How To Be Wrong About Bitcoin For 13 Years Straight

Whenever there's a significant drop in Bitcoin's price,

you can be certain that all the critics

who were very, very quiet at $100,000 Bitcoin

will come out of the woodwork

to prematurely tap dance on Bitcoin's grave

for the millionth time.

I'd be quiet, but when you leave,

I'd be talking again.

As tempting as it is for me to stoop to their level,

this video is not about dunking on the haters.

It's about a cautionary tale

of how presumably smart people can become perpetually wrong,

permanently choosing to cut off their nose

to spite their face

and tragically steering others astray in the process.

I don't believe it's necessarily because they lack intelligence,

but rather because their ego

hardens faster than they're willing to update their beliefs.

Bitcoin might punish ignorance and high time preference,

but above all, it punishes ego.

And today, I'm bringing the receipts,

not to attack or mock anyone,

but to show how this exact pattern repeats

over and over across different people,

different institutions, different publications,

and different market cycles.

And how until you're willing to put your ego aside,

you are doomed to a life of sitting on the sidelines

and watching Bitcoin eat the world.

Here, we have the perfect example,

a recent article by the Financial Times.

We've covered them before on this channel

with the lady who last year openly admitted

that she didn't understand the difference

between Bitcoin and her teeth.

My teeth are pretty scarce, I'm pretty useful,

but they're not worth billions of bucks.

You can watch my video on that right here.

And now they're back with what is apparently

their 13th Bitcoin obituary over the last 13 years.

Call me crazy, but I thought when something was dead,

you only had to write an obituary for it once.

The most recent Financial Times headline about Bitcoin is this.

Bitcoin is still about $69,000 too high.

Whoops, hold on, they had to update it

since the price changed.

Bitcoin is still about $70,000 too high.

Bags the question, will they keep updating it?

Every time Bitcoin's price changes,

we have to hire a full-time intern,

just for that one job.

But in this article, the author gives their personal opinion

based entirely on vibes and no hard evidence of any kind

that, quote, ever since its creation,

Bitcoin has been on a journey that will end splattered

on the ground.

Reading this thing, I couldn't help but notice

it's dripping with ironies all over the place.

First one, of course, is that this forecast of Bitcoin demise

is being published on a publication whose business model

relies on people not being able to figure out

how to get around to pay wall.

Something tells me that even if Bitcoin doesn't make it

another 100 years, it's still going to be around

a little bit longer than the Financial Times.

Now that was probably a low blow,

albeit a factually accurate one.

But the next biggest irony going on here

is how the author starts the piece, and I quote,

it's the story of a man who is falling

from a 50-story building.

At each floor, as he falls, he comforts himself

by repeating, it's just KC Tufabia.

It's just KC Tufabia, which means so far, so good.

And yes, I did have to look up how to pronounce it.

Those words, that image, have somehow seared themselves

into my consciousness for life.

They sued me when I'm feeling anxious

or having imposter worries.

They suggest that, given I seem to have got away with it so far,

maybe I'll keep on getting away with it.

The shills and shamans of Bitcoin land

have been getting away with it too.

Untold numbers of people might have lost their life savings,

but every time Bitcoin falls, it has always bounced back.

Those who can afford it managed to cling on,

it's the people who can't, who are wiped out.

And the cognitive muscle memory they acquire

on each rebound leads them to believe

their hallowed crypto coin is going to live forever.

End quote.

Real quick, you're watching The Sad Thacker Show,

a Bitcoin show for people who think deeper about money.

I'm your host, my name is John, aka The Sad Stacker.

If you want to learn to stack smarter

and grow your conviction in Bitcoin,

you get the subscribe button,

and you can zap me, sat via the Lightning Network

using the QR code on the screen if you join the video.

Now back to it.

First of all, I'm struck by the irony

that the author felt the need to compare

what they think is the fraud of Bitcoin to themselves,

but that's kind of neither here nor there.

The real irony that struck me is, of course,

that in my opinion, what they're perfectly describing

is Fiat, a Ponzi-like scheme

concocted by central bankers to print money,

decide who receives it first,

and externalize the cost onto everyone else

through inflation and endless debt.

And as we know, Fiat currencies fail constantly.

The Iranian Rial being the latest example

just a couple weeks ago, which went completely to zero.

And as this author is so concerned about,

caused untold numbers of people to lose their life savings.

There's hundreds of Fiat currencies

that have failed throughout time.

But as far as I can tell, Bitcoin has never

actually gone completely to zero,

which means holding cold storage Bitcoin securely

for the long term has never actually caused anyone

to lose their life savings.

But of course, the number one tactic for anyone

writing a piece like this is to conflate Bitcoin

with all the rest of crypto

and paint them with the same disingenuous broad brush.

But the biggest irony of all,

the one that this video is really about,

the one I wanna make sure everyone watching this

takes to heart as a cautionary tale,

is that this author is not someone

who just discovered Bitcoin last week

and decided to write a hit piece on it for fun.

Quite the contrary, this author has been covering Bitcoin

for at least 12 years.

Since 2014, when the price of Bitcoin was just a few hundred

dollars, remember, it's our cognitive muscle memory

that leads us to believe our hallowed crypto coin

is going to live forever.

But she's been around since Bitcoin was $300.

And somehow, after watching its journey to 126,000,

a correction down to 70,000 has her completely convinced

that the supply of greater fools

that Bitcoin relies on is drying up.

This is the part that I'm truly baffled by.

It's not just about this one Bitcoin critic.

This basically describes all of them to be wrong

for 12 years straight, but certain you're right this time.

In this case, what's even more strange is that

I think that you can see from her oldest tweets

that she didn't seem to start out

with a completely negative view of Bitcoin.

She was reporting on it for Reuters, just posting news items,

but it wasn't all completely negative.

Of course, she was throwing in a dusting of the jabs

of Ponzi's game accusations and saying it's a bubble

that's going to burst, but she even participated

in a panel at a Bitcoin conference in 2022,

where they talked about the state of media coverage

of Bitcoin, and she repeatedly insisted

she's not 100% against Bitcoin.

I don't think cryptocurrency is at evil.

I don't think that they're irrelevant.

Otherwise, what would I be like, why am I here?

I do think they're a net negative.

And she defended her credentials.

If you want to make criticism, you need to be in a forum.

Well, it's called, right?

And I believe I am.

I think right about Bitcoin,

probably like a lot longer than like a lot of people here

have been like into Bitcoin, right?

I mean, right, it's 2015.

A lot of people, like you probably got into it

later than that, right?

Much later. Yeah, there you go.

So like, it's not that I don't understand it.

It's just better than you do, though.

And this is again, where I want to reiterate.

This is not just about this author.

She's obviously stuck her neck out

with this particular article at this time.

So some of the shrapnel is gonna land on her.

But she's just an example of all these critics.

I've seen so many of these people over the years.

I would say they're really two main kinds of Bitcoin critics.

There are the straight up grifters

who are trying to step on Bitcoin's shoulders

to give themselves a leg up in selling you

on why their asset is better.

Examples include Peter Schiff,

the eternal gold shield.

Just remember that everything that comes out of his mouth

is marketing designed to get more attention

so he can sell more gold.

And there's also any other cryptocurrency.

All of them being affinity scams,

riding on Bitcoin's co-tales,

trying to dupe unsuspecting investors

into believing they're better than Bitcoin.

All for the purpose of dumping on you

and enriching themselves

and probably just rotating the profits into Bitcoin.

So on that point specifically,

I do agree with this author

about the damage that crypto has done.

But as for the other kind of Bitcoin critic,

it's my belief that it is not a lack of intelligence

that prohibits them from good faith engagement.

It's a lack of humility.

Bitcoin is an IQ test, but it's also an ego test.

If you had early awareness of it,

that creates some kind of terrible psychological responsibility.

I'm not gonna pretend to mind read these people,

but you'd have a hard time convincing me

that this isn't at least a contributing factor.

If you knew about this thing early on

and you didn't buy it, you then need a reason.

Your ego builds a story for you.

Oh, I studied it, I understand it,

I rejected it rationally.

My position was logical and I am correct

regardless of what the market

or any empirical evidence might say to the contrary.

But then the reality starts to diverge from their opinion.

The price of Bitcoin goes from $300 to $3,000 to $30,000

to $70,000 and up over $100,000.

So the mind has only two options.

Admit a massive error and live with the pain of regret forever.

Or two, double down on the position

that Bitcoin is immoral, fake, dangerous and doomed.

Dig in on that position at all costs.

Let no amount of argument or evidence

to the contrary change your mind.

At some point, this charade stops being critical analysis

and becomes an exercise in self-defense.

And at that point, especially if you've been publicly

sticking your neck out as a Bitcoin critic,

changing your mind isn't just intellectually costly.

It's reputationally expensive.

So if we take a step back, put ourselves in these people's shoes.

Imagine if it were you.

You were aware of a stupid magic internet Ponzi coin in 2014.

You didn't buy it, of course,

either because you were just sure it was dumb beanie babies

and it was going to go to zero.

Or maybe you were just trying to be an unbiased journalist

and you needed to maintain objectivity.

So you couldn't invest in it, obviously.

Let's say you didn't even hate it from the beginning.

You might let just a little bit of snark sneak into your reporting.

You know, just here and there pointing out that it's dropping

because it's probably Ponzi

or pointing out that it's crashing

because the bubble's probably finally bursting.

But that's where your ego starts to crystallize.

You've quietly taken sides

and every time the Bitcoin price or adoption goes up

causes a little hit to your credibility

in your track record and your ego.

Was I wrong?

Did I miss something here?

No, no, no, no, of course not.

It just crashed again.

See, I wasn't wrong.

It's definitely dead this time.

Let me double down on this snark

to rub it into everyone who was being mean to me

in the comments last time.

Ah, damn it.

It's coming back again.

Why won't you die?

Rinse and repeat this pattern for over a decade.

You add to that how many mean bit corners have called you names

and your replies over the years.

Now you got a recipe for the saltiest group

of Bitcoin haters that hard money can't buy.

Don't worry though, remember,

you know more about this thing

than even the dimwits who bought it.

You were right when you made up your mind years ago

and you're still right today.

See, your colleagues are even backing you up.

We can't all be wrong.

I mean, we worked for the financial times.

We tell these midwits what to think

and what has value, not the other way around.

But then it just keeps getting worse.

The magic internet Ponzi coin infiltrates

Wall Street.

It gets the stamp of approval

from big daddy finance Larry Fink.

It receives approval from the SEC to launch ETFs.

It even worms its way into the freaking White House

and the United States of America

literally establishes a Bitcoin strategic reserve.

I mean, this is insane.

Although I will admit that last part

is probably good for your arguments as a Bitcoin critic

because you can always fall back and say

since big bad orange bully like orange coin,

orange coin equals bad.

But then the ultimate insult happens.

The damn digital beanie baby flies past $100,000 per coin.

Not only could you have bought it at $300 a coin

and achieved a 42,000% gain,

but now you have spent over a decade dismissing it

and staking your reputation on it being a tulip bubble

that's going to zero.

All the while watching the market

keep going against you.

But then bang, you finally get another one of those crashes

that you've been waiting for.

The stupid thing drops almost 50% in just a couple months.

Those losers were all celebrating and dunking on you

when it was $126,000,

but now it's back down to almost half that.

This time must mean demand is finally drying up.

It's all unraveling and the end is near.

You were right all along, it will go to zero.

It absolutely has to because I mean,

what does it say about you if it doesn't?

There are hundreds, if not thousands of these people,

they are allowed on Twitter right now after the crash.

And almost every time you see one of their tweets,

you can go back in their timeline

and find the receipts of them saying the same thing

in the past at a Bitcoin price

that was much, much lower than it is today,

yet never changing their stance.

In 2015, Bitcoin was $300 and it was a Ponzi scheme.

In 2017, it was $3,500 and the bubble was finally bursting.

In 2022, it was $19,000 and it was a net negative

for society.

In 2026, it's $70,000 and it's based on nothing but air

and will surely die.

Even when Paul Krugman said the internet's effect

on the economy would be no greater than the facts machines,

at least he didn't keep doubling down on it every two years

for the next decade while the entire world

just proved how wrong he was.

So of course, here we are,

17 years after the launch of Bitcoin

and Bitcoin just keeps surviving.

Despite all the odds, despite all the fud,

despite all the haters.

What's Bitcoin at?

16,000?

It has another 17,000 to go down.

The evil, dirty, scammy, planet killing,

tulip bubble, beanie baby Ponzi coin

that just won't freaking die.

I'm still alive only a very badly burned.

But do they ever revisit their certainty

that it must fail?

But of course, we really should all just get used to it

because this type of bad faith criticism

isn't going anywhere.

If anything, as Bitcoin's value continues to climb,

the jealousy and hatred will probably climb with it.

Someday, Bitcoin will be seven figures

and they'll still be saying the same things.

At $1 million, it's a Ponzi coin.

At $2 million, it's a tulip bubble.

At $3 million, it's a beanie baby.

At $4 million, it's going to zero any day now.

Yada, yada, yada, and on and on for all eternity.

Ego, that's the only way you can be so wrong

about something for so long and never rethink your position.

But maybe, on occasion,

their subconscious does reveal the truth.

Like when, for no reason at all,

they bring up their imposter worries

in the second paragraph of their opinion piece.

And listen, there is absolutely plenty of room

for good faith skepticism and criticism of Bitcoin

and especially of crypto.

But there's a massive difference

between good faith criticism and toxic food.

Bad faith, but it's based on nothing,

but I have no evidence.

It will definitely die.

I don't know when, but just trust me, bro.

And anyone whose bullish is delusional.

The real tragedy here isn't that people like this

have just been wrong about Bitcoin.

It's that this mindset guarantees

they can never be right.

I don't really even blame them.

Like think about how big of a person you'd have to be

to have known about Bitcoin at $300,

ignored and rejected it,

and eventually admit your mistake

and buy it at $100,000.

But here's the biggest problem for the haters.

Technology does not require their moral approval.

Markets do not care about their resentment

and refusing to update your mental model

does not punish Bitcoin.

It only punishes you.

And of course, the sadder part is that it punishes

anyone who still reads or trusts your publication.

But cutting yourself off from better money

because of your ego

is one of the most expensive mistakes a person can make.

Well, why is that?

You ask, well, how's it so expensive?

Well, I told you I was bringing receipts.

So for starters, let's take this example.

Apparently cost $59 a month to subscribe

to the Financial Times.

I wouldn't know, like I said,

I read the article and I'm not a subscriber.

So you tell me how that bodes

for the business model of charging $59 a month.

But let's just say hypothetically,

you took the $59 a month of Financial Times subscription money

and you had started buying Bitcoin with it

way back when the Financial Times

started writing about Bitcoin in 2013.

Apparently, you'd have spent $39,000

to acquire 40 of those stupid magic internet

Ponzi-Bee-D baby coins that are going to zero.

But they today be worth $3.7 million,

which is a 9,500% return.

That's just the facts of the math.

I don't make the rules.

But if you are new to this channel,

you might still be wondering

why I'm so confident that these critics are wrong.

Why do I believe that Bitcoin will keep going up from here?

Because to be fair, so far,

I've just said the critics are wrong,

but I haven't articulated the argument

for why anyone should want to adopt Bitcoin.

Why do you have over 100 videos on the channel

that you can binge through

if you want the long answer?

But since we're here,

I give you the cliff notes version in about two minutes.

Are you ready?

Here's the deal.

If you come from a traditional finance

or investing background or you work

for a legacy financial publication,

you'll probably see Bitcoin

as a financial instrument or an investment vehicle

or an asset of some kind,

and you'll evaluate it through that lens.

But that's where you'll go wrong.

Because you'll probably come to a conclusion

like Bitcoin has no value

because it has no cash flow

or Bitcoin's a Ponzi scheme that's going to zero

because it has no intrinsic value

and it's based on nothing but air.

But you'll of course be missing

the entire forest for the trees

because Bitcoin is money.

Judging Bitcoin because it has no cash flow

is like judging a fish

on its inability to do the high jump.

It's a category error.

But if you zoom out

and you evaluate Bitcoin through the correct lens,

then you will see that it is the hardest

and best form of money that's ever existed.

The history of money is quite clear on these things.

A commodity must possess certain properties

in order to be useful as money.

It must be durable, portable, divisible, fungible,

verifiable and scarce.

Notice that none of those require it

to be physical or tangible.

It must be capable of fulfilling the functions of money,

which are store of value, medium of exchange

and unit of account.

Note, however, that it goes through those stages

gradually over time.

You can't simply take a one-time snapshot

and declare a good is not money

because it's not currently fulfilling

all three simultaneously.

That logic would of course require you to conclude

that gold is not money

because no one uses it as a medium of exchange

or a unit of account.

And fiat is not money because it's not

a long-term store of value.

But if a commodity or good has the properties that I mentioned,

it can enter into a free market competition

against other monies.

And history teaches us that the good

that best exhibits those properties

and has the highest stock to flow ratio,

that means the lowest inflation rate,

will outcompete other forms of money over time.

And in this case, outcompete means

it will demonetize those other forms of money.

It will suck the value out of weaker assets.

The harder money will appreciate in purchasing power

while anyone who continues to hold the weaker money

will see their purchasing power trend to zero over time.

This is the case for Bitcoin.

It's not an investment or even just a new type of asset.

It is a new, superior monetary technology.

Engineered to be the best form of money on earth.

It stands to reason that the world adopting

a brand new form of money will take a little bit of time.

But if you zoom out,

you will see Bitcoin appreciating over the last 17 years

versus anything else you can measure it against.

This is already happening.

You just won't see it if you try to measure it

with the time preference of a dung beetle.

And you definitely won't see it.

If your ego requires you to bury your head in the sand

from the shame and embarrassment

of having fumbled away a once in a lifetime opportunity

at generational wealth,

that's why I suggest you quit slacking

and start stacking at generational wealth.

That's why I suggest you quit slacking and start stacking.