Peter Thiel’s fund wound down 8-year Bitcoin bet before market crash
worldnewsera.com
worldnewsera.com
It's weird to think that they "generated" 1.8bn. If I made 1.8bn selling sandwiches, you could probably find evidence of it somewhere, like in product packaging in dumps. But here the only thing left behind is a bunch of guys going "Yeah I left my position open and drained my life savings by accident."
Like, every bit of that money represents money that someone else lost, and basically nothing else. I can't wrap my head around it.
He has a friend over at his loft, and while looking at pictures from his finance days, she asks, “What happened to all the money?”
His reply is a classic:
“It’s still there, it’s just in other people’s pockets.”
——
That’s all I see in crypto speculation. It’s a game that involves shuffling money between players, without actually creating new wealth.
(Also, the casino is betting against you and sometimes isn’t satisfied with their rake, so they “rug pull” and leave everyone holding worthless chips. But that is another issue.)
This is very different from, say, selling software that runs a business. Your software is not just transferring money from your customer to you, it’s literally creating new wealth by making your customer more productive.
Gold... what if this common belief can be upgraded to a better form of money?
Bitcoin is energy quite energy intense and slow in the number of transactions but gold has many drawbacks too! It's a heavy rock, can't be easily split for payments, you have to spend efforts in custody and can't be transferred digitally.
Bitcoin... what if this common belief can be upgraded to a better form of money?
Ethereum is way more complex than Bitcoin but solves through clever engineering most of it's drawbacks. Let the Market decide which form of money is best.
As to letting the market decide things, I lived through the Bre-X scandal, where the market decided to invest in a fake mine, and real lives were ruined. I believe in regulated marketplaces.
What you list as drawbacks of gold are exactly the thing that preclude it being so easily weaponised for scams/fraud/rapid-wealth-redistribution.
You call bitcoin a SoV but further down describe it as a form of money. You also have an implicit assumption about what makes a "better" form of money. I'd like to read a bit more about what defines "better" in your opinion.
> You call bitcoin a SoV but further down describe it as a form of money. The primary functions which distinguish money are as a Medium of Exchange, a Unit of Account, a Store of Value: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money
> I'd like to read a bit more about what defines "better" in your opinion. There is definitely a list of features but I would argue that being hard money is the most important feature. Meaning hard/sound where the nominal amount of money does not change.
Bitcoin in definitely hard but Ethereum does even better by being deflationary. As network transactions are slowly reducing the total amount in circulation.
Other nice features of Bitcoin/Ethereum vs Gold/Dollar are: digital, non-seizable and no third party risk.
You can replace "shuffling money" with "shuffling commodities" and you have equally valid statement.
Commodities trades are just middleman between middleman, they dont do anything but inflate prices of goods.
Historically futures were good idea and were exchanged between producer and manufactures as a bet for more stable future (for both parties), not anymore.
Just shuffling money between players is downplaying it.
"Crypto" often just sends "value" to the bitbucket either intentionally or because of operational errors.
The industrial revolution demographics might be an interesting read.
That said, there are last-gen GPUs and ASICs going to landfills. Some people are actually getting paid to make the inputs to the otherwise-ephemeral pseudocurrency. Not to mention all of the CO2 released into the atmosphere... you can't see it but that $1.8B put it there.
In reality I wander how many former mining GPU farms are now doing AI training...
Beyond that, efficient use energy production requires some place for it to be used, Generally home and industry appliances.
Freight is a very poor way to measure electricity output. Both turbines and balance of plant equipment usually last 40 years (so we replace c. 2.5% in a given year) and now a days, most fuel is piped.
>Beyond that, efficient use energy production requires some place for it to be used, Generally home and industry appliances.
Yes, all of which is economic activity unrelated to freight.
Plenty of economic activity that is not fake involves no freight.
Crypto isn't about mining anymore.
People play the lotto for fun. They think hey maybe I’ll get lucky and win. Sure there are addicts , but I don’t think default behavior is “if I play this I’ll be rich “
Crypto is literally “if I trade this I’ll get rich”.
But, both are roughly 0 sum games in the end as you rightly pointed out.
Almost everyone in cryptocurrency has deceiving prospective buyers for years. You can still find people shilling the long-term value of Bitcoin and until the crash you could throw a rock and hit someone claiming NFTs were an investment or saying that it was just like the stock market.
That was the source of so much of the opposition on HN: it’s not that it was new but that it was being sold as something it transparently wasn’t, and perhaps 5% of the people in the field could engage intellectually with people who asked about fundamentals. Had people been selling digital lotto tickets, far fewer people would have objected because the risk and benefit profiles would have been accurate.
Now repeat the search with Lotto or Slot Machines.
The information out there is not at all unbiased or fair.
> World News Era is the world leader in online news and information and seeks to inform, engage and empower the common men and all age groups. World News Era has millions of daily readers.
In Feb 2022, when I saw crypto ads during the Super Bowl, it seemed like a warning sign that something was about to go bad and the existing players were looking for suckers.
Here's the google cache:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8E9sp-...
First, bubbles typically uncover something revolutionary but because of the hype and hoopla, leverage, and endless promotion, the markets overshoot what is possible currently to a ridiculous extent and most lose huge sums of money. In the aftermath where once the sky was the limit everyone swears the idea off and leaves it for dead.
An example: the Florida land boom of the 1920's. This is one of the wildest stories that many people who live in Florida don't even know about. They don't realize that nearly all of Florida was developed within the past 100 years and that major cities like Miami, Boca Raton, West Palm Beach, and on up the coast were created during this boom basically out of thin air by speculators. Throughout there were shameless promotions including one orchestrated by Charles Ponzi after he was released from prison as well as the creation of South Beach, the founder of whom ended up losing everything after spending huge amounts on land plots and promotional advertising. Anyone studying that era will see amazing similarities to the crypto bubble.
But the interesting part of that story is that those who were engaged in land speculation in Florida were absolutely correct in seeing the potential for the area as were the rest of the promoters and speculators of which there were many. But the population and development of the time just wasn't enough to keep up with the spend at the time. Essentially they were early.
With crypto, it was pretty much ignored until it wasn't. Then it hit a critical mass and the promoters seeing an opportunity to grift, came out of the woodwork. Once it hit a critical mass in price, people started to believe the hype and retrofitted use cases to it. Then after it crashed, most said "see I knew it was a stupid idea." Jamie Dimon was saying this as recently as this morning on CNBC.
This is the second part of the story that's interesting. Many people argue "crypto has no tangible value, it's just fake money." Well, that may be true but those same people take as self evident that things like gold, Monet and Van Gogh paintings, and tons of other things that arguably have no tangible value are worth vast sums of money. It's all subjective.
The bottom line is that things are worth what groups of people believe they are worth at a given time. This is a very difficult concept for most to wrap their minds around because it seems counterintuitive. Amazon stock is clearly worth $2 trillion because it's a massive company built by a forward-thinking genius. But when it was worth a few billion most thought it was too expensive. At each point in time the price wasn't right or wrong, it just reflected what people agreed it was worth.
With cryptos they aren't inherently valuable or worthless, they are worth something if there is at least one person who is willing to pay for it, regardless of how stupid you think it is.
So I would not be that surprised to one day see cryptos reemerge with new and better and clearer use cases which in hindsight will seem obvious but still very few will have capitalized on them. I'm not inherently bullish on crypto either. I've never owned any. But I also have been around enough to know that the crowd is smarter than I am and just because it seems stupid that something is happening in the market does not make it wrong. The fact that even now the price is over $20k is somewhat telling that the popular narrative is in complete disagreement with the fundamentals.
any books you can suggest
Timing their exit to lock in $1.8bn of paper gains does look great ... with the benefit of hindsight. If the valuations had gone in the other direction, presumably there would be plenty of people saying what a stupid move it was to sell.
Completely untrue. There are uncountable numbers of people ringing both of those bells at the top and bottom of the market.
It's just hard to notice, because the bells ring at every other position of the market too.
Actually saying in print that Thiel was doing that might be risky.
It is always a good idea to use a heavy doze of skepticism when confronted with statements about someone's brilliance at market timing. Especially when those statements are not backed by any evidence. Peter Thiel previously had to disclose more of his trading and, other than his decision to put half a million in a tiny startup called facebook made a long time ago, he has not shown any brilliant market timing.
Alternatively Hacker News only lets you post a link once. So if someone posted the FT link at a bad time, you wouldn't be able to post it again and it wouldn't get exposure. This gives the link a second chance
I'll never be a billionaire, but if I were, I hope I don't think the solution to all problems is pushing for things that benefit me personally.