"It seems to me that Bitcoin has succeeded in crossing the line from being a highly speculative idea that could well not be around in short order to probably being around and probably having some value in the future." (p1)
Dalio challenges the idea that Bitcoin is as scarce as people think, since there is an unlimited number of "Bitcoin-like assets". More innovative coins can probably carve out their own demand, and arguably we are already seeing that today. (p1)
Though Dalio knows about the ability to hold coins in cold storage, he's still concerned about the ability to shield them against cyber attacks and hold them securely. He warns that increasing digitization also increases systemic risk. (p2)
Dalio thinks that Bitcoin's achilles heel is its lack of privacy. While very experienced users can use it privately, most people can't, and that would make it easy for governments to prevent wide-spread adoption as money. (I fully agree.) (p2)
By the way, Dalio with the shot against S2F type models: "Since the supply is known, one has to estimate the demand to estimate its price."
To end, here are the two money quotes:
"[...] Bitcoin looks like a long-duration option on a highly unknown future that I could put an amount of money in that I wouldn’t mind losing about 80% of."
"[we] expect Bridgewater to soon offer an alt-cash fund and a storehold of wealth fund in order to better deal with the devaluation of money and credit that we consider to be a major risk and opportunity, and Bitcoin won’t escape our scrutiny." - Dalio
It is absolutely mental how many famous Bitcoin evangelists reject coordination problems as a concept. Why? If they admitted that coordination problems exist, they'd also validate their possible solutions, e.g. a central government, or above that, an international order.
However, that thinking is incredibly short-sighted. It's possible to admit that coordination problems exist AND that we need better solutions than central parties. Bitcoin itself is such a solution. But that opens another can of worms...
If they admitted that a rule-based system, enforced by cryptography and economic incentives, are a useful to solution to anything else than digital gold, they'd risk also validating Defi and at least a few other altcoins... oops
Most people in crypto are used to thinking about inflation as a purely social or monetary design choice. But a cryptocurrency's inflation rate is also a lever to shift the volatility of demand between having a predictable cost for users OR a predictable level of security.
In the future, inflation in Bitcoin will go to zero, and miners are paid only with transaction fees. Since demand is uncertain, the size of the miner reward (and hence network security) is unpredictable.
In Ethereum, validators are paid primarily with inflation, establishing a predictable floor for security. Inflation can be offset by deflation from burning transaction fees. But demand to transact is once again uncertain, making the total inflation rate is unpredictable.
Fixed supply of shares is a really dumb concept for pseudo-equity. Projects need to be able to mint more shares if they want to invest in growth, as well as buy back shares if they think they are underpriced.
That said, it's not necessarily the right thing to do for Yearn. As I've said many times before, my biggest problem with the project (and reason I sold) is that I don't see enough urgency to build vaults and strategies that users actually want.
Diluting existing equity holders would likely exacerbate the problem as it makes generating cashflows even less urgent.
2) Lots of people were speculating what it means for two protocols (such as Yearn X Cream) to "merge"/partner with each other. This is an unexpected advantage as Yearn vaults will be able to borrow for free.
3) Being whitelisted is a big advantage so maybe to qualify and align incentives future candidates will have to hold CREAM tokens in their treasury.
This is gonna be my last comment on ETH2 staking. Since many ppl have attacked me after projecting a position that I never actually argued for (incl. some nasty PMs - tyvm) I will clarify what I do and don't think:
1) I *don't* think locking ETH in the deposit contract necessarily constitutes a sale. I won‘t be shocked if the IRS argues that it does. But I sure as hell would first try to convince them of the opposite
2) There will be two versions of ETH on most exchanges (ETH + stakedETH, ETH2, beaconETH, whatever you want to call it). There will be many versions of ETH in the market as a whole.
3) If you receive such a liquid staking token, that is most likely a tax event.
Here we go. Coinbase doing exactly what I predicted:
* Users can mint BETH by staking ETH via Coinbase
* they can trade BETH against ETH and other coins on Coinbase
* get staking rewards AND liquidity at the same time
This is very attractive. Other exchanges will follow.