Siam Commercial Bank moving into Crypto, why aren't you?

[Yellowtail]

10 minutes ago, ThLT said:

He said his Apple stock dividends were a cashflow. ???? 

 

What he said:

Your post:

 

You somehow think that he "depends" on his Apple stock dividends for his "cashflow." ???? As if it's his yearly expenses or something. ???? You assumed his "cash flow" is $30,000 per year, and then made a bunch of reversed calculations based on that. ????

 

No. If he would have bought $1000 of shares, at $2.50 per share, he would have 400 shares. Which would be worth $68,876 at the moment. Apple stocks were at $2.50 in 2006, so that's around 16 years of dividends, at $0.88 per year, per share—which is $5,632 in dividends.

 

If he were to sell his shares right now, including dividends, he would have made $74,508 total. Minus the initial $1000, that's $73,508 in profits—and also minus taxes. So it's less than $70,000. Not $1.9M, like you said.

In your quote his says "(and thus my cashflow)" but whatever. 

 

Since he bought it, the stock split 7:1 and 4:1, so he would have 400 X 7 X 4, yes? 

 

The dividend is different each year (based on the value) , and he'd have only collected dividends for about the last twelve years.

 

Who did you say your broker was? 

 

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by Yellowtail
text

[ThLT]

37 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

In your quote his says "(and thus my cashflow)" but whatever. 

And not "I depend on my Apple stock dividends for my 'cash flow'" (whatever that means to you). ????

When you assume his "cash flow" is $30,000 per year, are you saying it's his yearly expenses or something?

 

And you mean he is making $30,000 a year from the $0.88 per year of dividends (not $1.88, like you mentioned in your post, and which makes your calculation incorrect)?

 

And did you assume that he makes $30,000 in dividends per year because of your incorrect assumption that he "depends on his Apple stock dividends for my 'cash flow'"? ????

14 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

He said he bought at $2.50 a share, and that he depended on the dividends for his cash flow. So assuming his cash flow is just $30,000 a year, at $1.88 a share he'd have ~15,957 shares, at $172.19 a share that's about $2.75M. 

37 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Since he bought it, the stock split 7:1 and 4:1, so he would have 400 X 7 X 4, yes? 

Ah, yes, your more than $1.9M is correct though (that's assuming he bought $1000 of shares, though... and that he didn't sell any). Only part of your post that is correct. The rest is incorrect, like described above. 

And why are even talking about this anyway? Probably based on another one of your whataboutisms or pinpointing technicalities and diverting the discussion to pointless details.  ????

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by ThLT

[Yellowtail]

10 hours ago, ThLT said:

And why are even talking about this anyway?

He brought it up, I responded to him, you keep going on about it, and now you seem to be blaming me for responding to you. If you don't want to discuss it, why not just let it go?

 

I assume anyone that bought Apple at $2.50 and held it, made millions on it and I'm happy for them. 

 

I asked several times, but you never did say who your broker is, why? 

[ThLT]

34 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

you keep going on about it, and now you seem to be blaming me for responding to you. If you don't want to discuss it, why not just let it go?

I did let it go. Your reply was deleted by a moderator, because it was just a wall of emojis, so you replied a second time half a day later.  ????

 

35 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I asked several times, but you never did say who your broker is, why? 

That you keep asking this question—and that you think anyone would tell you their broker, simply shows how little you know about this.

Are we done?

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, ThLT said:

I did let it go. Your reply was deleted by a moderator, because it was just a wall of emojis, so you replied a second time half a day later.  ????

So after you "let it go" and MY post was deleted, you felt compelled to respond to my re-post, correct?

 

And now you're starting back with the emojis, what's up with that? Is this the joke thread or are we trying to have a serious discussion? 

 

1 hour ago, ThLT said:

That you keep asking this question—and that you think anyone would tell you their broker, simply shows how little you know about this.

I do not know why anyone would not tell anyone who their broker was. It's like asking where you bank or who your internet provider is. What do you think, that if someone knows your chat-room user-name and that you trade with Morgan Stanley you're going to get hacked?

 

1 hour ago, ThLT said:

Are we done?

Sure. Just don't respond, and if you see me asking our buddy about how he got rich buying Apple at $2.50, you can assume I am asking him, and that you are in no way compelled to interject. 

 

So getting back on topic. I think it safe to say that crypto is a high risk "investment", that it could well be a zero-sum game, and while you can argue whether or not it creates "value" and in fact, what value is, you can't deny there are many people that have made a ton of many with it,  and many people that continue to make money with it. 

 

[ThLT]

31 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So after you "let it go" and MY post was deleted, you felt compelled to respond to my re-post, correct?

No. It's a simple sentence, and you managed to misunderstand it. You had replied to this post, which consisted in a wall of emojis, of which a moderator deleted. I read it and was finally relieved that this waste-of-time garbage exchange was over.

 

However, half a day later (13 hours ago), you posted a second reply. Of which I replied to.

 

31 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

And now you're starting back with the emojis, what's up with that? Is this the joke thread or are we trying to have a serious discussion? 

There's one emoji. Not 100 like your garbage post that was deleted. ????

 

31 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I do not know why anyone would not tell anyone who their broker was. It's like asking where you bank or who your internet provider is.

Ha. Okay, then tell me your bank, and your Internet provider. In this thread. I dare you. We're waiting.

 

31 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So getting back on topic. I think it safe to say that crypto is a high risk "investment", that it could well be a zero-sum game, and while you can argue whether or not it creates "value" and in fact, what value is, you can't deny there are many people that have made a ton of many with it,  and many people that continue to make money with it. 

Finally. After 10 pages, me and lkn finally were able to make you understand a few things.
 

By the way, here is your own source, that you yourself posted, in your own post a few pages back, which I agree with and which I've now quoted to you for a third time.

 

It's ironic that it's your own source, but you keep denying that a definition of "creating value" exists. ????

 

Quote

Value creation is the primary aim of any business entity. Creating value for customers helps sell products and services, while creating value for shareholders, in the form of increases in stock price, insures the future availability of investment capital to fund operations. From a financial perspective

https://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Tr-Z/Value-Creation.html

[Yellowtail]

On 1/12/2022 at 11:50 AM, ThLT said:

No. It's a simple sentence, and you managed to misunderstand it. You had replied to this post, which consisted in a wall of emojis, of which a moderator deleted. I read it and was finally relieved that this waste-of-time garbage exchange was over.

Why do you so adamantly assume I misunderstood it and that you are correct? How do you know what lkn's financial situation is? Are you the same guy with two usernames? Why not let him weigh in? 

 

On 1/12/2022 at 11:50 AM, ThLT said:

However, half a day later (13 hours ago), you posted a second reply. Of which I replied to.

Substantively it was the same as the post that got deleted, but without the emojis you seem to love so much. 

 

On 1/12/2022 at 11:50 AM, ThLT said:

There's one emoji. Not 100 like your garbage post that was deleted. ????

Hmmm, I don't think mine was the only post that was deleted, but whatever.

 

On 1/12/2022 at 11:50 AM, ThLT said:

Ha. Okay, then tell me your bank, and your Internet provider. In this thread. I dare you. We're waiting.

Banks: Kasikorn, Krungsri, Bangkok & Chase

 

ISP: AIS 

 

On 1/12/2022 at 11:50 AM, ThLT said:

Finally. After 10 pages, me and lkn finally were able to make you understand a few things.

Neither my understanding nor my positions have changed. 

 

On 1/12/2022 at 11:50 AM, ThLT said:

By the way, here is your own source, that you yourself posted, in your own post a few pages back, which I agree with and which I've now quoted to you for a third time.

 

It's ironic that it's your own source, but you keep denying that a definition of "creating value" exists. ????

 

https://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Tr-Z/Value-Creation.html

Wow, another emoji, how cute. Saying you were never able to define "value creation" is is not the same as saying a definition does not exist. I think what I said was that because value was subjective, any definition would have to be subjective as well, or something similar.  

 

So who did you say your broker was? 

[ThLT]

10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I think what I said was that because value was subjective, any definition would have to be subjective as well, or something similar.  

"... or something similar."  ????

[lkn]

On 1/11/2022 at 12:36 PM, mjnaus said:

Are they unable to explain it, or are you unable to understand it. I have explained on several occasions to you, in detail, how I earn money in DeFi without depending a buyer to take assets off my hands. Anyhow, I have zero interest in going through another such discussion.

It wasn’t really you explaining it to me in painful details, it was me having to explain to you, that being able to stake your ETH does not make ETH itself a productive asset. And we never got to discuss the staking scheme itself, as those which just issue or redistribute coins, are not generating value, that is still zero sum, although if the staker is validating transactions, then work is actually performed, and compensation is in order, so here you can talk about a real cashflow. But not a sustainable mechanism to make the coins themselves increase in value.

On 1/11/2022 at 12:36 PM, mjnaus said:

haven't read the article, just scanned through it just now, but I am familiar with the author's views. I have yet to see Moxie make claims along the lines of "crypto is a scam" […]

If you want, I can point you to articles by intelligent people who make such statements. But this was an attempt of constructive discussions, not a flame war.

On 1/11/2022 at 12:36 PM, mjnaus said:

All Moxie does is be skeptical of Web3, which isn't all strange […] Web3 ≠ crypto ≠ NFT

Had you actually read the article, you would have found that this is not “all he does” or what he claims.

 

You have previously been bullish on dApps, and Moxie look at the current ecosystem for these, and creates one. I would have expected you to show more interest.

On 1/11/2022 at 12:36 PM, mjnaus said:

You might find Vitalik's response to Moxie's views interesting […]

You didn’t read an objective article from a respected cryptographer and entrepreneur who actually wrote a dApp and created an NFT to test the current state of affairs, instead you read the response from someone who has over a billion riding on the succes of Ethereum. I think that says a lot about the blinders you are walking around with.

 

And Vitalik’s response? It is basically that the criticism is correct, but that this is only because we are in the early stages, soon it will be much better, it is just lack of funding, this despite billions having been poured into the ecosystem and the technology being a decade old.

 

It is also completely ignoring the points raised by Moxie about why natural evolution will not lead to the scenario envisioned by many crypto-proponents (of getting away from centralization).

[mjnaus]

2 hours ago, lkn said:

It wasn’t really you explaining it to me in painful details, it was me having to explain to you, that being able to stake your ETH does not make ETH itself a productive asset. And we never got to discuss the staking scheme itself, as those which just issue or redistribute coins, are not generating value, that is still zero sum, although if the staker is validating transactions, then work is actually performed, and compensation is in order, so here you can talk about a real cashflow. But not a sustainable mechanism to make the coins themselves increase in value.

If you want, I can point you to articles by intelligent people who make such statements. But this was an attempt of constructive discussions, not a flame war.

Had you actually read the article, you would have found that this is not “all he does” or what he claims.

 

You have previously been bullish on dApps, and Moxie look at the current ecosystem for these, and creates one. I would have expected you to show more interest.

You didn’t read an objective article from a respected cryptographer and entrepreneur who actually wrote a dApp and created an NFT to test the current state of affairs, instead you read the response from someone who has over a billion riding on the succes of Ethereum. I think that says a lot about the blinders you are walking around with.

 

And Vitalik’s response? It is basically that the criticism is correct, but that this is only because we are in the early stages, soon it will be much better, it is just lack of funding, this despite billions having been poured into the ecosystem and the technology being a decade old.

 

It is also completely ignoring the points raised by Moxie about why natural evolution will not lead to the scenario envisioned by many crypto-proponents (of getting away from centralization).

Yawn.... ???? Definitely, definitely not going through this whole exercise again my friend. But by all means, keep up the uninformed drivel. It does add a certain "je ne sais quoi" to these threads.

[Yellowtail]

Seems like a lot of sour grapes to me. People that did not get in throwing rocks at those who did. 

 

At the end of the day, if something makes money for people, it is creating value, at least for the people making money from it. 

 

 

Edited January 13, 2022 by Yellowtail

[lkn]

DotCom and penny stocks created a lot of money for people, until they didn’t.

 

Enron created a lot of money for people, until they didn’t.

 

Subprime mortgages created a lot of money for people, until they didn’t.

 

Bernie Madoff created a lot of money for people, until he didn’t.

 

BitConnect and OneCoin created a lot of money for people, until they didn’t.

 

Elizabeth Holmes created a lot of money for people, until she didn’t.

 

Crypto is creating a lot of money for people, but no-one can explain where the money are coming from, but I am sure this time it will be different.

 

And I don’t think anyone is throwing rocks. Only questioning the business model and sustainability of it, just like the schemes listed above were also questioned before they collapsed, and it turned out, the value was not there.

Edited January 14, 2022 by lkn

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, lkn said:

DotCom and penny stocks created a lot of money for people, until they didn’t.

How are penny stocks a scam? Plenty of DotComs still making money, some making a lot of money. 

 

1 hour ago, lkn said:

Enron created a lot of money for people, until they didn’t.

Enron was a publicly traded company, run by cheaters that went broke. How does this compare to crypto? 

 

1 hour ago, lkn said:

Subprime mortgages created a lot of money for people, until they didn’t.

Subprime mortgages are still creating a lot of money for a lot of people. I bet 90% of the people in the mortgage business when the bubble burst that are not dead or retired are still writing loans.

 

1 hour ago, lkn said:

Bernie Madoff created a lot of money for people, until he didn’t.

Yes, Bernie Madoff was a cheater and he was jailed, how does this compare to crypto? 

 

1 hour ago, lkn said:

BitConnect and OneCoin created a lot of money for people, until they didn’t.

What happened to BitConnect and OneCoin?

 

1 hour ago, lkn said:

Elizabeth Holmes created a lot of money for people, until she didn’t.

Yes, Elizabeth Holmes was a cheater and she will likely be jailed, how does this compare to crypto? 

 

1 hour ago, lkn said:

Crypto is creating a lot of money for people, but no-one can explain where the money are coming from, but I am sure this time it will be different.

Yeah well you have to make hay while the sun-shines. 

 

1 hour ago, lkn said:

And I don’t think anyone is throwing rocks. Only questioning the business model and sustainability of it, just like the schemes listed above were also questioned before they collapsed, and it turned out, the value was not there.

 

A lot of people sold early, and kept all the money they made with most everything you listed, yes? 

 

Why does your buddy insist you made so little with Apple? 

 

And how would he know anyways? 

 

You really should set the record straight... 

[ThLT]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

How are penny stocks a scam? Plenty of DotComs still making money, some making a lot of money. 

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Subprime mortgages are still creating a lot of money for a lot of people. I bet 90% of the people in the mortgage business when the bubble burst that are not dead or retired are still writing loans.

Whataboutisms, yet again.

 

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

4 hours ago, lkn said:

Crypto is creating a lot of money for people, but no-one can explain where the money are coming from, but I am sure this time it will be different.

Yeah well you have to make hay while the sun-shines. 

Complete BS non-answer. ????

[ThLT]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

What happened to BitConnect and OneCoin?

You don't know how to use Google?

 

Quote

Bitconnect (also spelled BitConnect and stylized bitconnect, ticker BCC) was an open-source cryptocurrency that was connected with the high-yield investment program, a type of Ponzi scheme, bitconnect.co.^[2][3][4] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitconnect

 

Quote

OneCoin is a Ponzi scheme^[1][2] promoted as a cryptocurrency by Bulgaria-based^[3] offshore companies OneCoin Ltd (registered in Dubai) and OneLife Network Ltd (registered in Belize), both founded by Ruja Ignatova in concert with Sebastian Greenwood.^[4] OneCoin is considered a Ponzi scheme due to its organisational structure and because of the previous involvement of many of those central to OneCoin in similar schemes.^[5] It was described by The Times as "one of the biggest scams in history".^[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneCoin

[Yellowtail]

10 hours ago, ThLT said:

Whataboutisms, yet again.

 

Complete BS non-answer. ????

Because you do not understand something does not mean it is BS. 

[Yellowtail]

10 hours ago, ThLT said:

You don't know how to use Google?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitconnect

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneCoin

If you don't know, just say you don't know, no shame it not knowing. 

[Lacessit]

https://www.theage.com.au/world/asia/north-korean-hackers-stole-over-half-a-billion-dollars-in-crypto-in-2021-report-20220114-p59oc5.html

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

https://www.theage.com.au/world/asia/north-korean-hackers-stole-over-half-a-billion-dollars-in-crypto-in-2021-report-20220114-p59oc5.html

Indeed

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, lkn said:

Penny stocks are traded OTC and plenty of examples of price manipulation and pump’n’dump schemes. Crypto is traded on offshore/unregulated exchanges, some evidence of price manipulation, and plenty of pump’n’dump schemes.

That there of examples of cheating everywhere, not just penny stocks. There was a recent example of fraud perpetrated by a k-bank employee, does that mean all Thai banks are no good?

 

Of course because your buddy will not be able to respond, he'll call this "whataboutism" and throw in a silly eye-roll emoji. 

 

2 hours ago, lkn said:

DotCom refers to the DotCom bubble with companies that hadn’t turned any profit, yet went through IPO and raised millions with questionable business plans. Crypto has given us plenty of ICOs that raised millions but no longer exist today, and didn’t have any convincing business plan.

I know what the DotCom bubble was. A lot of high risk IPOs, some panned out, some didn't. Some people made a lot of money, some did not. Are you against companies that have not shown profits going public? 

 

Is your idea that every company is going to be profitable, no one is going to cheat, and that investors never lose money?  

 

2 hours ago, lkn said:

Subprime refers to the Great Recession where several major financial institutions collapsed because they held mortgage backed securities, but subprime mortgages taken out in overvalued real estate. Many who bought these didn’t realize they effectively invested in non-performing loans with inflated assets as security.

The "Great Recession" was in 1929.

 

Yes, companies that effectively bought NPLs went bust, and should not have been bailed out. People that buy homes they can't afford should lose them, and the market will readjust.

 

The same thing is happening again and no one cares. Are you railing against people buying inflated real estate like you're railing against crypto?

 

2 hours ago, lkn said:

Many people who buy crypto/utility tokens do not realize that there is no cashflow or the valuation has no basis in reality.

How many is many? I think most people understand it is high risk, if they don't they should.

 

2 hours ago, lkn said:

Enron was not profitable, and used accounting trickery to inflate the value of their assets on the balance sheet.

I think they were probable for a while, but yes, they were cheaters. So what? Do you envision a world without cheaters? Shut the market down because it's not fair when people lose money?  

 

2 hours ago, lkn said:

Though the point wasn’t to compare these things with crypto, it was to show that many schemes have existed over the years that made a lot of money for some people, but in the grand scheme of things, they probably caused more damage/harm/grief/losses than the money made. You can make money by creating something of value (e.g. Steve Jobs or Elon Musk), or you can make money by getting someone else to pay you (e.g. Bernie Madoff or Richard Heart), maybe you think the latter is fine, but even if you do think it is fine, it is still not an investment, you are just redistributing money, and trying to get more suckers to invest, as the OP of this thread so often does, is something I personally find despicable, although I excuse his (and possibly yours) behavior by a fundamental lack of understanding of how value is actually created.

Has anyone tried to make the argument that schemes have not existed over the years? And again, value is subjective. 

 

People have an idea that at some point all the currencies of the world will fail and that they will be only people holding anything with any real value. This may or may not be true, but who am I to say they should not be allowed to invest in it? 

 

I am a free-market capitalist. As long as the people buying and selling crypto are abiding the law, I say let them.

 

2 hours ago, lkn said:

Why is this important?

Why is any of what we're talking about important? I think you two are the same guy with two usernames, otherwise why does he seem to know so much about your finances and in fact is allowed to speak for you? 

 

If you bought Apple at $2.50, held it and saw the last two splits, I assume you made millions. What's wrong with that?

 

And when discussing finances, what's wrong with asking people who they trade with?

[ThLT]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Because you do not understand something does not mean it is BS. 

It is you who has difficulty understanding basic finances/economics, and very simple things like value creation and zero-sum. ????

 

 

 

Edited January 15, 2022 by ThLT

[LoveThai94]

Crypto like any other investments needs a hands on approach or a managed fun (ETF).

 

Sector rotations needs to be observed.

 

Big name tech stocks are taking a bigger beating than crypto right now.

 

Hey what happen to the blue chips last night?, the banks were supposed to go up but got attacked by the bears "Reversed"

 

 

[ThLT]

14 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

That there of examples of cheating everywhere, not just penny stocks. There was a recent example of fraud perpetrated by a k-bank employee, does that mean all Thai banks are no good?

Wow, you can't see it yourself how ridiculous you sound? You sound like a child.

 

"A K-Bank employee perpetrated fraud, does it mean all Thai banks are no good"? Obviously not. But no one is saying all of crypto is "bad." Your argument, like your 20+ whataboutisms in this thread, is garbage and says nothing.

 

[ThLT]

29 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

That there of examples of cheating everywhere, not just penny stocks. There was a recent example of fraud perpetrated by a k-bank employee, does that mean all Thai banks are no good?

Here is an example of the structure of your whataboutisms that you hurl at us almost every single post:

 

 

[ThLT]

Some of the arguments presented in this thread by those who aren't crypto fanatics:

 

- Crypto is zero-sum, or even more, with electricity and hardware wear, negative-sum.

- Crypto doesn't create real-world value.

- Crypto is structured as a Ponzi scheme, and some coins are in fact full-blown Ponzi schemes (and also things like "pump and dump" with influencers, etc.).

- Crypto is a speculative asset, and very likely a speculative bubble.

 

If you want to refute these points, feel free to do so.

 

However, @Yellowtail, saying things like:

"Well, it creates value for me, so it creates value!"

"And I believe value is subjective anyway!"
"Well, not all coins are scams!"

"I bought a real Rolex on eBay—so not all Rolexes on eBay are fakes!"

Just makes you sound like an idiot more than anything else.
 

Edited January 15, 2022 by ThLT

[Yellowtail]

Some of the arguments supported in this thread by ThLT:

 

[LoveThai94]

No risk no reward.

I am a stock guy but understand the underlying value of crypto.

Blockchain however does change the landscape in such a way that bigger countries don't like it but they understand where it will play a role.

This will level the playing field and not many like this.

Jerome Powell gave his statement on crypto and digital assets this week, this is promising for the crypto world.

 

Technology will prevail in one form or another.

 

Crypto is not limited to bitcoin, Siam bank is moving into crypto so this post is going sideways.

 

 

[Yellowtail]

59 minutes ago, ThLT said:

But no one is saying all of crypto is "bad."

Oh, I thought you were, my bad. 

[lkn]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

I know what the DotCom bubble was. A lot of high risk IPOs, some panned out, some didn't. Some people made a lot of money, some did not. Are you against companies that have not shown profits going public? 

Several were doomed to fail from the start, many predicted this. That is the parallel I am drawing: If your business has no way to generate money, it won’t last forever, even if you raise millions on the open markets.

 

Is Richard Heart’s HEX coin just a high risk investment that might turn out to make all investors rich? Or is it a cleverly disguised ponzi scheme?

 

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

The "Great Recession" was in 1929.

You are confusing it with the Great Depression.

 

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

I am a free-market capitalist. As long as the people buying and selling crypto are abiding the law, I say let them.

Do you think front running, wildcat banks, bucket shops, money laundering, and ponzi schemes should be legal? As for following the law, what law should they follow? Several countries already disallow many aspects of crypto.

 

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

If you bought Apple at $2.50, held it and saw the last two splits, I assume you made millions. What's wrong with that?

My personal gains are irrelevant for this discussion, and why should you believe any claims I make about myself anyway? But if you must know, your numbers are too low. But I was already wealthy when I invested in Apple, money I had made from operating a succesful business.

[Stocky]

5 hours ago, LoveThai94 said:

No risk no reward.

Certainly, but not everyone's appetite for risk is the same, as you get older you generally become more risk averse. If you're young you've still got many years of work ahead of you and plenty of options to recover from a bad investment, that's not so if you're already retired.

 

The question posed was "Siam Commercial Bank moving into Crypto, why aren't you?", as many on the forum are already retired or semi-retired, it is unlikely to be a receptive audience for crypto-evangelism.