Zaps. Zaps. Zaps. Zaps.

As a value investor, I find Charlie Munger's recent WSJ-published arguments to ban bitcoin/crypto and thank the leader of the Chinese Communist Party to be embarrassing and sad.

I'm currently writing a research note to 10,000 retail and institutional subscribers on why it's dumb.

Munger has a history of arguing that someone should be able to "steelman" their opposing view if they are going to have an opinion on something, which means being able to articulate an opponent's viewpoint more convincingly than even they can. Recently on CNBC, Munger was quoted on his historical claim and then asked by the anchor to steelman bitcoin/crypto after his WSJ op-ed, and he was unable to and didn't even try to.

He doesn't know anything about Segwit, Taproot, block size limits, whether a base layer should be Turing complete or not, anything about power dynamics between nodes, developers, and miners, etc. Absolutely no clue, and no attempt at a clue.

Such a bad viewpoint doesn't only reflect his old age, but also reflects his inherent ethics at a structural level from inception as a banker. It undermines his entire legacy.

Even on the history of money and its problems in developing countries, Munger would be schooled in a Twitter Spaces by any random above-average bitcoin twitter anonymous account.

It's sad to see.

Logged in with private or public keys?