FYI he's not gambling the bitcoin, he's holding onto it, and given it's history, which is the sub-story, it seems to be the smart thing to do not the risky/ dumb thing to do, especially in the current stage of the cycle.
Not if you're the sort of person who dismisses it out of hand, no.
In the context of understanding that Bitcoin is the best performing asset over its admittedly small lifetime, then it just sorta kinda might just start the process of making sense to unthaw a little.
This justification is only valid for certain time-scales however, and once you get into a discussion of that it can easily degenerate into cherry-picking and misaligned points - and I can be accused of cherry picking in limiting my judgement to "over it's admittedly small lifetime".
Basically, it comes down to a difference of opinion in the long-term value of an asset that hasn't existed long-term. If using the only available data, being short-term, as a guide, then it could be predicted to be a great investment.
Past performance is not a guarantee of future returns. True of everything. I guess you and me both are just showing our different colours based on, potentially, the exact same reference data (although I'm going to assume my reference data set is larger and/or more varied than yours).
Alternate comprehension of your comment:
He's not gambling his Bitcoin, he's holding it. At the "end" he will still have the same number of Bitcoin. I believe your misunderstanding is that it may represent a smaller US dollar value and therefore he's gambling his bitcoin, however this means he's actually gambling the value of his bitcoin - which I specifically didn't say.
> FYI he's not gambling the bitcoin, he's holding onto it
This is the type of cultish speak that makes it insufferable to listen to your sermons.
Yes, he is "holding onto" his Bitcoin. But based on the interview it represents something like >90% of his net wealth. Putting >90% of your net wealth onto an extremely volatile asset like Bitcoin can fairly be called "gambling". Some gambles have positive expected values and some gambles have negative expected values, but taking risks of such level should be called "gambling".
There is very little meaningful distinction between "holding onto" Bitcoin and "buying" Bitcoin. The fact that he already owns the Bitcoin doesn't make it any less gamble-y.
> At the "end" he will still have the same number of Bitcoin.
Nobody here claimed otherwise. You're attacking some kind of weird strawman argument.
> What the ? You presumably go from not a millionaire to having $3,000,000, and you decide to risk it to triple it? That's some next level greed right there.
This implied selling btc to get dollars is less risky than holding BTC. I replied to that statement. You will likely lose more value holding dollars than holding BTC. Neither is an investment, they are both an asset.
At no point in the story did the person "have" 3 million dollars worth of USD. They had Bitcoin worth 3 million dollars. The letters "$3,000,000" refer to the USD-denominated value of the Bitcoin. When they talk about "risking it", they refer to the idea of keeping the Bitcoin, as opposed to selling the Bitcoin and then doing something else with the money. It's not specified how exactly one might invest 3 million dollars, but no reasonable person would keep the whole amount in a bank account.
Nobody implied that holding 3 million USD in a bank would be a good idea.
Michael waited until it rose to $62,000 per coin and sold some of it. He now has 30 BTC, now worth $3 million, and is waiting for the value to rise to $100,000 per coin.
