Billionaire Mark Cuban atomises Bitcoin

Billionaire Mark Cuban atomises Bitcoin: „More a religion than a solution“.

Refractory to the Bitcoin Revolution – We’re getting used to declarations of love for Bitcoin (BTC) from billionaires and large fund managers. Yet some still cling to their disgust with the king of crypto: by Crypto Bank Mark Cuban is one of them and doesn’t hold back for a second.

Bitcoin, too perfect to find through Mark Cuban’s eyes?

Although Mark Cuban was forced to pay a $6.1 million fine to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for his late crypto-project Unikrn, that doesn’t seem to have taught him to be humble about protocols that manage to survive, like Bitcoin.

In an interview with the Forbes newspaper, the billionaire owner of the Dallas Mavericks explains that his negative beliefs about Bitcoin have not changed:

„Bitcoin] is a store of value like gold, but is more a religion than a solution to a problem (…) However, unlike gold, because of the limited number of BTCs that will be available and the philosophy of HODLing, when demand exceeds supply, the price will rise (…)“.
Mark Cuban, almost a visionary

Negative points“ that will leave more than one observer circumspect. Granting Bitcoin the status of a safe haven, and saying that its value is bound to increase thanks to its limited quantity (to 21 million units and not one more): are these really things to reproach?

Wouldn’t accumulating BTCs be a protection against crises?

Mark Cuban continues his strange analysis, but it is clear that even if we follow it to the end, we cannot understand the exact blame that is being levelled at Bitcoin:

„No matter how much BTC fans want to pretend that it is a protection against disaster scenarios, it is not. Countries will take steps to protect their currency and their ability to tax, so the more people believe that it is something other than a store of value, the more likely they are to run the risk of government intervention.

In short, Bitcoin would be so much better than fiat currencies, that governments would have to trample on the principle of free currency competition and impose their trusted currency, in which there is less and less trust precisely?