My off the wall suggestion would be for Coinbase to acquire them. They certainly have enough firepower to do a stock acquisition.

The Yahoo Finance portal would run as a subsidized loss leader to on-ramp new customers into crypto investing. Setting up the portal to put crypto assets on the same footing as traditional assets would do a lot to appeal to older or more conservative investors who view crypto as "magic Internet money".

Plus a lot of people are interested but have no idea how to acquire crypto assets. People are used to being able to see all their assets on their favorite brokerage's platform. Yahoo could set it up so that if someone looks up a chart for DOGE-USD, that they have a one-click opportunity to buy it off Coinbase's exchange.

Just FYI, 'conservative investors' do understand crypto, they just think it's a bad investment.

I doubt that you can make that as a blanket statement, either. There are probably plenty of conservative investors who do include some cryptos as part of a well-balanced asset allocation. It is, after all, starting to make plenty of inroads into the mainstream financial industry.

What you don't see much of is conservative investors who are super hot on crypto. Not necessarily because of anything about crypto, per se, so much as because part of being a conservative investor is that you don't really get super hot on anything.

Yes, one must also include some powerball tickets and horse racing bets for a truly well balanced portfolio.

Also: beanie babies.

I would say 95% of investors don't understand crypto, whether they have high or low risk tolerance. But high risk tolerance investors are more likely to invest in something that has momentum without understanding the fundamentals. Betting with the momentum is often a good strategy.

Change that to "95% of crypto investors don't understand crypto" and you've got it.

Betting with the momentum works unless (A) you're a latecomer to a ponzi scheme, or (B) there's a reversion that catalyzes longstanding doubt about an asset that has enjoyed a bull run. Both of these cases may well be applicable to a large portion of the overall crypto marketplace.

More simply: "Betting with the momentum works until it tanks."

Or (C) you don't have a crystal ball that tells you when to get out before the inevitable collapse.

Tell that to investors in Fitbit or Palantir (for example) before they sold off after having good "momentum". Crypto investors don't even understand crypto, but that doesn't mean anything, because you can be left holding a long term bag whether you understand the underlying asset or not.

If you actually understand a "momentum" asset, you will definitely not be left holding the bag.

If you actually understand "investing" you will understand that you can't beat the indexes and are doomed to failure by trying to use "momentum" to do anything other than lose money.

Please elaborate?

"Momentum" is bullshit reasoning to buy anything as volatile as crypto. The only reason investors struggle with crypto is because it has no "fundamentals" to analyze.

Is Munger a "conservative investor". Here is what he said recently.

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/charlie-munger-crypto-whole-...

A good number of them think the covid vacciene has micro chip tracking and you want me to beleive they understand crypto?

Certainly not all of them. Edit - do you not consider Warren Buffet a conservative investor?

It doesn't seem like he's invested in any crypto directly. He has investments in some fintech, but as far as I can tell those aren't in any companies where crypto is the main component of their business plan. It's also important to distinguish between his opinions on the potential of distribute ledger technology vs. crypto currencies themselves. You can have the first without the second.

There are also levels of conservatism: Buffet still takes risks. In any given year, there's a possibility that he loses money, even if he's amazing in the long term. This is very far from the extreme end of conservative investing where, for example, someone 2-3 years away from retirement shifts all of their investments into a low-yield guaranteed return investment to ensure that a temporary downturn in the economy doesn't wreck their ability to retire.

Do you think Warren Buffett doesn't understand crypto from the standpoint of finance?

Warren Buffett has, on several occasions, stated that he does not understand cryptocurrencies.

I think he does and I think he's found a way to make money in crypto, even though he previously stated he thinks it will end badly

Or your definition of conservative is different from OP's.

Most people claiming they understand (risk, tradeoffs, market, actual adoption) cryptocurrencies are lying to themselves. It's easier to buy $KWEB than read an article written by Vitalik Buterin.

> Just FYI, 'conservative investors' do understand crypto, they just think it's a bad investment.

That statement is demonstrably false. There are two reasons to not be invested in cryptocurrencies at this point in history. You are either ignorant of the technology (which is fine, lots of more important knowledge out there), or it doesn't fit your current risk profile.

There is not a knowledgeable person on the planet who would say that any investment in any cryptocurrency is bad for all investors.

Or you simply don't believe in it. Which is a perfectly valid reason. Not everyone is just either ignorant or risk averse for crypto.

As an liberal investor, all crypto is a pump and dump scheme pushing magic internet money. But we've all seen this debate before.

if anyone pushes you on blockchain-anything or cryptocurrency, deliver unto them a kick to the groin, or a punch to the face, then run away. for you have been targeted by thieves.

edit: later I am proud to have been downvoted by blockchain bozos.

1. What's so bad about magic internet money?

2. What sectors are you invested in that are somehow immune to hype cycles?

It’s not that it’s hyped, it’s the large scale and empty essence of the hype. The essence is “it’ll go to 500k”. It’s an echo chamber of get rich for nothing excitement.

I use fin.yahoo quite a bit and if this were to occur I would quit using it full stop.

Yahoo Finance already tracks the cryptocurrencies. Has for ages. You can also integrate in exchanges to buy stocks, wouldn't be hard to add crypto to that. BTW, you can't buy DOGE-USD on Coinbase. Here it is in my wife's portfolio:

https://i.imgur.com/MZlE51m.png

"Portfolio", holding DOGE is about the same as holding lottery tickets.

Hey she wanted some for valentines day. It is up 8x right now, but yeah, it is a meme lottery ticket for sure.

I am not sure Yahoo finance is the right place for this kind of integration. If they were to integrate buy/sell and portfolio it would be more of a plaid style where you can connect your existing broker. You would lose a bunch of users who don't want to switch to coinbase. This is why i was thinking a media company would make sense for the media asset. It should be something more neutral.

> DOGE-USD, that they have a one-click opportunity to buy it off Coinbase's exchange.

nitpick: you cannot buy Doge off Coinbase even with 10,000 clicks.

>”magic Internet money”

>DOGE

Not really helping your case here

I love this idea. Thanks for sharing!

>Yahoo sports apps

I believe the Yahoo's suite of fantasy sports apps is second only to DraftKings in terms of market size and DraftKings' market cap is $22b. No reason that couldn't be spun off as its own company and be worth a $5b itself with the right leadership.

I looked this up. The top 2 are DraftKings and FanDuel. They have 90% marketshare. Yahoo is tied for 3rd.

I am guessing you are looking at daily fantasy sports and not fantasy sports in general. DraftKings and Fanduel do not have a 90% market share on the entire fantasy sports industry. I believe Yahoo still has the largest market share when it comes to traditional fantasy sports and has done a poor job translating that into success in DFS in which they are fighting for 3rd place. That is why I threw in the caveat "with the right leadership".

You're thinking share of users I think rather than share of revenue. But happy to be proven wrong with some other numbers.

Source? Just want to read about it myself.

However when doing that Twitter won't be "neutral" regarding news sources. That might reduce interest of other media to use them ...

Twitter already isn't neutral, considering the "trending" feed is editorialized and certain trends are suppressed and others boosted.

Twitter is a publisher. They have their fingers on the scale in both directions in multiple places.

I thought trending feed was based on metrics

Probably, yes. Also, it is very likely that any posts/trends that are not "desirable" are prevented manually from entering the trending feed as well.

"Cocaine" trends every Saturday early morning, leading me to believe nobody has their thumbs on that particular scale.

I think Twitter is OK with drugs and adult content being trendy, but not OK with politically incorrect ones. There has to be a manual approval process, but effectively invisible, because in my opinion, an automated and non-supervised system for trending is a recipe for the disaster.

Please don't break the site guidelines like this. If you have evidence of abuse, you should let us know at [email protected] so we can investigate. If you have no specific evidence, then posts like this are not allowed. See https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.