Former Goldman Sachs banker explains why Wall Street is wrong about Bitcoin

According to John Haar, who used to consider himself within the ranks of the traditional financial field, a basic understanding of “sound money” is preventing Wall Street from embracing Bitcoin.

John Haar, a former asset manager at the financial institution Goldman Sachs, believes the lack of support from “legacy finance” for Bitcoin stems from a poor understanding of the cryptocurrency.

Haar’s views were expressed in an essay on August 14, which was originally sent to private clients of Bitcoin brokerage platform Swan Bitcoin. Haar previously spent 13 years at Wall Street asset management giant Goldman Sachs, before joining Swan Bitcoin as Managing Director of Private Client Services in April 2022.

The essay explains that not only do people in “legacy finance” fail to understand what he considers one of Bitcoin’s (BTC) primary principles, the idea of ​​good money is generally lost on them, which Haar says leads them to negative opinions about crypto.

After many conversations, I can say that if there are people in legacy finance who have a well-researched position on why Bitcoin is not a good form of money or why Bitcoin will not succeed, I was unable to find them.

Haar noted that he became interested in Bitcoin in 2017 based on the hype he saw in traditional media about it.

He believes that the history and fundamentals of Bitcoin made him excited to discuss it with anyone, adding that Bitcoin “improves on gold’s shortcomings.”

On the other hand, Haar notes that Wall Street negativity is the result of six different reasons stemming from a lack of research on Bitcoin and an understanding of its history. He acknowledged that getting to know the Bitcoin lexicon and its underlying principles is a “daunting task,” but that senior finance folks aren’t doing themselves any favors by pretending to understand them.

It is much more common to pretend to be well-versed in a given subject and have a strong opinion regardless of one’s underlying knowledge – and this is especially true of a subject that touches the world of investment.

He also believes conditioning through state central planning, people generally following consensus, only thinking about its use in developed countries, and a desire to maintain the status quo are also contributing factors. Haar said these last four aspects conspire in various ways to act as a shield for legacy finance to stand behind the defense of the financial systems already in place.

Haar adds that “There’s nothing inherently bad about these things,” but notes that this behavior prevents people in legacy finance from becoming independent thinkers and early adopters of new technology.

He also pointed out that the people in legacy finance are often highly specialized in their field, which he suggests tends to give these people tunnel vision of their own world.

They make a living by knowing the ins and outs of their corner of the financial sector. There is little incentive for them to investigate the fundamentals of the system.