An early investor in Airbnb and Uber explains why he started buying bitcoin in 2009

clicks | 8 days ago | Google AI sentiment 0.30 | comments: discuss | tags: bitcoin cryptocurrency

Article preview (bot search)

(Original link:

Ali Newhard , Kara Chin and Jacqui Frank 13m Jeffrey Wernick is an independent investor whose portfolio includes early holdings in Uber and Airbnb. Wernick was also an early investor in bitcoin. He started buying it in 2009, the year it was created. Wernick's initial interest in bitcoin was not just speculation that the price would rise. He believes bitcoin's value comes from its ability to solve the biggest problems with fiat money. Wernick believes the ability to run large deficits and debase the currency changes the relationship between the government and its citizens. He believes it gives the government the ability to do things without the consent of the people. Wernick says bitcoin solves these problems because it is a "people's currency, it's defined by the people, and it's defined by rules and a protocol that people trust."
Jeffrey Wernick is a hard money advocate and an independent investor. His angel investment portfolio includes early holdings in Uber and Airbnb . Wernick serves on the advisory boards of DataWallet and Qtum . He started his career at Salomon Brothers and the National Bank of Detroit. Wernick founded, then sold, the risk management firm AVI Portfolio Services Company, Inc. before focusing on his private investment portfolio. Following is a transcript of the video.
Sara Silverstein: We've been good friends since 2010 and ever since I've known you, you've been telling me to buy bitcoin. When did you actually buy bitcoin?
Jeffrey Wernick : I initially acquired bitcoin in 2009.
Silverstein : Wow, so the first year that it was around?
Wernick : Yes.
Silverstein : And what made you think that bitcoin was going to be the future?
Wernick : Well, that has to go back prior to bitcoin itself, and really with my first interest in hard money. My interest with hard money really began in 1971 when Nixon suspended convertibility of dollars into — gold into dollars. In I think August of '70 — of 1971, I was someone as a — young, as someone in junior high, high school, and actually in elementary school, I became, very kind of, obsessed with the Constitution, the initial period, and prior to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, some of the debates during the Constitution between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, and the debates between Hamilton and Jefferson regarding the national bank, and also within the Constitution, there was a specific definition of the dollar in terms of gold and silver. So when that link was officially terminated in 1971, my belief was, and I was only 15 years old at the time, that that would cause a debasement of our currency, where we'd have high inflation and that's when Connally famously said that it's our currency, but their problem, to Europe. And it's also when Simon and Kissinger went to meet with the Saudis and began the petrodollars.
So we had to create another reason for people to hold dollars, since we couldn't do it through good monetary fiscal policy, we'd do through force by basically having the all of oil invoice in dollars, so that way, central banks would not — they would basically collateralize by oil rather than gold. So that began the terms of when we had a period of high inflation and complete debasement of our currency, and I became very, very interested in basically a strong currency for multiple reasons. Because what was one of the reasons that drove that was we began to have the periods of deficit finance.
So throughout our history, we basically had run a reasonably balanced budget and a reasonably small government, and now we were at war, we had the welfare state, and we started running big deficits, and debasing our money. So I thought that it was changing the relationship between the citizen and the governed, and who governs us. And I much prefer when a government gets the consent of the people for whatever it does, and the consent means, "I want to spend this money. Will you pay the taxes to support this spending?" And I think that builds a much better relationship than one where the government says, "I'm going to spend whatever I spend, but don't worry about it. I'm going to borrow money and I'm going to run a monetary policy, that'll mean don't ever worry about, you ever thinking that you'll ever have to pay this debt off, it's all a game anyway." So that basically has ended the relationship. Now the government can do a lot of things without the consent of the people, because as long as the people don't have to pay for it, they feel that they're less interested in it. Now the government can do a lot of things without the consent of the people, because as long as the people don't have to pay for it, they feel that they're less interested in it.
So initially my interest in it was not just economic, it was also an issue of the fact of what would foster a good relationship between citizens and the government. And if the government doesn't — and if the government debases its money, what should a citizen have the right to do to pre...