There seems to be very much a disconnect here. I provided my opinion, you provided yours - which I acknowledged even though I don't agree with it. You should concern yourself with how you form your own - I'll look after forming my own if its all the same to yourself.Tecate, the article you posted doesn't provide any evidence to support your opinion.
Given the nature of services rendered, first of all it's implicit. Beyond that, the company spelt it out in the fourth paragraph of its PR - in which it outlined the processes that the organisation went through to facilitate putting BTC/ETH on its balance sheet.There is no reference to building IP and you yourself have said holding Bitcoin via a custodian is not evidence of building IP.
You've long bemoaned lengthy threads on this subject - so I'm confused as to why you feel the need to do so. People form their own opinions and we shouldn't be at all surprised if they differ.I'll say it again
I believe that you originally said that it was 'clickbait' - and so that charge falls at the door of Coindesk. Yet Coindesk has just reported the facts as were available to it. To not report on this would have been negligent on its part.I think that article is just a bit of a non-story
I'll say it again, I think that article is just a bit of a non-story given that consultancies already offer a number of services regarding blockchain and crypto assets and have done for years. You don't need to buy bitcoin to understand it or provide tax and regulatory advise on it, just the way you don't need to be a billionaire to provide tax advice to a billionaire.
The fact that KPMG did a press release to announce that they are holding an unspecified amount of Bitcoin on their balance Sheet that you will never see says it all really. It was a PR exercise. I can guarantee you that the Partners end of year bonus is not going to be impacted by the performance of Bitcoin.
This is it! The moment the cult has been waiting for. The Toronto office of KPMG have decided to court cultists. Where 1 goes the other 10s of thousands of accountancy offices must surely follow.
Add this to the long list of institutional adapters - Microstrategy, Tesla etc.
1.5 years later we're at 7.26% of the total supply :It used to be an empty list, now it's a very small list, but they own 3.74% of the total supply. how far are we into institutional adoption? is this 3.75% the peak for these type of organizations?
ETFs | 813,906 | $35,602,652,800 | 3.876% |
Countries | 271,417 | $11,872,581,373 | 1.292% |
Public Companies | 255,879 | $11,192,912,101 | 1.218% |
Private Companies | 174,068 | $7,614,248,534 | 0.829% |
Totals: | 1,525,372 | $66,724,286,130 | 7.264% |
And even if you believe this to be cynical and purely marketing, it means that if this passes as best practice for Big 4 accounting firms these days, that in itself is interesting. It means that as they see it, there's very much a market for corporates holding bitcoin on their balance sheets. Otherwise, why would they even go there.
I agree with you completely. Notwithstanding that, KPMG are where they are - they are one of the 'Big 4' - and they have influence. You and I may point to their failings but the reality remains that they're very well placed and established in what they do.Best practice is not something any of the Big 4 can brag about in recent years or indeed for a long time. They actually make banks look competent and ethical. Especially as around that the same time KPMG Canada is making this press release, KPMG UK gets sued for £1.3 billion for failings
I never said it was cynical. I said it was PR. That doesn't mean it is cynical They didn't have to issue a press release. They are not a public company. The fact that they did means they wanted the world to know what they were doing. They didn't issue a statement saying how much they believed in Bitcoin as part of treasury management. They don't even tell us what their belief in Bitcoin equates to in monetary terms. Instead they tell us:
Having gone through this process ourselves now, we’re confident we can guide clients and prospective clients through the process of cryptoasset treasury allocation,” KPMG said in the email. “Our investment allows us to share our journey, our experiences, our challenges with them so that we can help them navigate the cryptoasset world.”
There seems to be very much a disconnect here. I provided my opinion, you provided yours - which I acknowledged even though I don't agree with it. You should concern yourself with how you form your own - I'll look after forming my own if its all the same to yourself.
Unless you've water-boarded the KPMG Canada team, there is no definitive answer here - that goes for your opinion just as much as mine. You say I don't have evidence when I've provided my interpretation based on the evidence that is available....just as you have produced your interpretation. You can only speculate as to whether this is a cynical marketing opportunity - you don't have any definitive proof of their motives.
Given the nature of services rendered, first of all it's implicit. Beyond that, the company spelt it out in the fourth paragraph of its PR - in which it outlined the processes that the organisation went through to facilitate putting BTC/ETH on its balance sheet.
I'm not sure how you've managed to misunderstand this a second time. You seem to be confused about what KPMG does. I'll say it again - in-house custody of digital assets was never going to be a part of this. The likes of KPMG - or any of their corporate clients for that matter - are not going to self-custody digital assets. They wouldn't dream of doing so in that world.
You've long bemoaned lengthy threads on this subject - so I'm confused as to why you feel the need to do so. People form their own opinions and we shouldn't be at all surprised if they differ.
I believe that you originally said that it was 'clickbait' - and so that charge falls at the door of Coindesk. Yet Coindesk has just reported the facts as were available to it. To not report on this would have been negligent on its part.
As regards you not seeing this as newsworthy, I acknowledge your view whilst disagreeing with it entirely.
That it doesn't need to doesn't mean that it shouldn't or wouldn't. If its serious about what its doing here - then it stands to reason that it would. It demonstrates that it has a corporate treasury capability when it comes to digital assets and that it likely has a template or playbook for clients in how to approach this task from the point of view of ESG, audits, general accountancy practices ( which has proven to be a difficulty for MicroStrategy in holding cryptoassets), taxation and custodial risk.
And even if you believe this to be cynical and purely marketing, it means that if this passes as best practice for Big 4 accounting firms these days, that in itself is interesting. It means that as they see it, there's very much a market for corporates holding bitcoin on their balance sheets. Otherwise, why would they even go there.
For expediency and efficiency, I don't think that letting me know to what extent you want to engage on the subject or otherwise is in any way useful or relevant to the actual discussion.Tecate, I can't be bothered going to your level of commitment and detail in decomposing my responses into the above,
Correction. I pointed out that we both expressed opinions - and that I respected yours even though it's quite clear you don't respect mine. I also pointed out that the conclusions that you have reached are in no way definitive and grounded in absolute fact ( which is what you seem to be forcing here ).you rightly point out the facts in that article don't prove your view and they don't disprove it either.
No. Initially, you stated your opinion - and you provided what to your mind is the rationale for that opinion - just as I have done. In the manner in which you've gone on from there, you're forcing your opinion. You'll excuse me if I take the opportunity to reference this exchange in the future - should you complain about lengthy/protracted discussions as you have done in the past.I'm just applying logical sense to come to the conclusion ..
So you've stated on several occasions (having initially accused Coindesk of publishing clickbait). I acknowledged your opinion/view at the outset and respectfully disagreed with it. I'd appreciate it if you'd respect my view rather than trying to force the issue.This is really a non story in the adoption of BTC, so much so I didn't even notice in on COindesk.
My understanding is that so long as its on topic and relevant to the overall discussion, I'm free to post my thoughts ( and as you well know, I've already raised the relevance of the world's largest asset manager enabling bitcoin trading on its platform for its clients). Might I suggest that if your energies were concentrated on the actual topic at hand rather than my alleged personal failings, it may well be for the benefit of all discussion participants.I guess you'll probably post the BlackRock story as your next evidence.
I'm confused. @tecate is of course an arch cultist. But @Dublinbay12 certainly shares the faith. Yet they seem to be embroiled in a heated debate over the meaning of the Blessed Trinity.
Ok for the sake of peace...I'm wrong you're right.Tecate, I can't be bothered going to your level of commitment and detail in decomposing my responses into the above, for what is a non story in my opinion. You rightly point out the facts in that article don't prove your view and they don't disprove it either.
I'm just applying logical sense to come to the conclusion this is really a non story in the adoption of BTC, so much so I didn't even notice in on COindesk.
I guess you'll probably post the BlackRock story as your next evidence.
Incorrect. You made a big fat claim about being impartial - there's no such thing - everybody comes to the table with their own unique biases - whether consciously or otherwise.I believe Tecate doesn't understand how I can understand Bitcoin yet be critical.
Incorrect. You've said that you're positive on bitcoin but there's hardly anything that you've posted that reflects that. That leaves the Duke in higher standing and that's saying something seeing as I took him off my Crimbo Card list in 2017.In his view your either in his camp 100% or naysayer.
I don't really have strong opinions anymore bitcoin replacing fiat currency
Perhaps this is symptomatic of the problem. *Maybe* it's not a case of someone being right or wrong or 'winning'. As per the recent example, it's a case of an exchange of views. It's completely unrealistic to expect everyone to share the same view.Ok for the sake of peace...I'm wrong you're right.
I see once again we have posts with commentary on the individual and not on the subject.
Incorrect. You made a big fat claim about being impartial - there's no such thing - everybody comes to the table with their own unique biases - whether consciously or otherwise.
Incorrect. You've said that you're positive on bitcoin but there's hardly anything that you've posted that reflects that. That leaves the Duke in higher standing and that's saying something seeing as I took him off my Crimbo Card list in 2017.
I haven't seen anyone express an opinion here that bitcoin was or is going to replace fiat currency over the course of the past 5 years.
Perhaps this is symptomatic of the problem. *Maybe* it's not a case of someone being right or wrong or 'winning'. As per the recent example, it's a case of an exchange of views. It's completely unrealistic to expect everyone to share the same view.
And I see that once again you're obsessed with personal commentary rather than discuss the actual topic.I see once again you've successfully managed to change the topic to he said she said.
Thank you for that. I tend to affix various weightings to opinions expressed. Yours I've placed in the methane-filled balloon category. The Duke's is much better regarded ;-)I'll leave it again saying that article regarding KPMG was a non story in my opinion.
That would require you going five minutes without resorting to personal commentary. That's a choice - totally up to yourself.I should have known better than attempt any debate on the topic of crypto on this forum.
On Bitcoin Beach? Kind of guaranteed! Hasta Luego.Have a great weekend.
YupAre you in El Salvador tecate?
Nice, I'd be curious to hear your take on how the bitcoin situation is going there
Just to reaffirm the most logical position here.
Cryptocurrency is/are most likely a pump and dump scam. There is no underlying intrinsic value. No dividend and no rent.
It is a classic example of the greater fool theory in that “value” is only derived if you can find someone willing to pay more that you.
Everything else is just mindless speculation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?