OPINION

Betting on bitcoin

Re: "Buying bitcoin, more firms bet on rewards over risks", (Business, Jan 10).

The NYT syndicate article explains a curious shift in how corporate treasurers have gradually started to put excess cash to "better" use -- increasing exposure to crypto assets. The move has arguably gained momentum since the US presidential election last November and sent the price of crypto or bitcoin ETF products and the like spiking.

Practically speaking, cash budgeting should be carefully thought out to strike a balance between risk and return -- put differently, meeting lofty return expectations from shareholders while safeguarding the firm's minimum working capital for rainy days.

Some crypto-sceptic shareholders would demand that "cash" be preserved for buyback or dividends from governance perspectives, yet betting on crypto appears a sensible gambit for finance teams, especially when "cash is king" no longer holds true even in times of uncertainty.

As "hub-crazy" Thailand craves to become a bitcoin hub in the region, an uptrend in cryptocurrency prices could have some implications for local startups' financing.

Selective on facts

Re: "Good for a laugh", (PostBag, Jan 12).

Regarding Michael Setter's latest screed, the great editor of the Manchester Guardian, C P Scott, comes to mind. He coined the phrase "comment is free, but facts are sacred". Mr Setter is correct to say that historical CO2 levels range from 180ppm to 4,000ppm, and we are currently at the very low end of the range,

However, whether deliberately or otherwise, he failed to highlight that for the last 3 million years, the CO2 level has not been above 300ppm. In that context, the current level of 422.86ppm is of grave concern for humans, maybe less so for other species. The UK Royal Meteorological Society describes sea levels in the Pliocene era as being 15 metres above our current levels and the Arctic summers as being 14C degrees warmer. That was the last time CO2 levels were over 300ppm.

Yes, the world has been through all this before. But not with 8.2 billion humans that rely on global infrastructure to stay alive. Selective fact-quoting doesn't help the debate and just gives people the excuse to do nothing.

Knowledge illusion

Re "Good for a laugh", (PostBag, Jan 12).

I wonder if the editor's caption "good for a laugh" was meant to be directed at Michael Setter's letter or mine. Mine was simply wondering whether the recent fire havoc in Los Angeles was due to climate change or exclusively Mother Nature. Also, knowing that California is vulnerable to forest fires (but not maintaining that California's exposure to them of 20 million years, as Michael Setter maintained), I was only wondering.

CNN, which Setter labelled as "the most hated source in news", opined that "LA: Mother Nature is mostly to blame but humans could have prepared better". Fair and not emotional comments!

This brings to mind the words of that famous physicist, Stephen Hawking: "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge".

CONTACT: