Bucketeer wrote:<snip> local community banks provide a valuable service and great utility to their customers. It is the criminal actions of international, money center banks like UBS and their ilk that require even greater regulations of, and protections from, their current business practices.
Well said, Sir!
Thank you for the compliment Brick's. I believe that Paul Donovan is either incompetent, a liar, or a combination of both. Let's examine what Paul said..
In my previous rebuttal, I provided a link to an explanation about the "trustless" nature of Bitcoin. That link explains why Bitcoin and the introduction of a public ledger was designed to eliminate regulations and regulators. This is a feature of Bitcoin, not a bug or oversight.
This trustless feature is basic Bitcoin 101, so obviously Paul doesn't understand this, or he is lying. Given that Paul is the Global Chief Economist at UBS, I am hesitant to call him a liar, so let's examine his competency. What follows is a brief biography of Paul, from the UBS Website.
Paul joined UBS Wealth Management in August 2016, and is the Global Chief Economist. He is a member of the Global Investment Committee, a UBS Opinion Leader, a sponsor of UBS Speak Up and a UBS Pride Ally. Paul is responsible for developing and presenting the UBS economic outlook, marketing the view around the world. He started at UBS Investment Bank as an intern in 1992, and was Global Economist. He has an MA in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Oxford University, and an MSc in Financial Economics from the University of London. He is an Honorary Fellow of St Anne's College Oxford, appears regularly in print and broadcast media, and is the author of several books (all available from Amazon.com).https://www.ubs.com/global/en/about_ubs/follow_ubs/ubs-economic-insights/paul_donovan.html
I would have expected a person in Paul's position to possess a Doctorate. It is surprising that all of his educational majors are in the imprecise sciences of philosophy and economics. I expected to see at least an undergraduate degree in accounting, finance, or mathematics. Economic Finance is not Finance.
In late 2016, UBS established a blockchain technology research lab in London to advance its cyber security and encryption of client activities. If UBS has developed a blockchain, I suspect that it incorporates a non-public ledger. but regardless, Paul is certainly capable of understanding the basic concepts of Bitcoin and the use of a "public ledger".
That said, the only logical conclusion would be that Paul is lying when he claims that Bitcoin owners are without protection. The protection is incorporated in the code, and the nature of the protection prevents compromise by regulations or regulators, either public or private.
His agenda is obvious when he stated: "I come to bury Bitcoin, not to praise it". I also take great exception to Paul's comment that <people> "got sucked into the process".
Nobody got "suckered" into Bitcoin, except for the people that watched the daily price increases on mainstream news sources like CNBC and wanted in because of the fear of missing out. Bitcoin is neutral - it never suckered anyone.
The process for a beginner to buy Bitcoin is lengthy, daunting, and difficult to understand. Holding, sending, or receiving Bitcoin is fraught with danger until the owner understands the basic processes, which are best learned from experience, a sometimes costly teacher.
Some people that have posted in this topic have called me a "Bitcoin maximalist". That is mostly, but not completely true. I remember shortly after Bitcoin broke $1000, that the corresponding message traffic in this topic went thru the roof, mostly from newbs.
I am Bearish on most things, and I've studied herd behaviors for a long time. No matter if we're talking tulips, dot.coms, or Bitcoin, there are two characteristics common to a strong bull run. The first is that most bull runs end badly for the "late-stage" players. The second is that the late-stage bulls turn into sheep, and usually shear themselves financially at the worse possible time.
I digress and my apologies. In closing, I can only think it was a slow news day at CNBC for them to publish Paul's lies. What is troubling is not only does CNBC have a large audience that actually believes his comments, but that those same comments turned up in this topic. I expected better.