Most of this is true, but 🤔🤔.. so??
Ya, Bitcoin doesn't generate cash like bonds do. Bitcoin also doesn't lay eggs like chickens do.
Hockey Pucks Including The Black Ones Are Not Household Cleaning Products.
(Just in case you were wondering.)
It's like the American Dental Association doesn't see a guy sitting over there on the park bench and feel like they should announce that he's not a dentist.
Oh, "he doesn't have a dentist degree", "he's awful at using the pick", "has no patience" blahblah.. okay? If clearly he isn't a dentist, why are we even talking about whether or not he's a dentist?
Don't worry about it lol
Note: I'm not a vacuum cleaner. 🤣🤣
I might be awesome and a dream, but I'm not a vacuum cleaner. I meet none of the characteristics, plz don't consider me to be such a thing.
But ya, they mostly are accurate statements. Except this one is kinda funky:
"We believe that a security whose appreciation is primarily dependent on whether someone else is willing to pay a higher price for it is not a suitable investment class for our clients."
Then stocks aren't suitable for them either, lol.
It always "depends on someone being willing to pay a higher price for it". That's just the mechanics of how buy --> sell/profit would work.
How would it ever not depend on that?
It's just with stocks, they realize the amount people are willing to pay is predicated on the fundamental profit generating ability of the company. And then with Bitcoin, it's too abstract and mind-bending to think about what factors predicate its value and what people are basing it on, so their brain skips to ".....someone randomly pays a higher price".
Or in other words this just amounts to an indirect way of suggesting there's no point or fundamental reason to hodl Bitcoin.
(And that's fine if they think that or want to assert that. The future isn't bound by what a few people writing a statement for a bank can currently imagine, so go ahead. But they could do it directly.)
They could say they don't find it suitable because it's weird and hurts our head and we don't see what the value is. Fine. Let's check the scoreboard in 20 years and see how you did. But all investments have the aspect of needing someone to pay a higher price for it in the future -- so it makes no sense that that would be a reason you don't find it suitable.
It's funny how Bitcoin can tilt people into making such weird statements. It's like, if you weren't lost in an effort to rationalize Bitcoin or guide how you want people to feel about it, you probably wouldn't have come up with that string of words.
"it's currency!" "it's an asset!"
"guys it's not an asset!!! doesn't meet the qualities of the asset class."
It's like there's always this quest to determine what to call it or what box to put it in.
It's math, of course.
Really really really really is just a piece of math.
And then why it matters and how it will be used is abstract, and not really built for what a bank might talk about in a PR statement.