ᗪᗩᗰᑎ

agree to disagree

From the POV of someone who’s never used a bidet, you come off like someone who was just looking for conflict.

“Responsible” and “Bitcoin” is an oxymoron due to the inherent multi-level marketing pyramid/Ponzi scheme aspect of crypto“currencies”.

First, you’re removing the next two words “financial diversification” from the statement. Your own personal opinions and emotions aside, financial diversification is not a bad idea. It’s all about percentages and risk calculations. I would agree with you if they went “all in” on crypto, but they didn’t say that.

Second, you’re lumping in bad people with good tech that has solved a very specific problem - the ability to transfer funds without relying on a central bank or authority. Is email bad because the majority is spam? No. Is the internet bad because the dark web exists and thousands if not millions of crimes are being carried out on it? No. Are encrypted messengers bad because they allow criminals to send message? No. Same concept here. There can exist a good technology that gets abused by bad people.

“Money corrupts; bitcoin corrupts absolutely.

You can stop at “money corrupts”. bitcoin is money and money corrupts.

Disregarding all of bitcoin’s shortcomings, a financial instrument that brings out the worst in people—greed—won’t change the world for the better.”

Disregarding all of the U.S. Dollar’s shortcomings[1], a financial instrument that brings out the worst in people—greed—won’t change the world for the better.”

Fixed it for you.

[1] The US spent 877 BILLION dollars on its defense budget (as much as the next 10 countries combined!) to ensure the USD keeps its power.

Corporate Memphis

Link for the lazy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Memphis

Do you disagree with their reason?

Responsible financial diversification requires holding some assets outside of the traditional government controlled banking system.

They didn’t say they were going all in. They aren’t continuously promoting - at least not that I’m aware. They were just being open and honest about how they’re handling their finances.

they could ask the teacher, sure, but why not fix the problem instead of using a disruptive workaround until the end of time? phrased another way, should we as a society fix problems or provide half solutions that don’t fully resolve them?