Thinking that it's a joke when even those kinda guys (First successful browser, first cloud computing, first online payment service) are all-in it's mind blowing.
I remember reading the same comments on HF when I was a kid. And even before, about LR.
Guess who found (and will find) himself on the wrong side of history?
(I have no idea what 'HR' or 'LF' are.)
Secondly, I don't think crypto is good as an investment (as opposed to a vehicle for speculation) but I see all sort of opportunities in killing the middle men of banks. No more boom and bust because the fed won't read Hayek; No more having to beg and scrape to be allowed to send a transaction through the archaic inter-bank transfer system; No more inflation forcing people to put savings in riskier and riskier businesses to keep up with the printing; No more dirt poor refugees who have to leave every thing behind; No more hyperinflation because dictators needs to be the sole source of food.
Buffet didn't create or invest successfully in anything software-related. If you put the opinion of a guy who made his fortune with Coca Cola and Insurance above the ones who made it with tech -when evaluating the future- that's fine. To each their own I guess?
You found yourself on the wrong side of history, and sounds like it'll happen again.
There are many objective reasons to take the other side of the bet:
Bitcoin will not succeed as a mainstream payment processing system because:
* The fees are unpredictable and average tx fees have been as high as $55 in the past, during it's most popular time.
* Apropos to the above, Bitcoin doesn't scale and it is clear there is no effective governance method in order to mitigate the problem. Cf. block size wars.
* The risk to the consumer is higher as there is no included fraud protection or chargebacks allowed.
* The difficulty of use is higher for the consumer, who now has to deal with purchasing fees and speculative volatility.
* It is accepted at an extremely low amount of vendors and even that is falling.
* Loss of private key, or password, or security exploit can lead to total loss of funds.
Blockchains will not succeed as a mainstream technological solution because:
* The use cases where you actually need a public, proof of work mined chain are actually very niche outside of cryptocurrencies themselves.
* Even if you have a use case that fits, you must reach a critical mass of mining hash rate or you open yourself to trivially exploitable 51% attacks.
* Corporations will still want to have permission based access, but if you have trusted users then you don't need a blockchain.
* Even if you go with a private blockchain anyway, the scalability isn't there, it is harder to use, the tooling is worse, the technology is less mature, and the upside for the increased difficulty and cost is marginal.
Mobile brought Instagram and Uber - simply because phones have a GPS and they're always with you. Not because they're a more powerful computing platform or smth.
TUSD and GUSD might be used for payments infra (they're stable).
I realize that many people still think of Bitcoin as a payment method and Ethereum as a place where it makes sense to build anything on (e.g social networks). But we're talking about A16Z's and PT's views (Which imo, are correct)