to expand...

I agree this is really great but only if investors actually want BTC to do well. They could just as easily cause the price to go down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top