One thing that strikes me is how opt-in the Bitcoin space is. I started participating in forums and on r/bitcoin back in late 2012, and real names were seldom used.
It's tiring to see Bitcoin berated for being non-inclusive when there haven't been any barriers stopping women from participating — either by buying coins, starting/joining companies or participating in discussions.
And if it is true, as this article suggests, that women are less interested in Bitcoin due to the extreme risk, why are we so collectively outraged about the gender divide amongst startup employees?
edit: rather than downvote, would anyone care to discuss this?
I told my female coworkers about BTC in October, clearly explaining the trends and the risks, and encouraging them to play with their pocket money. They were mildly interested. In November I told them about it again; their answer was "it's too risky". In December I cashed out earning a few thousands. I told them about it, and their answer was "good for you". It was clear they are averse to risk. But is it necessarily a bad thing? I have some male friends who lost huge amounts of money, and arriving late to the party is quite risky anyway. My female coworkers just continue living normally, without worrying their savings lose value day by day.
The media is simultaneously selling both angles of course:
"Bitcoin Started With All Men. Now Crypto Is Opening to Women"
"Four out of 30 of the largest initial coin offerings this year through October had female co-founders, double the number of women leading the 30 technology companies with the largest international public offerings worldwide. Two of the female-led ICOs were among the biggest so far."
> "Bitcoin Started With All Men. Now Crypto Is Opening to Women"
It's so ridiculous I don't know where to start. Apart from the "crypto" debate (let's face it, when you come across the word "crypto" these days, chances of it meaning cryptography are close to 0), the basic fact is that cryptocurrencies were never "closed" to anyone! You wanted to join, you could! It's as democratic as it could be.
It always amazes me how many people write these articles telling women what they should do, how they should change, what traits they must have. Couldn't you just leave them alone and let them lives they want to live?
This is an interesting observation, but what would the ideal gender ratio even look like?
In the software industry right now, it is still common to have teams with little to no representation of women on technical teams. The decentralized nature of crypto and lack of regulation around crypto projects means that people are free to work with whoever they like, and more often than not, men are working with other men. In terms of investing, women and men have equal opportunity (internet connection, and the urge to resist the voice in their head saying its a bubble).
It doesn't attempt to say that the gender divide is the cause of anything. The theory is that women are less risk-taking than men, that we should see a lack of women wanting to participate as evidence of increased risk: Evidence of rather than causation of risk.
The problem might be either:
1. Bitcoin is not a bubble, and this wealth transfer ends up benefiting some males substantially.
2. Bitcoin is a bubble, and the people arriving late to this party might end up being bag holders (women and men)
We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the site guidelines. Doing that will eventually get your main account banned as well, so please don't.
It's tiring to see Bitcoin berated for being non-inclusive when there haven't been any barriers stopping women from participating — either by buying coins, starting/joining companies or participating in discussions.
And if it is true, as this article suggests, that women are less interested in Bitcoin due to the extreme risk, why are we so collectively outraged about the gender divide amongst startup employees?
edit: rather than downvote, would anyone care to discuss this?