Bitcoin only
"Gary Gensler: Past, Present, and Future."
Most people don't know the current head of the SEC, Gary Gensler, was Professor Gensler teaching a class on Bitcoin at MIT five years ago.
Gary 'predicted' what was going to happen with Bitcoin five years ago and HE is the guy in that seat now. Coincidence? Maybe in the interview he answered the questions right to the person above him drilling him on his/her displeasure of Bitcoin? These guys manage up, always and do not care about us. There are millions of these people.
See below for this particular section of this specific talk he gave to his students.
Please read what he stated below and then perhaps compare and contrast him to people you have worked for or with.
Gary Gensler (non-visionary) is the antithesis of Steve Jobs (visionary.)
The Garys of the world are experts on the past and are slow to act or react on anything. Changing minds or set beliefs requires effort. Effort requires work.
As with your life, time solves all problems, people die off waiting for people like Gary to make decisions on anything as he gets his paycheck if things change or stay the same.
Bottom line, no one, the world, has not seen the likes of Bitcoin but that doesn't stop Gary putting it in the same box as everything from the past.
Note how he says, "it takes 15-20 years" and then think, well next year, 2024, Bitcoin turns 15.
Maybe he is simply waiting for his 'I told you so moment?' Self fullfilling Bitcoin prophet Gensler?
These "status quo junkies, slow to change" are my least favorite to work for and with. They need to be challenged and pushed aside, they stifle innovation. motivation, and advancement of better technolgy that is ready for now, not Gary's then.
Your future is bright Gary, rumors are you will a bucking or a promotion to replace Janet Yellen. They will LOVE you, like minded, slow to adapt to change.
You know, human dinosaurs.
GO ARGENTINA, come on United States, make us proud, we need a WIN even being run by all losers.
2. Money, Ledgers & Bitcoin
1,770,963 views Jan 23, 2020 MIT 15.S12 Blockchain and Money, Fall 2018
MIT 15.S12 Blockchain and Money, Fall 2018 Instructor: Prof. Gary Gensler View the complete course:
Fall 2018
From here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5auv_xrvoJk
PROFESSOR GENSLER: I go to conferences sometime and talk about Bitcoin regulation, and they say, well, why can't the government solve this now?
I sort of remind them that it took 15 to 20 years from the introduction of credit cards kind of in the early to mid 1950s and the real take-off in the 1960s-- it was 1974, 1970, '77, the three big credit laws.
So if you're going to be an entrepreneur in Bitcoin, know that it could be 15 years until there's some cryptolaws in the future.
That was the processing machine from the 1950s. I made it too small, sorry.
Visa made it better. And then, of course, that's what we all see today,
how your cards get processed. So the role of money we've talked about.
So I'm going to skip over that. But now the characteristics of money. What makes a good money?
We talked about some of this earlier. It's durable, meaning that that salt cube wasn't the greatest, because if a lot of rain came, that would wash away. Gold and silver, metals, are durable. They're portable. The heavier it is, the less portable it is, and that's why gold was a better money than silver. You could move it-- and better than copper and bronze. It was divisible easily. You could slice things up. Uniform and fungible.
And anyone who's who down the rabbit hole on this stuff, if you really want to learn about money, read about Crawford versus Royal Bank in 1749.
There was a gentleman at the early part of paper money that mailed two 20-pound notes, and he wrote his name on them. They got lost in the mail, and he took the banks to court to say, those were mine, when they were found.
And there was no law in Scotland or in England at the time as to what to do about it.
But if you lose or somebody stole a piece of art, you get it back.
And the law was settled in 1749 that you actually don't get your money back.
Does anybody want to guess as to why the courts-- it was a matter of first interpretation.
The courts had no jurisprudence on this before 1749.
Why did the courts decide that a piece of art was different than currency?
And it goes to the fundamental of what money is, fiat money is.
Anybody want to take a guess as to why the courts-- they could have gone the other way. AUDIENCE: How could you tell if someone really owned money?
How could you [INAUDIBLE]? PROFESSOR: He signed it. Actually, the facts were clear it was the currency he signed.
I'm just helping you out so that-- that's a good point, but he signed it.