Michael Saylor spells it out very clearly his thoughts on BTC as being a hard asset and how it should be held and used. He also discusses where the future of BTC is heading. BTC is the hard asset, being the land. Etherium are the buildings and businesses on that land also being in their own asset class. Etherium is the network to house the various businesses. Very interesting Video if you have a spare couple of hours.
One of BTC’s distinct advantages is that it’s not physical. Saylor has some strong views regarding diversification. I don’t share them but understand what he’s trying to argue. I do share his “sell the winner to buy the losers” thesis.
I've got about an hour to go in this very interesting vid. Saylor echoes the concerns of another member here, @wrcmad, however Saylor is heavy into BTC. But he's "light" on the other cryptos because it's his view that as you move from BTC - Stablecoins - ETH - other alt-coins, you're moving from digital property, to digital currency, to digital platforms to digital applications, and in doing so the investor is going to find that their exposure comes increasingly under the gaze of regulators. Particularly because the further "up" you go the more threat that these digital assets are to the orthodox financial institutions. This is a traditional and well accepted view amongst legacy investors ie reduce your risk exposure to assets that the State highly regulates eg telecommunications, utilities etc.
I think it is only a matter of time before regulators move in on the entire crypto space. IMO, Global adoption of BTC is the key to breaking away from Fiat. When you look at it, BTC started out as a collectable, has since moved to be realized more as a valued asset. You hold it and don't sell it, if you can afford too. In what capacity and over what time frame before BTC will be fully adopted and monetized is any ones guess. As poor countries try to move away from the Fiat system and there is a complete collapse of there own currency, the US will fight tooth and nail to keep the Fiat system going. Exciting times we live in.
This is the type of big money that could be attracted with regulatory clarity that Saylor talks about. snip snip The ETP market in Australia is worth roughly AUD100 billion while the worldwide ETF market is around USD7.7 trillion. https://cryptonews.com.au/asic-s-new-46-page-report-details-regulations-around-crypto-trading
When pressed Saylor gave his portfolio recommendations on a couple of instances: a. Overweight (?) BTC is the primary asset Local currency to meet bills and obligations (MicroStrategy has 12 months cash) "Trophy" assets - home, 2nd house, business owned building, sports team, art, high quality tech stocks. The portfolio should provide a hedge against currency collapse. He discussed that taking on debt to buy an asset is a sound idea because of the arbitrage opportunity in the difference between interest rates and central bank policy that is inflating asset prices but to stay away from short term debt to buy assets in order to avoid fluctuations which may precipitate a fire sale. So basically I would say to avoid taking on debt to buy assets you're not going to hold for at least 10 years. b. Scenario 2 was if you had $1 million: $400 000 in savings, he didn't elaborate on what he meant, I think he was really referring to BTC really, something you'll hold and never sell and that your family will have in over 100 years time $200 000 in your favourite five things, I think he was referring to other asset classes/investments of a high quality that you'll hold at least 10 years, this is where the tech stocks, home, 2nd house stuff comes in, naturally with this budget it wouldn't include the home or probably a 2nd house. "A chunk" to trade or speculate with, stuff you don't have a 10 year + horizon "A chunk" in fun things eg Ferraris, good looking intelligent women and golfing at the world's best courses. And an offroad teardrop camper. There was no room for gold in any of his portfolios but anyone wanting to hold PMs could justify it in the "chunk" to speculate or trade with but it wouldn't be what he considers a "trophy" asset. Though I would consider large nuggets to fit that class and possibly rare coins etc.
I must confess this concept eludes me. I was told by a very rich man that the way to be rich is to own nothing and have the use of everything. The more money you have, the wider the range of goods and services that fall in your lap. So to that end, putting currency/money away seems futile. If I was in a position where future family wealth was an issue, I'd establish a trust and pour assets under that umbrella.
^^^^ So Shiney, you view bitcoin as an intergenerational wealth asset now do you? You really are the forum jester, whether by design or accident I haven't figured that out yet. Was bitcoin intergenerational wealth a generation ago? Will it be intergenerational wealth in a generation's time? Or will it be in a generation's time like it was generations ago (non-existent ?) The only asset classes that can be classed as intergenerational wealth are things like precious metals/stones, some collectibles/art and real estate. Everything else including cryptos, shares, and even government bonds you cannot have any sort of guarantee that they will be worth anything in a generation's time, as they speculative investments.
This is the funny bit about no-coiner's views on BTC, in particular their only defence of traditional physical assets ie their reliance on history to support their thesis. Let's briefly examine the history behind two of the asset classes listed, gold and real estate. Gold minting can be traced back to about 3000BC. That's about 5000 years - a long time. However civilisation as we know it is about 6000 years old so it took 1000 years from the first recorded evidence of the emergence of civilisation until gold was mined, minted and hoarded. 1000 years! But that's nothing when you realise that modern humans evolved about 200 000 years ago, so it took 195 000 years of human development before we even had the capacity to meet our demand for minted gold in a world with an estimated population of somewhere from 5 - 18 million people. And another 2400 years after that before it was first used as a form of currency. How many generations lived and died without gold as a form of intergenerational wealth in those 195 000 years? For most of human history gold was non-existent as a form of intergenerational wealth. Real estate. Probably as old or older than gold as all it initially required was a patch of land and the capacity to defend it from whatever else wanted it. With the strongest likely to claim ownership of it. This continued for most of the history of human development with chiefs or nobles owning the land, and peasants or whatever paying taxes on a claim to that land. When the feudal system collapsed in the face of the industrial revolution, mortgages became available to all who had the capacity to repay, where previously they were only available to nobles. This is pretty much the system we have now. A system that for common people is only about 500 years old and follows the evolution of property rights as a whole. That means for most of our 200 000 years on this planet, it took about 195 500 years (5500 years of civilisation) before owning real estate was even a thing for common people in a world where the estimated population was around 500 million people. How many generations lived and died without RE as a form of intergenerational wealth in those 195 500 years? For most of human history RE was non-existent as a form of intergenerational wealth. It's taken 10 years for BTC to reach an estimated 100 million owners. For most of human history BTC was non-existent as a form of intergenerational wealth. So what's different about BTC from gold or RE then? The answer of course is the technology behind it. It's capacity to bank the un-banked.
Unless it's land, I would put Btc way ahead as a intergenerational wealth asset. Land will still be there. The garbage real estate that exists today will be forgotten tomorrow. Imagine passing down to the next generation a 3 bedroom townhouse that constantly needs up keep, or worse still, a unit with a strata title. All my family in one various form or another have crypto assets. BTC will still be around when many of the other cryptos have vanished. The adoption stage has begun and it can only increase from here. Sure you can ban it. But that will not eliminate BTC, or the people that use it.
For how many generations? A family business attached to land would be a far better investment, with the right structure of course.
I think Saylor would disagree with you there. He'd probably say something about a stranger walking into your room holding a gun to your head and then go off on a spiel about governments confiscating every physical asset you own and maybe even your life. How do you pack land into hand luggage? I've got a lovely piece of art hanging on my wall that only came into our family's hands thanks to a certain Austrian megamurderer from the early to mid-20th Century. If it wasn't for his foray into Poland it would likely still be in the hands of the Jewish family who sold it to my Opa in order to flee the German occupation.
My point shiney is that in most circumstances it still retains, or increases in value, especially if the land is put to use in the way of a business. In extreme circumstances of confiscation, there is no protection of valuable assets. Well, except for Btc.
