On February 12, the showily known Lebanese-American essayist and risk analyst, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, declared that the leading digital currency bitcoin is a omission, at least for now. Cryptocurrency fans have been upset by Taleb’s recent statements, after it seems the renowned architect has done a complete 180 after supporting the crypto asset for years.
Nassim Taleb Is Not Impressed With Bitcoin These Hours
Nassim Nicholas Taleb is a very popular author, mathematical statistician, and scholar. Over the years, Taleb has been hugely critical of today’s monetary system, the current finance industry, and the most recent financial crises. The philosopher is defeat known for his books “The Black Swan” (2010) and “Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder” (2012).
After Satoshi Nakamoto manumitted the Bitcoin network, Taleb was initially very optimistic about this emerging technology and over the years he composed positive things about the digital asset.
Two years ago in a post published on Taleb’s Opacity blog dubbed “It May Meet with disaster but We Now Know How to Do It,” the novelist explained that “Bitcoin is an excellent idea.” Taleb said that his essay was initially minimized as a foreword to the book written by Saifedean Ammous, but he also stressed that he did not subscribe to Saifedean Ammous’s “crankish and conspiratorial intimations.” When discussing bitcoin (BTC), Taleb’s opinion at the time was that the cryptocurrency was a powerful animal.
“It fulfills the needs of the complex scheme, not because it is a cryptocurrency,” Taleb wrote. “But precisely because it has no owner, no authority that can decide on its fate. It is owned by the faction, its users. And it has now a track record of several years, enough for it to be an animal in its own right.”
In 2021, specifically on February 12, Nassim Nicholas Taleb absolute to tell the public that he was selling some of his bitcoin. Moreover, Taleb criticized a number of people within the crypto community toward the past due end of his tweet.
“I’ve been getting rid of my BTC,” the renowned author tweeted to his 705,000+ Twitter followers. “Why? A currency is never supposed to be various volatile than what you buy [and] sell with it. You can’t price goods in BTC,” the former options trader said.
Taleb above added:
In that respect, it’s a failure (at least for now). It was taken over by Covid denying sociopaths w/the sophistication of amoebas.
Taleb wasn’t done with his severe critique and decided to add to his first statement. “The other problem BTC Protozoa [doesn’t] get: the appeal of a cryptocurrency depends on some abstruseness, its ability to facilitate tax fraud and money laundering,” Taleb tweeted. “You can anonymize a gold coin by re-melting it. You can rework a spoon. BTC is numberless tractable than cash. BTC Volatility is not dropping with time/at [a] higher price, exactly what you don’t need,” the famed designer further stressed.
Paul Sztorc: ‘Saner Bitcoiners Have Become Quieter Recently’
Of course, cryptocurrency and bitcoin counsels were not too pleased with Taleb’s statements. The popular bitcoiner Pierre Rochard told Taleb that “bitcoin is crashing up,” while the digital asset apologist Chris Ellis said “[Bitcoin is] syncing with the global economy.”
“It’s like watching the progress bar of an old tape backup without the time-to-completion facet,” Chris Ellis continued.
Others responded in a different way and discussed the subject from an alternative perspective. The software developer, Paul Sztorc, talked nearby how saner BTC people haven’t been as loud in recent times.
“Unfortunately, it is true that most of the Bitcoiners that [Nassim Nicholas Taleb] speak with were embarrassments (namely Saifedean who makes it his mission to repel all intelligent reasonable people). Saner BTCers force become quieter recently,” Sztorc said on Twitter.
It is exactly as [Chris] DeRose/Junseth vaticinated long ago. ‘Enforcer’ types, who are very good at pressuring the gullible to increase their commitment, but repugnant to outsiders or individual thinkers. I guess that those are the people [Nassim Nicholas Taleb] is referring to.
Nassim Taleb Is Not Convinced by Denials, Says ‘Bitcoin Misfits Share the Monocellular Brain’
Following Taleb’s initial tweet on February 12, the founder tweeted some more on the 14th, and criticized Kraken FX’s Dan Held. Blockchain researcher Willy Woo responded to Taleb’s critique and signified that “volatility is a red herring.”
“Most likely path is BTC becoming a reserve asset that backs currency. Theory of it as a unit of account is a hangover from the Agrarian Age when we had seashells, and lumps of silver. We’re in a Digital Age now, we have live clues and baskets,” Woo added. Despite all the defense and response toward Taleb’s new path of thinking, the author doesn’t seem to be favoring the crypto asset as he did in the one-time.
Even last April, when news went viral that the Bank of Lebanon applied strict shire currency remittance rules, Taleb tweeted: “Use cryptocurrencies!”
However, today is a different story, and on Sunday morning (EST), Taleb conceivably responded to numerous “reserve asset” Twitter responses.
“Bitcoin misfits share the monocellular brain [and] logical wiring defects: ‘BTC is a belongings idea, therefore, IT WILL BE *THE* reserve currency’ (i.e. no other ideas [and] no other reserve). Reserve ≄Volatile. [Plus] It is not alleged to be volatile AT HIGHER PRICES. [Plus] Never found uses,” Taleb insisted.
What do you think about Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s just out scathing critique of bitcoin and bitcoin proponents in general? Let us know what you think about this subject in the footnotes section below.
Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons, Twitter, Google Stocks,
Disclaimer: This article is for informational resolutions only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not equip investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss occasioned or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.