Thanks! What do you think?

This conversation over Bitcoin ETFs is really interesting, and the SEC's questions confirm this. Such ETFs could ultimately propel or derail bitcoin in major ways.

From a public interest and legitimization standpoint, ETFs would strengthen Bitcoin. From what I can tell, most people either love or hate bitcoin, with very little middle ground apparent. I believe that most of these individuals not yet financially involved would be compelled to join the market here because of their oft-ardent convictions and newly increased exposure to the asset. While Bitcoin futures have to-date certainly seen some demand, the overall volumes aren't breathtaking. I think Bitcoin ETFs would up that figure a good amount. Bitcoin ETFs would also bring more institutional capital into the crypto world, especially as the onus of actually securing the digital currency in frustrating, unforgiving wallets would be alleviated. I think Bitcoin ETFs would be met with sizable demand, at least initially, and would likely help Bitcoin's liquidity as well drive positive price action too.

However, given the relatively small size of the Bitcoin ecosystem, it is very susceptible to mass manipulation here. We still don't really know what Bitcoin is; there are so many forks, many of which have compelling features. Most importantly and uniquely relevant to the crypto world - there is no guiding authority to tell us which protocol Bitcoin really is, rather the market determines this. As such, allowing an ETF to define what Bitcoin is via its composition could be very dangerous for the asset due to centralization of power. Further, Bitcoin ETFs also indirectly detract from the innovation of Bitcoin. A popular, easily accessible ETF in a relatively small market (current BTC market cap is ~$150 billion) might become more appealing than the actual asset, which would only increase the power that the ETF constructors possess, rather than strengthening Bitcoin itself. From this perspective, such ETFs would be great for common investors and traders looking to profit, but rather unfavorable in the eyes of the crypto community seeking further adoption of Bitcoin and its altcoin associates.

On a different note, what happens if the hype of Bitcoin fades drastically, and/or is displaced by a better digital asset as the crypto market leader in the future? These are not outlandish concerns. That would create a shaky standing for the proposed ETFs. Bitcoin's long term value is certainly not guaranteed, something most commodities don't face.

While less volatile exposure is a good thing for the digital currency, there is still so much ill-defined regarding the protocol, upcoming regulation for the entire space, and adoption prospects. This is a great story to follow, and it will continue shedding light on the developing crypto space at large.

Morgan Stanley now looking to hire crypto talent:

www.businessinsider.com/morgan-stanley-is-looking-to-staff-up-its-stock-research-unit-with-crypto-talent-2018-3

What are your thoughts on some of the other players in this index of the cryptocurrency sector? Do NEO, EOS, ADA, etc. pose any legitimate amount of competition to Ethereum and/or its market share?

It stands for “fear of missing out.” FOMO trading happens when someone observes others making a particular investment decision, and decides to make the same investment solely on the basis of fearing that they will miss out on future prosperity. In this context, many people are buying Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies simply because they see many others doing so and profiting, so they don’t want to miss out on the action.

Yes, the state senate passed a bill to accept tax payments in BTC.

Now the bill is on to the house.

(fortune.com/2018/02/10/arizona-bitcoin-taxes/)

Per the following CoinDesk article, "This bill would, if approved, require Arizona's Department of Revenue to convert the cryptocurrencies into U.S. dollars within a day of receiving them as payment." (www.coindesk.com/arizona-lawmakers-advance-bill-protect-crypto-node-operators/)

No question about it. The spending/payment use case is a lot less practical right now, not to mention lucrative. Also, there’s a lot of FOMO buying without real intent beyond making returns.

These are very important and noteworthy points, many of which are standing directly in the way of larger adoption. Here are some comments of mine on them:

1. No regulation is a major issue as it delegitimizes Bitcoin, and is keeping so many people on the sidelines. (By the same token, it is probably what's keeping many in on it). While there are currently productive conversations happening in the Fed (techcrunch.com/.../virtual-currencies-oversight-hearing-sec-cftc-bitcoin/), things always move slowly there. I do think we will have a more clear picture by the end of 2018. South Korea has been a leader in crypto regulation until now (www.cnbc.com/.../...ulations-come-into-effect.html). I believe regulation would ultimately be a good thing, and I believe we will see more waves of it continuing to come.

2. This is very true, and any news even hinting at such a situation has created an instant bear market for cryptocurrencies in the recent past. With the right regulative measures, though, countries would likely feel more comfortable and be less likely to ban the market from operating. But no one really knows if China will ever change its mind, but it could. For what it's worth, though, governments can ban but never eliminate Bitcoin. People can move to more appealing places to use BTC and other cryptocurrencies if they felt like it was worth it.

3-4. This MUST improve if the industry wants to thrive. Major positive strides have been made since Mt. Gox, but there are still ways to go in building secure exchange and trading platforms in the space so people can feel comfortable.

5. From an association standpoint, this is a major argument against the whole crypto market, especially "privacy coins" (harder to track), and creates ethical dilemmas as well. The counterargument is obvious as well, though (i.e. should we ban cars because criminals use them in bank robberies, should we ban the internet because criminals communicate over it?). The point can be argued both ways with legitimacy. While this conversation is mainly about Bitcoin and not really about other cryptocurrencies, it's important to note that Bitcoin is actually dropping in popularity on the Dark Web and Monero (XMR)

is replacing it (www.bloomberg.com/.../criminal-underworld-is-dropping-bitcoin-for-another-currency).

6. This is where USD is way more appealing than BTC. FDIC insurance is such a valuable aspect of banking when matched up against personal accountability with securing your wealth. From a Bitcoin investment standpoint, however, it's a non factor. Non-deposit investments, like stocks, mutual funds, bonds, etc. are not FDIC ensured.

7. Is this not new with any breakthrough technology? There is no doubt a ton of speculation as well as "dumb money" (www.cnbc.com/.../...n-to-name-and-stock-soars.html) coming into the market, but does BTC emerging as a money making opportunity delegitimize it at its core? I would say strong parallels could be made to the internet in this regard. If you don't like volatility, though, it makes sense to stay away.

Bitcoin isn't backed by anything beyond its unique characteristics (some of which I listed above) and demand from the public. It might sound crazy, but it's the disruptive nature of the technology that is driving most of the banking world mad. I have no association with Bitcoin outside of researching and writing about the topic independently. I am fascinated by its history and enjoy following its activity. I am always completely objective about it.

As stated in my article, Bitcoin is viewed as an asset/investment vehicle, piece of technology, etc. in addition to its role as a currency/money. I will respond in line with its role as a currency/money as it pertains to your question.

Bitcoin is a disruptive technology and is, by nature, doing things differently. It is so unconventional in comparison to the traditional financial system we're accustomed to that people have been predicting its demise year and year over. It's still here and essentially as strong as ever. While none of us know what the future holds, Bitcoin has been around for almost a decade now, and its demand has only increased. Standing the test of time, even if the reasons why are difficult to comprehend, must be respected.

There are a variety of reasons why Bitcoin could have intrinsic value as a currency. Here are some, in no particular order:

1. Decentralization; protects against frozen accounts, transactions, and manipulated records

2. Scarcity; finite amount of revolutionary tech project, protects against inflation

3. Increased privacy for payments

4. Borderless; better for global payments, FX

5. No physical backing; why do we even need physical cash in an ideal situation?

6. Can't be duplicated; protects against counterfeit money

7. Most recently in Arizona - ability to pay taxes with BTC

Again, Bitcoin certainly has its shortcomings too, but the case can certainly be made for it as a a currency.