[snip]
The BTC "purists" seem to not like the idea, while many other crypto-fans love the idea of the ETF. The stock market itself (not the crypto market) seems equally divided for many different reasons.
[snip]
Bitcoin purists will always buy actual Bitcoin rather than the ETF, and will always encourage others to do the same where possible. That said, I'm pretty sure most Bitcoin purists see the Spot ETFs as a good thing - a gateway to Bitcoin for the masses.
I think you're right about the first part. I think you're wrong about the second part. I think they know that the ETF would probably spark doom for BTC price overall and into the future but that's just my opinion. I don't think the masses will never hold real bitcoin and the ETFs IMO are so disconnected from crypto (and in line with normal stock market BS) that they're going to damage and dilute the purpose, need, and belief in bitcoin in the general public - even though the general public will assume they're holding actual bitcoin instead of pieces of stock.
Well, that's your opinion but we weren't discussing your opinion. We were discussing the opinions of 'Bitcoin purists'.
Most of the vocal Bitcoiners are, and have been for some time, more positive than negative about the likely effects of Spot ETFs (which have long been inevitable in any case).
Could go either way though. It's diving right now and I made a nice chunk already today on a couple quick shorts. We'll see what happens over the weekend.
Short term price moves are of very little relevance to anything and are of very little interest to me. I'd put them roughly on a par with, say, random brags about winning trades.
A "more vocal bitcoiner" does not mean that they're a "purist".... I think you've got it messed up and twisted a bit. Ever put any thought into what and why they're "more vocal"? Maybe to gain traction and acquire more public approval.
Who said anything about "more vocal" ?
I'm talking about vocal Bitcoiners as opposed to non-vocal. The vocal are mostly positive. We don't know what the non-vocal think as they are, by definition, silent.
In my estimation, the following are all Bitcoiner purists. If you think otherwise, please define your term and provide your own example names.
Back, Bent, Odell, Saylor, Booth, Pysh, Foss, Keiser, Bhatia, Alden, Klippsten, etc. have all expressed mostly positive views on the likely effects of Spot ETFs.
The most negative/sceptical I've come across is Lepard.
You know what else is inevitable? That the approval of spot-etfs for crypto is the stepping stone to mandating regulation of all crypto. And most of the purists know this is a major threat, and therefore they are rightfully pissed off.
Names ? Evidence ?
I'm not long on any crypto but I view decentralization of bitcoin as being good. I think this is a gateway to CBDCs more than a gateway to BTC for the average investor as you mentioned previously. That something important to take into consideration, which most purists have done.
Names ? Evidence ?
The purists, HOWEVER, were the ones being the most vocal on tuesday and wednsday and thursday and still today - about the short term price moves caused by the SECs mishandling of their twitter account security.
Names ? Evidence ?
Meanwhile the hardcore pro-ETFers were not even caring or thinking about what damage that caused. Respectfully, you gotta consider all angles there.
Short term price moves being of little relevance is a very less than correct statement.
The SEC screwed this up badly but I fail to see any lasting damage (other than to SEC's reputation). A few price swings and it was all over.
If you're a daytrader, short term price moves are significant and interesting. If you're a serious Bitcoiner, it's just noise.
All of them that have at least something to say are "vocal", my apology if I incorrectly assumed you saying that "most of the vocal bitcoiners" respresented the majority of those who are front and present in the cryptoshpere, none of which I follow but I've seen what the ones you mention have to say and I think they're primarily full of hot air.
Go check out the SEC twitter account, check some of the big names who are "less vocal", and you'll see who's there and who's upset. Than you can check their profiles and judge/decide whether they're purists or not since very tight definitions are so important...
The vast majority of the people you mentioned are not the same type of purists as definition would define otherwise they'd be completely against the ETF from the get-go. They're "pop-coiners", they're corporate front-runners, etc. and are in the public eye of bitcoin to an extent, nothing more. Being intelligent and with good business experience and/or success in one area and presenting as an authority on bitcoin doesn't make them purist. That's like saying a liberal voter is an old-school anarchist.
Have a good weekend.
Firstly, some clarification:
My initial statement in this chat "
most Bitcoin purists see the Spot ETFs as a good thing" was imprecise and potentially misleading. My apologies.
My later statement that "
vocal Bitcoiners are more positive than negative about the likely effects of Spot ETFs" is better.
I'd describe the general view that I've seen, and that I broadly share, as:
Being anti-SpotETF = Canute = a waste of time and energy. A Spot ETF is an inevitable step on the road to maturity.
A Spot ETF does legitimise Bitcoin. It's acknowledgement from the SEC and several major financial institutions that Bitcoin is a serious thing.
A Spot ETF provides access for some where direct access to Bitcoin does not exist.
A Spot ETF is an easy-access, a gateway, an entry point that could get people on the right road towards owning Bitcoin.
These are all good things.
On the other hand, a Spot ETF has risks - diversion from the true project, centralisation of capital, opportunities for manipulation, etc., etc.
I don't think any of the names I listed are pro-SpotETF per se. A Spot ETF goes against the grain - but they acknowledge that it was inevitable and will probably, overall, be beneficial as described above.
And, for clarity, I've not identified those names as anything more than "vocal". I'm not suggesting they are bastions of truth or the ultimate reference for Bitcoin matters.
And, returning to this business of "purists":
You've advised me that my attempted definition was wrong, failed to provide your definition, and invited me to go out and find some examples from a category I clearly don't understand (from a platform I rarely use).
You need to help me out here. Give me just a couple of names of your "purists" that (i) identify the SpotETF as a major threat, and (ii) think the SpotETF is a gateway to a CDBC, and (iii) were vocal Tue-Thu about the short term price moves - as you described. With nothing backing them up, all those claims are just groundless assertions.
