It seems there is no risk to Twenty One. Tether is a pure-profit-engine, and they are buying Bitcoin with profit, not by issuing debt like Strategy. And because Tether props up US debt, the US gov won't do anything to mess with it.

The "threat" to the model is that countries start allowing their citizens to hold and use foreign currency, have foreign bank accounts, and that the governments stop debasing their currency and start strict austerity.

Is this "boring"? Maybe? Maybe it's just a highly profitable non-US company trying to dump its cash into Bitcoin. Maybe it's no more interesting than Tesla buying Bitcoin.

But the synergy is interesting. Is it a feedback loop or a self-correction mechanism? The bigger Tether gets, the lower it drives bonds yields; lower bond yields lead to risk-on investing and lower government interest expense, both inflationary. Lower bond yields reduce profit for Tether. Twenty One gains investors in the risk-on environment. Then does Bitcoin price increasing in fiat terms reduce trust in government debt, driving up yield?

I agree owning your own coins is safest, but I'd like to understand the macro picture.

Clipping toenails to lose weight.

Just the interest on the debt is nearly a TRILLION dollars annually.

Bleach?

Okay so saving some millions of dollars? Lol okay, some big savings there... (Eyeroll)

Gold is not used as MOE, and clearly hasn't "imploded". Moreover, it is not POSSIBLE for gold to become a better MOE than it already is, because its limitations are inherent.

Bitcoin, on the other hand, seems to work fine as a store of value, AND has the benefit of being improved through innovation and technology. Therefore it could someday be a (better) MOE.

In other words, Bitcoin is already "money" but isn't (yet) "currency".

Not sure why you're back asking about this. You can start a new thread or ask AI.

They are quite different technically, with much greater trust assumptions for e-cash. E-cash mints are anonymous strangers that take your money and generate IOUs. Liquid is a federation of geographically distributed known entities. E-cash mints can rug you immediately and easily; Liquid is quite safe from rugging but could, potentially, be required to freeze your funds by a government.

E-cash is probably best for very small payments, like streaming payments between autonomous AI agents. Liquid is a decent way to stack sats without on-chain fees, and to get some privacy.

Neither are "Bitcoin".

Backed by Sam Altman, and Google VC. Not sure if this makes me trust them more or less, but it is bullish for Bitcoin.

What are you the new Darth? You still have your keys. You PAY them a premium IN BITCOIN. They pay out the insurance IN BITCOIN. You're going to shit on one of the first companies to do ALL its business in Bitcoin?

This will be the biggest news in 50 years if it happens. If you want to support this, contact the representatives:

Rep. Clyde, Andrew S. [R-GA-9]* 01/03/2025 Rep. Carter, John R. [R-TX-31]* 01/03/2025 Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA-10]* 01/03/2025 Rep. Burlison, Eric [R-MO-7]* 01/03/2025 Rep. Rutherford, John H. [R-FL-5]* 01/03/2025 Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH-8]* 01/03/2025 Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]* 01/03/2025 Rep. Strong, Dale W. [R-AL-5]* 01/03/2025 Rep. McCormick, Richard [R-GA-7]* 01/03/2025 Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA-11] 01/06/2025 Rep. Harris, Andy [R-MD-1] 01/07/2025

When someone says "I'm Sounding The Alarm" and "history and technical analysis suggest" -- you can go ahead and close that tab.

I won't be optimistic about this happening until many members of Congress have disclosed large Bitcoin holdings personally.

Why would Trump really do this? He doesn't need to. It was just some random crap he said to get the crypto vote. He's under no obligation to revisit the idea. Don Junior seems genuinely interested, so maybe he'll bend Senior's ear.

Let the states do it. Let institutions do it. And leave miners alone to benefit their local grids and economies without bullshit red tape.

Because you don't broadcast a transaction from a hardware signing device.

You take the signed transaction and just look at it on any computer and you'll see the addresses. If it's not one you control, don't broadcast and stop trusting that particular signing device.

You should always check your transaction before broadcasting anyway, even if you're using multisig.

No offense intended at all, but if you don't know this already, you may be more likely to make a mistake with your multisig setup. Please make sure you understand the risks and best practices.

By far the biggest causes of lost funds are user error and scams. I understand completely the desire to be as cautious as possible, and multisig has uses, but I think you might be overestimating the threat of malicious hardware signing devices.

"increase the number of authorized shares of preferred stock from 5,000,000 shares to 1,005,000,000 shares"

Is there ANY precedent?

Air-gapped hardware wallet with a passphrase mitigates all attack vectors you mentioned.

The Store of Value issue is interesting. You didn't bring it up, but I think the reason no crypto is widely used for transactions is simply that it's easier and more beneficial to the consumer to use a credit card. Zero risk, liability, or interest, works instantly with a tap of a card with no phone/computer needed. Most people, by far, care more about convenience than privacy or sovereignty.

Bitcoin may be "stuck" as a store of value--maybe-- but it is excellent at that, and that is what is most needed today, in most places. Why not spend fiat and save in Bitcoin?

One argument that I've been compelled by, is that Bitcoin is not obligatory for everyone, but it is available to everyone. Not everyone needs to run a node, but anyone can run a node. Likewise if you are using fiat primarily, but save in Bitcoin, you can transact in Bitcoin if you need to, not that you would necessarily choose to for every transaction.