[koonsolo]

> the Winklevoss Capital article you quoted even praise the US dollar as "a reliable store of value"

Haha, you must be blind. Nowhere in the article did they say that. I quote: "we believe there are fundamental problems with gold, oil, and the U.S. dollar as stores of value going forward". Then they go on to explain how the dollar is mismanaged.

Have fun living in your own world.

[nuerow]

> Haha, you must be blind. Nowhere in the article did they say that.

Second paragraph. Hard to miss by anyone who clicked on the link. Be my guest and check it out.

> I quote: "we believe there are fundamental problems with gold, oil, and the U.S. dollar as stores of value going forward".

Somehow you managed to skip just enough of the text to glance over the part I quoted and you claimed it doesn't exist. That isn't very honest of you.

Anyway, it seems you also failed to notice that the thesis of that article is that the economic stimulus programs adopted by not only the US but also essentially the whole world, like any Keynesian policy applied to an economic downturn, involves policies that devalue the dollar through inflation.

They also argue that they believe that gold is immune but has a fixed supply that can accompany increases in demand.

Based on these points, they proceed to argue that Bitcoin is a better long term investment because, unlike gold and the US Dollar, it's supply is capped, thus it's value is bound to grow faster than inflation and gold prices, provided that demand continues to grow.

With this in mind, do you actually understand the sales pitch made by Winklevoss Capital?

[koonsolo]

"For the last 75 years, the U.S. dollar has also been a reliable store of value."

I'm not a native English speaker, but "has been" is a past tense. Then they explain why these times have indeed passed.

If you cannot interpret past, present and future, then there is no point in us discussing this further.

EDIT: Ok, no problem then, Winklevoss twins think the US dollar is a reliable store of value. Great article they wrote about that!

[nobody9999]

>I'm not a native English speaker, but "has been" is a past tense. Then they explain why these times have indeed passed.

Not being a native English speaker seems to have led you down the wrong path here.

As a native English speaker, I can confirm that you're incorrect in your assessment.

The phrase "has been," e.g., 'the dog has been feeling poorly', or 'Steve has been lying to you', or 'For the last 75 years, the U.S. dollar has also been a reliable store of value.' absolutely refers to what has already happened, but it certainly does not exclude the idea that whatever 'has been' is still happening.

In fact, both of my examples, as well as your quote strongly imply that what "has been" the case continues to be so.

If you cannot properly interpret English as it's actually used, then perhaps someone can help you with that, rather than refuse to engage with you[0].

Unless, of course, you are uninterested in anything that contradicts what you want to believe.

Oh, and you're welcome.

[0] See what I did there?

[nobody9999]

>EDIT: Ok, no problem then, Winklevoss twins think the US dollar is a reliable store of value. Great article they wrote about that!

Just to clarify, I didn't read the article in question, nor do I care what those folks think about anything.

I merely provided you with information about English usage that seemed to have eluded you. Again, you're welcome.

[piva00]

> For the last 75 years, the U.S. dollar has also been a reliable store of value. This is a result of its comparatively good management by the Federal Reserve and the strength, resilience, and reputation of the U.S. economy. In fact, it is the most widely held fiat currency in the world and recognized as the global reserve currency, denominating and settling the majority of international trade.

Basically their whole schtick: "we believe that the US dollar has been amazing, now we found this new asset class we believe we can invest and earn money on, this is our marketing piece for why you should believe that too".

They aren't "fighting the man", they are trying to convince others to jump onto the bandwagon which they are heavily invested in to make a profit.

Not sure why you are still caught up on this ideological debate when Bitcoin has long ago left that camp of ideology and got absorbed into the pure financial-capitalist camp...

Bitcoin now is to make money, not to fight the system. Fighting the system is just the marketing fluff being used to capture people like you.

Good luck and godspeed.

[nuerow]

> They aren't "fighting the man", they are trying to convince others to jump onto the bandwagon which they are heavily invested in to make a profit.

I would also add that the Winklevoss Capital article actually reads like a self-serving plea to get third parties to validate their own investment, instead of a selfless heads-up.

The Winklevoss twins already have a few billion dollars worth of BTC, and in their opinion piece they are very clear in the way they argud that as BTC supply is restricted by design then any increase in demand ensures an increase in price. Consequently, the only thing they need to do to ensure that they get richer from BTC is to pump it up and sit on their early mover's ass.