The Winklevii move out of Zuckerberg's shadow, and into Bitcoin

Is it just media hype?

The Winklevii have announced they are going to venture out from under Zuckerberg’s lengthy shadow in an attempt to re-establish themselves as dotcom entrepreneurs.

In a headline grabbing announcement, which is as devoid of substance as it is full of Hollywood hype, the two brothers intend to set up Math-Based Asset Services LLC to sponsor a Bitcoin Trust.

This trust will float on the stock exchange, initially selling $20m worth of shares. There has yet to be an answer on whether an exchange will accept the offering and the trust that will hold the portfolio is yet to be set up.

Despite most news sites picking up on the story, there are no real financial details. If media attention was the goal here, that certainly seems to have been achieved.

The SEC filing comes with a raft of risks, many of which would be enough to deter any serious investor. This one I find especially chilling: "A decline in the popularity or acceptance of the Bitcoin Network would harm the price of the Shares."

In April the twins claimed in an interview with the New York Times that they owned 1 per cent of all Bitcoins in existence. That amounts to what was worth $11m when Bitcoin was at its peak in March but is now worth $8m.

As the SEC filling reminds us, that fall of $3m over just a period of a few months is a result of nothing more than a decline in popularity. Nothing else is keeping the Bitcoin boat afloat.

The risks don’t end there. The SEC filing warns that as "the sponsor and its management have no history of operating an investment vehicle like the Trust, their experience may be inadequate or unsuitable to manage the Trust".

The twins said in the New York Times interview their faith in Bitcoin was down to it being a finite currency, that when 2040 rolled around and the Bitcoin tap was turned off it would result in the price of Bitcoin rising ever higher.

Bitcoin, though is not as finite as people seem to think. The reason being, I can divide my Bitcoin as many times as I want. Unlike tradition currencies, which are tied to physical tender, I can very simply pay someone 00000000.1 Bitcoin.

Judging by the amount of interest Bitcoin received from amateur speculators, many of which have had little or no dealings with stocks, share or currency exchange, the Bitcoin Trust could engender a similar interest.

People should be very wary of investing in something that is buoyed along by media hype, popularity and remains an unknown quantity, beset by problems.

Winklebros. Photograph: Getty Images

Billy Bambrough writes for Retail Banker International at VRL financial news.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.