Gib was also wrong when he claimed they were going to declare ETH a security and that the Spot ETFs will never be approved.
Arg, well now I need to come back to defend myself. I have been RIGHT throughout this thread and I think everyone knows it.
From the beginning, explaining what an important BTC asset was, (when it was at the 3.5K level) back in 2017, to predicting 100K price target by 2025 - (some here laughed at me and mocked my predictions, some got super angry - they were all proven wrong in time), to explaining why we all need to gravitate to BTC (and to why all alts are inherent affinity scams on BTC, to explaining why alts will fail over time to BTC), to calling (and explaining) Eth's eventual downfall. I timed and called the beginning of 2 prior BTC bull cycles PERFECTLY. Absolutely nailed it. Warned against the possibility liquidity driven ETH capitulation, only to see the exact scenario I warned against play out in less then a week after I gave this warning. I could go on. Ultimately, everyone here can read my views, make their own decisions, and then only have themselves to thank (or blame), for whatever they ultimately decide to do. I can only guide you, and I believe I have done my best in fulfilling this role.
Yes, I explained in the past why ETH is a security, (and by the way it yes IT IS STILL, a security). You need to understand this, if you are to understand how ETH (and other "crypto" differ from BTC).
I explained, numerous times, why, regardless of what the SEC approved, not matter how you package up and wrap a piece of shit - it still remains shit. Whether you call Eth a security or, not, this does not change its core features and characteristics and faults and flaws and weaknesses. I explained numerous times why ETH's security-like issuance and ownership features would lead to its downfall (for obvious reasons), and I was again, 100% correct. I don't have the time to keep repeating this over and over.
Yes, I expressed the view that I didn't think the SEC should approve an ETH ETF (for obvious reasons), and I was right in holding that view. I obviously cannot dictate what the SEC ultimately does - no one can - but I explained that regardless of what the SEC approves or not, no such approval can alter the various qualities and faults ETH has. And that indeed is exactly what has happened.
As for this latest argument from Justin Drake you keep quoting, to me that indicates that you really are now are in the "denial" moving to an eventual "acceptance" phase. Justin is smart (like you), but he is also really a bit of a nut-case. He is an obvious Eth schill, and he (unfortunately for him), was to smart for his own self. And so, he greedily and shortsightedly backed the wrong horse, thinking he could steal BTC's glory and rape its immaculate conception through fraud and deception. Which in the long term, was a tactic always doomed to fail. As fellow Eth founding developer Eric Conner said just last week to Justin's alarmist nonsense:
"Doesn't really seem like the best to poke at BTC after being smoked on the playing field for the last 4 years)".
You say "crypto needs to drop tribalism". However, you and many of this de-gen generation, seem to fail to comprehend that wealth, and resources, are scarce and finite. So, we inherently do need tribalism and loyalty for BTC to succeed. Which it will do (for obvious reasons).
If we could all create an infinite number of "better than BTC" cryptos which all went infinitely up, that would be wonderful for some for sure - but this is and always was, a naive pipedream - this not how money, finance, or physics work. When I first studied the feasibility of BTC, I KNEW that tribalism and a relentless defence of BTC as THE GLOBAL STORE OF VALUE had to be essential to BTC's success. This was the biggest single attack vector I identified, and boy did the Eth schills try to exploit it. Which is part of the reason why anyone who truly understands finance and economics and moral philosophy hates ETH for the fraud and theft it tried to pull off. (Basically preying on investor's ignorance and their greed). And that, Obsidian, apart from the fact that I do truly want you and other GetBiggers to succeed, is why I am here to keep setting things straight when I see dangerous and misguided views being expressed.
I remember when Justin was predicting ETH flippening BTC. Didn't happen. BTC now 2T, Eth 300B. And it won't ever happen (for obvious reasons). (What WILL happen is that BTC WILL FLIPPEN GOLD. That is a certainty).
At one point he predicted ETH would outperform BTC by 4x this cycle, and that it would hit $16000 per coin. Didn't happen. Indeed ETH underperformed BTC by 50% in just the last year alone, and indeed it fell below 3K per coin.
He knows ETH has huge problems, but he is now grasping at straws and whataboutisms directed towards BTC in the hope that somehow trying to discredit BTC will help his ETH investment. Reality is that the much touted ETH merge, and the Dancun update for Eth have both been an absolute disaster. It can't be undone, and ETH's sound money narrative it was trying to push against BTC has well and truly and definitively entirely discredited (for obvious reasons). Now - will they fuck up this Frankenstein ETH crypto experiment with the so called Pectra update? Yes, quite possibly. That change will in any case also come with huge further uncertainty and bring even greater credibility risks t ETH that it already now has. You simply can't be sound money if you change your issuance schedules on a whim. This is the entire problem that BTC was invested to defend against! So, that narrative is totally lost. And it was unfortunately that very narrative of "better sound money than BTC" which ETH investors were betting on when they bought ETH. Which now of course has been proven totally wrong for all to see.
The FUD Justin keeps pushing for BTC eventually being attacked are far-fetched at best. He fails to understand (or at least conveniently fails to acknowledge) both game theory, and the impact of economic incentives. He fails to accept and learn from what happened during the block-size wars. He fails to admit that even in his far-fetched theory, the individual nodes after such a theoretical 51% attack simply will not accept the new illegitimate chain (for obvious reasons). He fails to understand that in the future, as a base layer of money, not only will BTC mining still be highly incentivized, but there will be great money to be made from securing base-layer transactions. When BTC is THE global standard of wealth, fees will be much much higher than they are now. And countries, and financial institutions will be happy to pay for the benefits and security and certainty provided. And he fails to accept that, at the right time, perhaps 20 years from now, BTC owners may make some very carefully-reasoned tweaks to the code, if certain emerging risks do need to be addressed. (However, one thing that will never change is the BTC issuance rate).
OK - and now I really will take a break. I will read comments occasionally. But I will resist attempts at trolling attempts to bring me back. But I will be back in time, likely to point out Eth has hit a 5 year low to BTC (which will happen, for obvious reasons).
