[gitfan86]

If you are in the business of promoting your brand to young entrepreneurs, so that they include you in funding rounds, then yes, it makes sense to have exposure to anything that young entrepreneurs are working on.

If you are in the business of owning a piece of any company that may go public via IPO or SPAC one day, then yes, might as well give money to anyone who seems like they may be able to get to that finish line.

If on the other hand you are in the business of predicting the future of technology, it doesn't make sense to have exposure to technologies that are 99% scams on the off chance that someone accidently makes something useful in an effort to get rich. There is a lot of real innovation happening in the world that deserve that funding.

[eloff]

That 99% number you're quoting is made up. It's a value call. I think it's a reasonable position to give crypto a small chance of becoming something really big. If you're in the business of making long bets on the future, you want a piece of everything that fits that description. Including crypto. You don't know which bets will pay off, and it's nearly impossible to make an educated guess. It's simpler to just invest in everything that has that potential.

[gitfan86]

So where would you draw the line?

If a group of people created a perpetual motion machine community, would they deserver some funding? How can you prove that they are not going to discover new physics that allow energy generation from nothing?

[eloff]

Obviously not. But are you implying that crypto has as much chance of turning into something as finding a way to violate the law of conservation of energy? That's ridiculous.