[discombobulate]

The words are wrong. The definitions are incorrect. If you don't know the difference then it does add something. That's called ignorance on your part. I've explained the difference.

Edit: & it makes a difference b/c one implies government control & the other control by the individual. Individual freedom. Privacy. Saftey from persecution. Allowing freedom of speech -- without the risk of being defunded by the government.

Edit2: Thank you for your comment.

[icebraining]

No, Bitcoin is still a digital currency, even if it's also a crypto-currency.

Also, Paypal is not a currency at all, it's just a bank and payments provider.

[discombobulate]

> No, Bitcoin is still a digital currency, even if it's also a crypto-currency.

I believe that's correct. Is the fund investing in non-crypto assets? 'Digital' implies the category 'digital' rather than 'crypto'. It's a subtle difference, but important for when government/gov agencies frame the tech.

My 'Edit2' of the root comment is incorrect.

> Also, Paypal is not a currency at all, it's just a bank and payments provider.

I believe PayPal is seen as having an electronic currency:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_currency#Centralized_s...

Edit: I'll amend further. The headline is definitionally correct. It's not as precise as I would like since it doesn't convey exactly what the fund is investing in. I think being precise in this matter is important b/c the word use is used to frame the tech as yet-another-digital-thing vs a censorship resistance technology (allowing privacy in an age of increased surveillance & free speech where centralised companies have become the censors). The word 'crypto' has a certain connotation -- which is why I think the SEC won't use it. Or other gov agencies refer to it as 'so-called' crypto currency.

It's also why Coinbase says 'digital currency', I think. There are ppl who try & force the matter when they're being interviewed. Well, I'm forcing the matter back.

---

Edit2 (reply to icebraining):

icebraining, I'm being throttled. Here's my reply,

> A random line in Wikipedia does not make for good evidence about how something is seen.

At least I supplied evidence, vs your naked claim.

> Bloomberg is writing for a general business audience, using a more generic term is normal

Good journalists use 'crypto'. Here's an example from Forbes (general business audience?),

https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2017/08/10/coinbase-b...

> doesn't imply anything.

I think it does. I've explained above in an edit. You seem to be making a lot of statements without backing anything up with reason.

[icebraining]

'Digital' implies the category 'digital' rather than 'crypto'.

It only implies that for people knowledgeable enough to clear know what "cryptocurrencies" are. Bloomberg is writing for a general business audience, using a more generic term is normal, and doesn't imply anything.

I believe PayPal is seen as having an electronic currency:

A random line in Wikipedia does not make for good evidence about how something is seen. Especially as the line says they "will sell" their currency, which is not something Paypal does currently.

Paypal is a bank, they hold money in existing currencies, they don't emit their own.