When this starts happening, we'll see the real fireworks. Closed loops is a game-changer. It makes $10K or $100K per coin in the fairly near future start to look obvious.

Where were all these people when the cypherpunks were doing the hard work of figuring out what money is, and how to make it better?

http://nakamotoinstitute.org/b-money/

How about just basic market dynamics of a new fledgling currency?

Nope.

It is sad but only those who understand the above know what will work with more confidence, for the rest there will be lots of bitter when they miss the boat, again. It's tough, to the ignorant, help just sounds like trolling.

Indeed, opting out of fiat is what it's all about. Opting out isn't feasible until the circle is completed.

That's not at all what they say in the article.

They say that at any time 100s of potential ETF are somewhere in the process and it doesn't guarantee anything. Just every hurdle they do take makes it more likely. November was just mentioned because November 2014 is exactly one decade after the launch of GLD.

i'm wondering what it is that Allaire and Hearn's are unhappy about in the core protocol?  must have something to do with tx throughput if i had to guess.  maybe expanding the block size or tx speed?  that would make sense as Allaire has said before that he really wants to see Bitcoin being "used" worldwide.  and that would explain his willingness to exchange at no fee cost to customers.  he mainly sees it as a payment system and not as a store of value even though as the protocol stands now it can satisfy both those needs.  and this is what he is missing.

unfortunately, i'm beginning to see parallels btwn Allaire's Circle model and Back's Sidechain proposal.  although both these guys are smart, successful entrepreneurs they both missed Bitcoin early on.  they want to enter now but are looking to absolutely minimize their risk doing so.  at first, i thought in Allaire's case, this only involved stroking the regulators so as to be seen as a favored boy from that perspective.  now, we're seeing it is more.  the easiest way to ensure a risk free venture is to make a change to the rules core protocol to favor their own business models so as to gain some semblance of control of the situation and create a first mover advantage so to speak.  that's how crony capitalism works; co-opt the ppl in charge (a few core devs), change the rules to your favor, and off you go. problem is, in an open source protocol like Bitcoin, that is never how it should work.  any major protocol changes should favor everyone equally and not change everyone's investment assumptions who had entered before you.  maybe those 2 are just getting risk averse in their old age but the solution from day 1 for both of them is to "just get in NOW".  the growth in the Bitcoin system continues at a torrid rate and the longer you wait the further behind you fall.  both would be in a far better position to suggest changes if they were seen to have had a POS in the system as it stands.  i shouldn't pick on those 2 alone; there are plenty of others like Vitalik and Ethereum who complain about the way Bitcoin is structured currently and want to change it to their vision of how it should function. 

and don't get me wrong; i'm not in favor of stasis.  if any of these groups can convince me that changes to the core protocol are necessary and good for Bitcoin, so be it.  problem is, none of what they have proposed are "real" problems but instead "perceived" problems.  Bitcoin for some reason doesn't conform to their vision of the world.  until then, by all means, continue to innovate but do it on top of the core protocol as a higher layer.  but remember, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. 

for every great investment, most ppl lose money. every day that goes by, it becomes clearer as to just who those losers will be. that's b/c in the times of adversity for that investment, their knowledge of that investment fails them and they bail.  in this case, these ppl's lack of true understanding of Bitcoin has paralyzed them to the point of inaction.  and it may be too late for them. 

Development is still moving slow as molasses, the blocksize limit isn't getting any attention, and there is no viable solutions the massive elephant in the room, ghash. Those guys are up to something, there is no way they can continue providing a 0% fee pool unless they are up to something. I don't know if they have been coopted by the russian mafia or what but they are likely amassing huge amounts of owned hardware and they are not doing it for the basic profit incentive... there is something much larger at play here. While the developers are off having their childish pissing matches we need people to step up and actually *solve* something.