It's nice to know that astrologers can become money managers. The Astrologers Fund? But seriously... I think that any disruptive technology is always viewed as an inferior technology. That's straight from Clayton Christensen and his books on disruptive innovation. So for Weingarten to call Bitcoin an inferior technology and then dismiss it entirely is missing the point. I think that where Bitcoin is innovative is that it is a currency + payment network + store of value (well, kind of) + financial asset. Thus, you can't apply traditional analysis to Bitcoin and just try to value it as a currency, etc.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from: