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.
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.
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 "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.
"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.
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.
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.
