0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
theres a cannabis thread??? i belong there.
Quote from: luckybit on October 21, 2014, 02:19:21 amQuote from: roadkill on October 21, 2014, 02:15:25 amQuote from: luckybit on October 21, 2014, 02:11:25 amIt wont happen. Many people here will cite how it will upset regulators and cause negative publicity.I don't recall hearing objections to this, but it will certainly happen. Either in BTSX once we have sufficient cap/depth, or in a 3rd party clone.Weeks ago I suggested something similar to this and someone freaked out about the SEC and the risk.I hope we can do it ASAP though. We need at least one stock index to trade. If we want to lower the risk then pick something from a country other than the USA since a lot of US delegates seem to be freaking out. Go with the London stock exchange instead.Hmmm. Now that you mention it, maybe it would be to our advantage to select only delegates from "safe" countries. I'm really glad we got into discussing this Luckybit (in the cannabis thread), it's really opening me up to the massive potential of BTSX. If we don't issue in-demand but controversial assets, I'm willing to bet someone will fork the exchange and do it with or without us.
Quote from: roadkill on October 21, 2014, 02:15:25 amQuote from: luckybit on October 21, 2014, 02:11:25 amIt wont happen. Many people here will cite how it will upset regulators and cause negative publicity.I don't recall hearing objections to this, but it will certainly happen. Either in BTSX once we have sufficient cap/depth, or in a 3rd party clone.Weeks ago I suggested something similar to this and someone freaked out about the SEC and the risk.I hope we can do it ASAP though. We need at least one stock index to trade. If we want to lower the risk then pick something from a country other than the USA since a lot of US delegates seem to be freaking out. Go with the London stock exchange instead.
Quote from: luckybit on October 21, 2014, 02:11:25 amIt wont happen. Many people here will cite how it will upset regulators and cause negative publicity.I don't recall hearing objections to this, but it will certainly happen. Either in BTSX once we have sufficient cap/depth, or in a 3rd party clone.
It wont happen. Many people here will cite how it will upset regulators and cause negative publicity.
The BTC-e crowd is full of traders switching positions on their crypto-currencies. Certainly there are some stubborn people who believe in "one crypto" but what evidence is there that this reflects the average exchange user? We could get the BTC-e crowd to a platform like this with a lot less initial convincing than fiat users in my view. They are already comfortable in this crypto-environment. We are not trying to convert them to BTS, BitUSD or anything else. We are merely offering a decentralised exchange service.The challenge I think might be finding shorts willing to 'borrow' in these cryptos that can often go anywhere.
Quote from: starspirit on October 22, 2014, 07:47:51 amWhat if we peg crypto currencies instead? Promoting other cryptos? Keep an open mind for a moment...The primary community likely to be first movers in the space we are currently operating in are crypto-enthusiasts. I think it might pay better initially to focus on what these people love, rather than trying to attract more distant users we do not understand well into the space through BitUSD. This will happen in time, but expand from the initial community first by giving them what they demand. I learnt this concept from the first video at this thread... https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10178.0.So once we get the current pegged assets, including BitBTC, working successfully with a tight peg and good liquidity for sellers, I'm wondering if pegged cryptos is a more fruitful path in the short term, appealing to the community right on our doorstep, instead of trying to convince a community of gold-enthusiasts, stock-traders, currency traders, merchants etc that they should be doing something very different to what they are used to.If we offered pegged crypto-currencies to what is currently almost a $6bn market cap industry, the benefits offered to the crypto community are:1) they can trade major crypto-currencies (any we choose to peg) in the same way as they do on other exchanges2) there is no counterparty risk (no GOX moment)3) they only have to deal with a single wallet to trade all of their cryptos4) with the 30 day short expiry rule, there may also be more liquidity available than on other exchanges (as long as shorts are willing to issue)This is a combination of features the crypto community has been absolutely clamouring for since the Gox insolvency if only they could get it. One might argue that adding a broad set of cryptos could dilute interest in (proposed) BTS. But on the contrary, it might introduce them to BTS, and when they see BTS outperforming their other cryptos, that will be a positive. Also no SEC risks...I'm not a technical expert in this field, so I might be missing a lot of problems. But some possible difficulties I've thought of so far: - how do you get a reasonable price feed if the BTS exchange draws interest and liquidity away from other exchanges - how do you encourage shorts to offer the supply (they are the issuers) because they take on risk of volatile 'borrowing' sources that they may not find desirable in supporting each market.Has this been proposed before? Thoughts?I disagree. I think a lot of the crypto-world (specifically bitcoiners) are stubborn. We should go after people who don't worship their currency (i.e. fiat users). The crypto world will follow once we pass bitcoin in market cap.
What if we peg crypto currencies instead? Promoting other cryptos? Keep an open mind for a moment...The primary community likely to be first movers in the space we are currently operating in are crypto-enthusiasts. I think it might pay better initially to focus on what these people love, rather than trying to attract more distant users we do not understand well into the space through BitUSD. This will happen in time, but expand from the initial community first by giving them what they demand. I learnt this concept from the first video at this thread... https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10178.0.So once we get the current pegged assets, including BitBTC, working successfully with a tight peg and good liquidity for sellers, I'm wondering if pegged cryptos is a more fruitful path in the short term, appealing to the community right on our doorstep, instead of trying to convince a community of gold-enthusiasts, stock-traders, currency traders, merchants etc that they should be doing something very different to what they are used to.If we offered pegged crypto-currencies to what is currently almost a $6bn market cap industry, the benefits offered to the crypto community are:1) they can trade major crypto-currencies (any we choose to peg) in the same way as they do on other exchanges2) there is no counterparty risk (no GOX moment)3) they only have to deal with a single wallet to trade all of their cryptos4) with the 30 day short expiry rule, there may also be more liquidity available than on other exchanges (as long as shorts are willing to issue)This is a combination of features the crypto community has been absolutely clamouring for since the Gox insolvency if only they could get it. One might argue that adding a broad set of cryptos could dilute interest in (proposed) BTS. But on the contrary, it might introduce them to BTS, and when they see BTS outperforming their other cryptos, that will be a positive. Also no SEC risks...I'm not a technical expert in this field, so I might be missing a lot of problems. But some possible difficulties I've thought of so far: - how do you get a reasonable price feed if the BTS exchange draws interest and liquidity away from other exchanges - how do you encourage shorts to offer the supply (they are the issuers) because they take on risk of volatile 'borrowing' sources that they may not find desirable in supporting each market.Has this been proposed before? Thoughts?
Quote from: luckybit on October 22, 2014, 04:07:22 amIf you're a delegate getting paid by Bitshares X and the SEC takes you to court then Bitshares X shareholders could vote on having additional dilution in order to fund legal defense. In my opinion a legal defense fund should be set aside to protect against this black swan event and the DAC itself could set money aside and additionally delegates themselves if they make enough money could set $100,000 aside for the SEC/IRS just in case they get harassed.When delegates are making enough money they should start keeping an emergency fund. I think most people would vote for a delegate who kept an emergency fund, at least I know I would. I don't think this would effect the DAC very much though, it would just adapt. It is not necessary for the DAC to actually set aside funds or start DCI for this case at least.
If you're a delegate getting paid by Bitshares X and the SEC takes you to court then Bitshares X shareholders could vote on having additional dilution in order to fund legal defense. In my opinion a legal defense fund should be set aside to protect against this black swan event and the DAC itself could set money aside and additionally delegates themselves if they make enough money could set $100,000 aside for the SEC/IRS just in case they get harassed.
Yield on DJIA or SP500 or any number of other indices would/will make an incredibly compelling investment case.Pegged indices will happen, just a matter of time.
Quote from: luckybit on October 22, 2014, 04:07:22 amDo you know how much money Bitshares X alone could make for delegates? When Bytemaster and the other delegates are multi-millionaires do you think they'll be financially ruined by the SEC trial?Here's hoping they get that far. Without unnecessary headwinds, I think they will.
Do you know how much money Bitshares X alone could make for delegates? When Bytemaster and the other delegates are multi-millionaires do you think they'll be financially ruined by the SEC trial?
Quote from: luckybit on October 21, 2014, 11:43:29 pmThe FTC regulates mergers. Should we call our lawyers? Should we ask the FTC what they think?I think these questions are ridiculous because Bitshares X is software not a security. If Bitshares X is a security then Bitcoin is a security. If Bitshares X is using BitUSD then is that counterfeiting? No because BitUSD is just BTSX.Honestly I don't think there is anything lawyers could say to help when it comes to truly ground breaking innovations. No one really knows how authorities will react. In China they banned Bitcoin and who knows the SEC could react the same way but even if that happens Bitshares X is supposed to be able to survive that.Even if every one of us were fined Bitshares X should be able to survive. Additionally if there is a lot of money made then will the fine be the worst thing in the world? It becomes just like a tax.You know I respect your opinions. I've agreed with most of them on the forum. And I can see your point here also. Mine is that I'd like us to do this legally and get it right. SEC shoots first and asks questions later; by the time you get your day in court, you've been financially ruined and your innocence is beside the point. Why take that risk when Overstock is spending the money to solve those problems for the whole industry? Let them bridge that gap and let us jump in when the time is right. There's enough good stuff in BitShares without breaking the law.
The FTC regulates mergers. Should we call our lawyers? Should we ask the FTC what they think?I think these questions are ridiculous because Bitshares X is software not a security. If Bitshares X is a security then Bitcoin is a security. If Bitshares X is using BitUSD then is that counterfeiting? No because BitUSD is just BTSX.Honestly I don't think there is anything lawyers could say to help when it comes to truly ground breaking innovations. No one really knows how authorities will react. In China they banned Bitcoin and who knows the SEC could react the same way but even if that happens Bitshares X is supposed to be able to survive that.Even if every one of us were fined Bitshares X should be able to survive. Additionally if there is a lot of money made then will the fine be the worst thing in the world? It becomes just like a tax.
I'd rather want to see the Bitshares wallet become more user friendly before more assets are added. I needs to be super fast and easy to use.
Quote from: jsidhu on October 22, 2014, 03:22:10 amQuote from: donkeypong on October 22, 2014, 03:14:05 amQuote from: Mysto on October 22, 2014, 02:58:18 amI don't think the SEC will pay any attention to Bitshares in general until we have at least passed bitcoin and all eyes are on us. You might be surprised. I've seen SEC target small businesses before. For a lot less than this would be.s'far so good.. aslong as we dont offer offensive things for sale thru a marketplace we should be ok... keep in the backburner until it blows up then hopefully by then we will know from overstock what it takes , if anything, to become legit and go after other markets to bring even more money in.I'm not sold on all the "wait for Overstock" talk. Once Overstock and Counterparty start experimenting with interesting things, they will reap all the benefits from being the first to do it and be seen as bold and cool. Bitshares is an unmanned company built on a blockchain; if we're not pushing the status quo, why are we here?
Quote from: donkeypong on October 22, 2014, 03:14:05 amQuote from: Mysto on October 22, 2014, 02:58:18 amI don't think the SEC will pay any attention to Bitshares in general until we have at least passed bitcoin and all eyes are on us. You might be surprised. I've seen SEC target small businesses before. For a lot less than this would be.s'far so good.. aslong as we dont offer offensive things for sale thru a marketplace we should be ok... keep in the backburner until it blows up then hopefully by then we will know from overstock what it takes , if anything, to become legit and go after other markets to bring even more money in.
Quote from: Mysto on October 22, 2014, 02:58:18 amI don't think the SEC will pay any attention to Bitshares in general until we have at least passed bitcoin and all eyes are on us. You might be surprised. I've seen SEC target small businesses before. For a lot less than this would be.
I don't think the SEC will pay any attention to Bitshares in general until we have at least passed bitcoin and all eyes are on us.
Quote from: donkeypong on October 21, 2014, 04:06:59 pmThis would be a killer asset and I would love to see it...if we could find a way to get it done. I definitely would talk to the lawyers. We do NOT want SEC trouble. Issues: (1) SEC regulates secondary securities markets. Index funds have to hold stocks they are tracking.Exchange traded funds (ETFs) have a lot more freedom to operate, but are regulated companies that offer their shares on an exchange.(2) I believe if you have a derivative product that even tracks the S&P 500 or Dow Jones, you need to license that trademark. Both are owned by Dow Jones Inc.As decentralized as BTS is, I question whether it can just ignore the laws. Part of me says wait on this and let Overstock spend their money on lawyers to figure out how best to approach a decentralized stock market. And then copy learn from what they are doing if it works.The FTC regulates mergers. Should we call our lawyers? Should we ask the FTC what they think?I think these questions are ridiculous because Bitshares X is software not a security. If Bitshares X is a security then Bitcoin is a security. If Bitshares X is using BitUSD then is that counterfeiting? No because BitUSD is just BTSX.Honestly I don't think there is anything lawyers could say to help when it comes to truly ground breaking innovations. No one really knows how authorities will react. In China they banned Bitcoin and who knows the SEC could react the same way but even if that happens Bitshares X is supposed to be able to survive that.Even if every one of us were fined Bitshares X should be able to survive. Additionally if there is a lot of money made then will the fine be the worst thing in the world? It becomes just like a tax.
This would be a killer asset and I would love to see it...if we could find a way to get it done. I definitely would talk to the lawyers. We do NOT want SEC trouble. Issues: (1) SEC regulates secondary securities markets. Index funds have to hold stocks they are tracking.Exchange traded funds (ETFs) have a lot more freedom to operate, but are regulated companies that offer their shares on an exchange.(2) I believe if you have a derivative product that even tracks the S&P 500 or Dow Jones, you need to license that trademark. Both are owned by Dow Jones Inc.As decentralized as BTS is, I question whether it can just ignore the laws. Part of me says wait on this and let Overstock spend their money on lawyers to figure out how best to approach a decentralized stock market. And then copy learn from what they are doing if it works.
One big problem with tracking stock indices with bitassets would be to compensate for dividends. When you hold an index ETF (SPY for S&P500, for example) you receive all the dividends that the companies pay, normally on a quarterly basis. With a bitasset we would need to add them quarterly to the bitasset price, so there would be a growing deviation from the tracked index/ETF and a nightmare for the feed publishing script.BTW, I already proposed bitassets tracking S&P500, Dow, and Nasdaq a while ago:https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8690
As decentralized as BTS is, I question whether it can just ignore the laws. Part of me says wait on this and let Overstock spend their money on lawyers to figure out how best to approach a decentralized stock market. And then copy learn from what they are doing if it works.
Oops sorry think I quoted the wrong comment? Not sure but yeah my response doesn't make sense now that I re-read it. It's late, time to quit the internet for the night. Anyway I agree that serious investors won't take notice until we are out of beta (no more filp flops on core design principals) and the system is shown to be working and stable for a relatively long period of time. Maybe shorter than Bitcoin, but still years in my opinion. Debit cards and other useful features will hopefully attract more casual users much sooner than that though.
Quote from: amencon on October 21, 2014, 08:12:30 amI was under the impression we weren't even at the actively attract investors and users stage yet. Weren't the bugs going to get ironed out, the new wallet designed by Bitsapphire, and THEN all the secret sauce marketing strategies would be employed?Yea I agree that's why I said...Quote from: Mysto on October 21, 2014, 08:08:22 amthey need a good 1-3 year track recordThey will probably have all of that stuff done before bitUSD hits its 1 year anniversary. But that's when I think people will start to take it seriously.
I was under the impression we weren't even at the actively attract investors and users stage yet. Weren't the bugs going to get ironed out, the new wallet designed by Bitsapphire, and THEN all the secret sauce marketing strategies would be employed?
they need a good 1-3 year track record
Quote from: luckybit on October 21, 2014, 07:05:57 amQuote from: Mysto on October 21, 2014, 04:28:57 am OPBut I think this should wait. Right now we need to focus on bitUSD and getting more volume on there. If we introduce a new asset that is popular then we might have very low volume on both. If it did happen though I for one would move all of my investment from the INX into bitINX!Edit: Also I think most people who are just short term speculating on the INX would want to be able to go from bitINX to bitUSD directly. I know it's not possible right now but would that be possible in the future?Suppose everyone who is interested in BitUSD is already using it? How do you attract new people to use Bitshares X?The thing is I think we still have to "prove" that bitassets will actually work. As in, they need a good 1-3 year track record before we can attract that crowd. Just look at bitGLD we thought that would attract so many "gold bugs" but it has such a low market cap. I think before we can attract people to other assets we need a good track record for at least one.
Quote from: Mysto on October 21, 2014, 04:28:57 am OPBut I think this should wait. Right now we need to focus on bitUSD and getting more volume on there. If we introduce a new asset that is popular then we might have very low volume on both. If it did happen though I for one would move all of my investment from the INX into bitINX!Edit: Also I think most people who are just short term speculating on the INX would want to be able to go from bitINX to bitUSD directly. I know it's not possible right now but would that be possible in the future?Suppose everyone who is interested in BitUSD is already using it? How do you attract new people to use Bitshares X?
OPBut I think this should wait. Right now we need to focus on bitUSD and getting more volume on there. If we introduce a new asset that is popular then we might have very low volume on both. If it did happen though I for one would move all of my investment from the INX into bitINX!Edit: Also I think most people who are just short term speculating on the INX would want to be able to go from bitINX to bitUSD directly. I know it's not possible right now but would that be possible in the future?
The reason for not adding new markets at this time, such as indices, is not so much because of controversy but much more because current markets are so thin. Further dilution at this time would be counterproductive.
I think you have under estimated US's reach. they have jurisdiction on the internet regardless of where a site/delegate is located.. aslong as US citizens are involved.
How is XCP "locked" to the bitcoin blockchain in a way that BTS isn't? I'm sure if locking is an issue they can use the viacoin blockchain to achieve the results they want and use clearing house instead.
What I meant was that they may not be on our side per se as in giving an explicit nod of approval but at least make some headway and use XCP to our advantage.. we are pretty much ready to create these assets any time.. so picking and marketing at the right moment is crucial to achieve the network affect... once we get out of the stratosphere we can release new products to reach space and beyond.
Anyways stock exchange indexes aren't meant to be part of the I3 block chain as per original design, a third party is to integrate this on a seperate blockchain, so you can create it if you so desire.
I'd be interested in this too, maybe we could track Vanguard ETFs like VOO/VTI:https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0970&FundIntExt=INThttps://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0968&FundIntExt=INTI don't invest in these because of French tax laws, it's far more profitable for me to invest in european stocks using a tax-free account, but those accounts can't be used for American stocks (only European stocks accepted).Might wanna wait with this though until we have more traction on bitUSD and other major assets.
Quote from: jsidhu on October 21, 2014, 02:43:58 amLets get thru the stratosphere first and get SEC on our side first.LMAO you're naive. Why don't you focus on getting the CIA on your side first? I'm sure shareholders around the world care about some US government agency right?The SEC is not going to be "on our side" anytime soon. Also there really isn't any way to get them "on our side" if we wanted to. Finally, the idea that the US delegates would be focused on trying to avoid upsetting the SEC is a bad omen. Of course if you're a US citizen you don't want to make enemies with your government but there are no actual securities on Bitshares X. Also Bitshares X has no need for an SEC so the idea of working with the SEC only makes sense if you're trading actual legal securities.The SEC could go after Bitshares X delegates in the USA so I suppose Bitshares X delegates in the USA have something to fear but what about the shareholders? What about the long term vision which isn't just about the USA?Quote from: jsidhu on October 21, 2014, 02:48:46 amQuote from: toast on October 21, 2014, 02:45:20 amThe only thing I ever cash out crypto for is to diversify into S&P 500. I'd support it. Where would you source the price feeds?Ton of mt4 brokers offer S&P and other exchanges... or use Interactive Brokers api which offers ALL of the exchanges worldwide... but I think this should come way after... if we think regulators turn a blind eye.. they wont with this I think. Even if no fiat is exchanged do you think there is some jurisdiction for regulators to come down on bitshares somehow?Fear of regulators? The problem could be that we have too many delegates from the United States and I say that as a United States citizen. If all the delegates become terrified of the SEC to the point where they wont launch any controversial BitAssets then the SEC is using phantom authority to control the functionality of Bitshares X.You think all the interesting BitAssets should come way after? Way after what? Let Counterparty take all the risks and get all the rewards? If Bitshares X does that then eventually shareholders will buy XCP.Worst of all we don't even have BitXCP which means they have to cash out of Bitshares X. If BitXCP existed on the Bitshares X chain then there wouldn't be a reason for people to leave Bitshares X even when they want to hedge with XCP. It would only make sense to leave to actually use XCP and at this rate XCP seems to be willing to take all the risks with the least fear.I don't really prefer Counterparty the technology, I don't really like the fact that he's locked into the Bitcoin blockchain, but at least they are trying to be disruptive to force society to react to them rather than the other way around.
Lets get thru the stratosphere first and get SEC on our side first.
Quote from: toast on October 21, 2014, 02:45:20 amThe only thing I ever cash out crypto for is to diversify into S&P 500. I'd support it. Where would you source the price feeds?Ton of mt4 brokers offer S&P and other exchanges... or use Interactive Brokers api which offers ALL of the exchanges worldwide... but I think this should come way after... if we think regulators turn a blind eye.. they wont with this I think. Even if no fiat is exchanged do you think there is some jurisdiction for regulators to come down on bitshares somehow?
The only thing I ever cash out crypto for is to diversify into S&P 500. I'd support it. Where would you source the price feeds?
Quote from: jsidhu on October 21, 2014, 02:43:58 amand get SEC on our side first.-5%
and get SEC on our side first.
Quote from: tonyk on October 21, 2014, 02:42:46 amQuote from: MeTHoDx on October 21, 2014, 02:39:14 amQuote from: onceuponatime on October 21, 2014, 02:36:09 amQuote from: srcgpsmp on October 21, 2014, 02:33:23 amQuote from: onceuponatime on October 21, 2014, 02:31:14 amThe reason for not adding new markets at this time, such as indices, is not so much because of controversy but much more because current markets are so thin. Further dilution at this time would be counterproductive.What do you mean?I mean there is very little trading in the existing four main assets now. Adding more would further fragment the existing pool of funds from people willing to hold assets. Getting in and out would be more difficult.I see what you mean. Perhaps we need a more in-demand BitAsset to kickstart growth though?DJIA with interest... if this is not a killer asset I do not know what is...What percentage of your btsx holdings wiill you be willing to lock up in DJIA?p.s. I was the first person to buy bitBTC (hoping to kickstart the market), and the market remained so thin that I got stuck there for a much longer time then I wished.
Quote from: MeTHoDx on October 21, 2014, 02:39:14 amQuote from: onceuponatime on October 21, 2014, 02:36:09 amQuote from: srcgpsmp on October 21, 2014, 02:33:23 amQuote from: onceuponatime on October 21, 2014, 02:31:14 amThe reason for not adding new markets at this time, such as indices, is not so much because of controversy but much more because current markets are so thin. Further dilution at this time would be counterproductive.What do you mean?I mean there is very little trading in the existing four main assets now. Adding more would further fragment the existing pool of funds from people willing to hold assets. Getting in and out would be more difficult.I see what you mean. Perhaps we need a more in-demand BitAsset to kickstart growth though?DJIA with interest... if this is not a killer asset I do not know what is...
Quote from: onceuponatime on October 21, 2014, 02:36:09 amQuote from: srcgpsmp on October 21, 2014, 02:33:23 amQuote from: onceuponatime on October 21, 2014, 02:31:14 amThe reason for not adding new markets at this time, such as indices, is not so much because of controversy but much more because current markets are so thin. Further dilution at this time would be counterproductive.What do you mean?I mean there is very little trading in the existing four main assets now. Adding more would further fragment the existing pool of funds from people willing to hold assets. Getting in and out would be more difficult.I see what you mean. Perhaps we need a more in-demand BitAsset to kickstart growth though?
Quote from: srcgpsmp on October 21, 2014, 02:33:23 amQuote from: onceuponatime on October 21, 2014, 02:31:14 amThe reason for not adding new markets at this time, such as indices, is not so much because of controversy but much more because current markets are so thin. Further dilution at this time would be counterproductive.What do you mean?I mean there is very little trading in the existing four main assets now. Adding more would further fragment the existing pool of funds from people willing to hold assets. Getting in and out would be more difficult.
Quote from: onceuponatime on October 21, 2014, 02:31:14 amThe reason for not adding new markets at this time, such as indices, is not so much because of controversy but much more because current markets are so thin. Further dilution at this time would be counterproductive.What do you mean?
Quote from: MeTHoDx on October 21, 2014, 02:03:51 amCan it be done? Should it be done? Is there a demographic that couldn't invest in American indices any other way?It wont happen. Many people here will cite how it will upset regulators and cause negative publicity.I support it because trading the stock index makes a lot more sense than trading BitUSD. There are also a lot of people who would put their life savings into something like the stock index.I would say millenials probably would want to invest this way but also you have to think outside of America. A lot of people outside (and inside) America don't have bank accounts, get paid in cash, don't have 401ks, don't meet the minimum requirements for E-trade or whatever. Miners for example get paid in Bitcoins but might want to invest in the stock index so it makes a lot of sense.
Can it be done? Should it be done? Is there a demographic that couldn't invest in American indices any other way?