Does early adoption equate to expertise? I pose the question because many known figures who hit it big by purchasing Bitcoin early seem to be viewed almost as mystical soothsayers. But maybe their success was just simple luck.
Bear with me, it’s not sour grapes (although I do kick myself). Good for them if they were open-minded when others were not. The only problem I have is that their good timing does not necessarily mean that they should be offering advice or insight to unsophisticated investors.
For crypto to be widely adopted it needs credibility and trust. It needs boring, methodical analysis, not rock stars.
I own significant crypto assets. I agree that the culture of the crypto community is based on too much hype and that makes some people wary. The truth remains that crypto is inconsistently regulated, volatile, complex, and unpredictable.
I usually get the feeling that early adopters who have positioned themselves as gurus often have ulterior motives contradictory to the best interests of the person receiving the advice or guidance. It seems like if you move in the exact opposite direction of whatever analysis they offer, you will come out ahead more often than not.
Just anecdotal observations. I do not have any data or hard evidence to confirm these thoughts.
Crypto has pundits like any other area of interest. They try to be entertaining of course. I understand the concern with the wild west atmosphere when it comes to people’s real money, but I don’t see a level of irresponsibility that is any worse than what takes place with trading traditional securities. Robinhood is a casino in your pocket.
Articles about crypto are always, to my knowledge, ended with a disclaimer that the article is an opinion and should not be taken as investment advice.
I would like to caution everyone against speculating on whether crypto gains are solely reliant on luck. The discourse surrounding this matter involves the exploration of hypothetical assumptions, akin to attempting to predict lottery outcomes. It is essential to keep in mind that even to this day, a debate persists regarding whether stock prices are purely random or if technical analysis holds any validity. Given that the realm of cryptocurrency constitutes a novel market, it is conceivable that this paper could contribute to elucidating this ongoing debate.
Thank you Mr. Seelig for this paper. It was a very informative read. This is what I was talking about in the OP. For the culture around crypto to change, and for people to take it more seriously, there should be much more analysis in this academic style. The crypto press, if there is such a thing, should tone it down and speak to us like we are pros.
Good point, @DarcyAdvisors and @chainblx27. Crypto has its own specific culture – just like real estate, or other investments – but fundamentals are still fundamentals, regardless of whether we’re talking about stocks, bonds, real estate, digital assets, or other asset classes.