1. Home
  2. philosophy

philosophy

What crypto traders can learn from Charlie Munger — even if he hated BTC

Legendary investor Charlie Munger may have once called Bitcoin “rat poison squared” — but that doesn't mean crypto traders should ignore his years of investing wisdom.

Legendary investor and billionaire Charlie Munger, known as the right-hand man of Warren Buffet who helped build investment powerhouse Berkshire Hathaway, has passed away at 99 years of age.

Munger’s family informed Berkshire “that he peacefully died this morning at a California hospital,” according to a company announcement on Nov. 28.

Munger, who served as vice chairman at Buffet’s empire since 1978, accumulated a net worth of $2.6 billion and was routinely praised for adopting a sound investment and stock-picking philosophy throughout his tenure at Berkshire.

While Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies weren’t favored investments for Munger and Buffet, who once referred to Bitcoin (BTC) as “rat poison” and “rat poison squared,” crypto traders could still benefit from Munger’s learnings over his 60 years of investing experience. Here are some approaches to investment that Munger swore by: 

Only invest in what you know

Munger said Berkshire Hathaway would often categorize stocks into one of three baskets when evaluating a potential investment.

“We have three baskets for investing: yes, no, and too tough to understand.”

The latter could explain why Munger and Buffet never invested in Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, but the takeaway message is that they avoided investing in what they didn’t know.

Buffet has previously admitted he and Munger — both regarded as tech skeptics — were “too dumb to realize” the potential of Amazon’s e-commerce business in the 1990s and underestimated the company’s founder, Jeff Bezos.

Berkshire didn’t invest in Microsoft or Google either. “We blew it,” Munger once said, reflecting on the firm’s decision not to invest in Google.

Despite that, Berkshire stuck to the sectors it knew inside out, such as the banking and food and beverage sectors, making huge profits from investments in Bank of America, American Express, Coca-Cola Co, and later Apple after initially deciding not to invest in it.

Munger and Buffet also mastered the art of valuation by interrogating a firm’s balance sheet before making an investment decision, which Munger once said is the only intelligent way to invest.

“All intelligent investing is value investing [...] You must value the business in order to value the stock.”

While blockchains and protocols can’t often be valued via a discounted cash flow model or other traditional methods, plenty of insights can be obtained from on-chain data — from the number of daily active users and transaction volumes to total value locked (relative to market cap) and net inflows and outflows, to name a few.

Temperament, not IQ, is a bigger contributor to investment success

Munger was never been one to dive headfirst into a new trend, preferring to stay on the more conservative side of investing.

He’s previously said many “high IQ” people are terrible investors because they have terrible temperaments. “Great investors,” on the other hand, tread with caution and think things through:

"The great investors are always very careful. They think things through. They take their time. They're calm. They're not in a hurry. They don't get excited. They just go after the facts, and they figure out the value. And that's what we try to do."

“You need to keep raw irrational emotion under control,” Munger said in another comment.

Related: Bitcoin is a ‘disgusting’ product that comes ‘out of thin air,’ says Charlie Munger

Having been in the investment arena for over 60 years, Munger says patience is also of great importance when accumulating wealth.

“The big money is not in the buying or the selling, but in the waiting.”

Build conviction and stomach volatility

Munger has seen Berkshire’s investment portfolio dip several times over the decades, such as the Black Monday crash in 1987, the financial crisis in 2007-2008 and most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic.

He once stressed that long-term investors must learn to stand by their investments when unfavorable macroeconomic conditions trigger market downfalls:

"If you're not willing to react with equanimity to a market price decline of 50% two or three times a century, you're not fit to be a common shareholder and you deserve the mediocre result you're going to get."

“There are going to be periods when there’s a lot of agony and other periods when there’s a boom,” Munger said in a separate comment. “You just have to learn to live through them.”

Munger was born on Jan. 1, 1924 — meaning he passed away 34 days shy of his 100th birthday.

"Berkshire Hathaway could not have been built to its present status without Charlie's inspiration, wisdom and participation," Buffett said in a statement.

Magazine: This is your brain on crypto: Substance abuse grows among crypto traders

Mad Money’s Jim Cramer Prefers BTC to MSTR — Tells Investors: ‘Own Bitcoin. That’s a Winner’

How to become a ‘Blockchain Radical,’ according to podcaster Joshua Dávila

Despite its libertarian reputation, author and podcaster Joshua Dávila, aka The Blockchain Socialist, believes crypto is for everyone — including the Left.

Crypto has been the subject of much criticism from those on the political Left, many of whom see cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin (BTC) as being associated with libertarian or right-wing ideas. One common perception is that cryptocurrencies and other blockchain-based technologies, such as nonfungible tokens (NFTs), exist for the primary purpose of concentrating wealth, scamming investors and otherwise replicating existing financial and power structures — just in a more unregulated manner.

On Episode 16 of The Agenda podcast, hosts Ray Salmond and Jonathan DeYoung chat with author and podcaster Joshua Dávila, host of The Blockchain Socialist podcast and author of the new book Blockchain Radicals: How Capitalism Ruined Crypto and How to Fix It. Dávila is critical of the capitalistic tendencies of much of the crypto space and offers up an alternative informed by his perspective as a self-described “socialism maxi.”

“Capitalism ruined crypto”

Dávila acknowledged that there is a fundamental capitalistic mentality within most of crypto, saying the space has been “heavily influenced by kind of, I would say, more right-leaning libertarian thought, which includes a lot of, let’s say, support for capitalistic structures, for free markets and for all these things.”

This is reflected at a core level within the consensus mechanisms of most blockchains, which tend to rely on profit-seeking and asset accumulation to incentivize validators, he argued. “If there was no reason to accumulate profits or wealth in our society, then blockchains would crumble because that’s the way that they’re designed.”

Related: Mutual aid, DAOs and activism: The Agenda podcast chats with PactDAO co-founder Marisa Rando

Dávila pointed to venture capitalists, in particular, as a negative influence on crypto. He believes that while there were a lot of interesting experiments in the early days of crypto, the influx of venture capital has brought with it the expectation of massive returns for investors, which just ends up replicating the traditional economic order.

“If there is no protection or some reason stopping them from coming in, of course they’re going to come in, and they’re going to ruin things because that’s like the modus operandi of what they do.”

What’s the alternative?

There are many applications for cryptocurrency and blockchain that don’t fall within the existing socio-economic order, argued Dávila, who pointed to alternative chains such as Cosmos as examples of the way that a blockchain’s design can influence its social implications.

He gave the example of a 2022 incident on Juno, a part of the Cosmos network, in which the community voted to “expropriate” $35 million worth of airdropped JUNO tokens from a wallet that had allegedly managed to receive more tokens than it was supposed to. “They have very clear on-chain governance directly for the chain itself that had obvious sociopolitical consequences,” he said. “They would not have been able to do that if this was Bitcoin.”

For Dávila, that is a good thing: “Ultimately, we are the creators of our destiny, so we should embrace that fact and implement that in technological code the best we can.”

As for his broader dreams for the crypto and tech landscape, Dávila said he would love to see “the creation of applications that allow for collective ownership of digital infrastructure.”

“They [Web3 founders] need to create something that is different, that specifically gets at the root of the problem, which I think is how we own things and how we govern those things, and recognizing that our resources should be shared in common rather than completely privatized by whatever next billionaire comes up with another Big Tech company.”

To hear more from Dávila’s conversation with The Agenda, listen to the full episode on Cointelegraph’s Podcasts page, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And don’t forget to check out Cointelegraph’s full lineup of other shows!

Magazine: Tokenizing music royalties as NFTs could help the next Taylor Swift

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Mad Money’s Jim Cramer Prefers BTC to MSTR — Tells Investors: ‘Own Bitcoin. That’s a Winner’

What is simulation theory? The savage illusion of living in a computer simulation

Simulation theory proposes that our reality is a sophisticated computer simulation, raising profound questions about the nature of consciousness and existence.

Simulation theory is a fascinating concept that posits the idea that our reality and everything within it might be nothing more than an elaborate computer simulation. This thought-provoking hypothesis challenges our understanding of existence, blurring the lines between what is real and what might be an illusion.

In this article, we will delve into the intriguing realm of simulation theory, exploring its origins, key principles, philosophical implications and the ongoing debate surrounding this mind-bending idea.

Overview of simulation theory

The idea of simulation theory has been more well-known recently, igniting debates in philosophy, science and popular culture. At its foundation, simulation theory puts forth the hypothesis that the world we see and experience is nothing more than a sophisticated computer simulation, similar to a cutting-edge virtual reality application.

According to this hypothesis, the cosmos we live in and everything in it — including ourselves — are elaborate simulations made by a civilization that is much more technologically evolved than our own.

Related: Augmented reality vs. virtual reality: Key differences

The philosophical foundations of “The Matrix”

The notion of existing in a virtual reality is not wholly new and has a long philosophical history. The nature of reality and the potential that our sensations might be illusions have long been explored by ideas like the “brain in a vat” and René Descartes’ “evil demon” argument.

With the release of the film The Matrix in 1999, which depicted a society in which humans lived in a virtual environment produced by machines to keep them in check and their bodies were exploited as a source of energy, this idea became increasingly popular.

The simulation hypothesis

With his article “Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?” published in the early 2000s, Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom popularized simulation theory. He presented a thought-provoking argument, suggesting that at least one of the following propositions must be true:

  • Human civilization is unlikely to reach a post-human stage capable of running simulations.
  • If post-human civilizations exist, they are uninterested in running simulations.
  • We are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.

Technological advancements

The quick development of technology is one of the main tenets of simulation theory. It is becoming more conceivable to imagine a time in the future when simulations may mimic intricate and incredibly realistic worlds as our processing power continues to grow tremendously.

Some proponents contend that the sophisticated simulations that post-human civilizations might produce are little more than rudimentary forerunners to our own virtual reality experiences.

Arguments for and against

Simulation theory has both fervent fans and fierce detractors. Advocates frequently draw attention to the simulations’ increasing realism, the apparent gaps in fundamental physics and the potential drivers of future civilizations to develop simulations.

On the other hand, skeptics raise various counterarguments, including the lack of evidence, the difficulty of simulating consciousness and the philosophical implications if our reality were indeed simulated.

Related: What is extended reality (XR), explained

Unanswerable questions

One of the intriguing aspects of simulation heory is the array of profound questions it raises. If we are living in a simulation, what does it say about our existence and purpose? Does free will still exist in a predetermined simulation?

Are the creators of the simulation akin to gods? As of now, these questions remain largely speculative and philosophical in nature, as there is no concrete evidence to confirm or refute the theory.

Implications and ethical considerations

Even if simulation theory is ultimately disproved, it sparks crucial conversations about the nature of reality, the boundaries of one’s understanding and a human being’s place in the cosmos.

It raises ethical concerns about the obligations of possible simulation producers toward their simulated beings and challenges conventional religious and philosophical views to consider the idea of living in a simulation.

Mad Money’s Jim Cramer Prefers BTC to MSTR — Tells Investors: ‘Own Bitcoin. That’s a Winner’