This! If BTC spikes and she didn't invest, you'd be hated forever. If it collapsed further, your opinion wasn't sought after. You had no idea what happened. Stay out of it.
Yeah, no, that’s not how I treat my loved ones, I’ll give them my best opinion as if it was my money (they’ll decide by themselves later). Are you telling me you wouldn’t try to dissuade a loved one from a scam, just because it’s not your money?
How much money are we even talking? If it's less than 10k (or its more than but she's still contributing to a normal retirement fund) then I wouldn't do more than lightly bring it up.
I am not long bitcoin or etherium but I definitely wouldn't call them scams at this point.
I'm also not sure why you think you are the only one with expertise on this. I am a programmer - so what if you are? You don't need to know how to code a blockchain to make a judgement on its future value anymore than you need to be a geologist to know the future value of gold.
Why did I give the impression that I’m the “only” one? My sister is a psychiatrist who uses her computer for MS Word and Facebook. But for whatever reason you and the other people replying seem to think it’s ok to lose 10k for nothing. Would you invest in diamond mines, or milk farms, or wind energy, if you knew nothing about what you are doing, without consulting someone close to you who works with something similar? Sorry but you guys sound just like scammers who are drooling for new easy money to come into the “market”.
Sustained value for several years (yes volatile), descent liquidity and markets to buy and sell without restriction. Inherent deflationary and decentralized technology whose algorithms are open source and available for review. A speculative asset yes, but a scam? not really.
> Sustained value for several years (yes volatile), descent liquidity and markets to buy and sell without restriction.
I think this is the key reason for many of these people. They think just because something has existed for a longer time frame, it has fundamental value which is absurd to me.
It applies to diamond, gold, commodity, etc investments as well. The demand is purely artificial and based on historical context than usage.
It's not about fundamental value. It is simply that it is usually a good bet that if something has existed for an amount of time it will continue existing for a similar amount of time. This mostly stays true even in the face of breakthroughs, disruptions or paradigm shifts. It takes time for the old paradigm to fade. Unless there is a clear sustained period after period decline, the thing will probably continue existing.