I think one issue I have is that many Claude Max users are running their accounts at or close to the limits Anthropic sets, which I think is not factored into your assumptions. And the longer you're using their models the more automations you can use them to set up and run on a VM from Oracle or AWS. I intend to do this, and connect it with a Telegram bot, so it'll be running near 24/7. I have a friend doing it already, so that's why they recently introduced the weekly limit.

When you first pay for Claude Max you don't use a fraction of your alloted tokens per 5hr window, but then you start hitting limits when you get good at it. Those limits maintain a margin even for power users, but they are not the same margins as your envelope calculations.

It's not as good as the cast would suggest, but it's watchable. It tries to be politically neutral by pillorying everyone, but at the end of the day there is one villain and that reveals it's political leaning.

This is so annoying, I sent 300 sats to an asshole who kept trying to bait me into a debate, sent more trying to undo.

This will encourage sat harvesters to comment everywhere for accidental sats.

Clueless

Yeah ok go collect your 50 cent

Bla bla bla

Yes, legal systems like English common law are much more rooted than states.

For me liquid tokens issued by anyone is the most efficient model for debt on a bitcoin standard. Like I said, on a fiat standard this would be a disaster, but when politicians cannot debase it's a different story.

You keep projecting opinions onto me, like you are arguing with a person in your head and this thread is just a medium for you to feel clever.

That is despite my responses stating repeatedly that "I don't believe ABC", and "I never said XYZ", you continue to project onto me the opinions that you want to argue against rather than anything I am actually saying.

Now, I have no doubt that China has Russia, Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea over a barrel. I'm sure they have strong influence in the middle East, South East Asia, and even South America to encourage the use of their payments system for international settlements.

But ultimately in a multi-polar world the base layer will be neutral, India, Brazil, the Middle East, Norway, Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, there are many power players who don't want to replace one bully with another, and to give China even more leverage.

Incumbent fiat dominance ensures that Bitcoin has to be a store of value before it can become a medium of exchange, that is obvious. It was always naive to think that bitcoin could become a medium if exchange first.

Anyway, you took over this thread about tokenisation to rant on a soapbox, just use a mirror next time you want to listen to yourself.

I'm not ignoring that at all, in any way. When a person or institution loses power then do it by choice, they don't give it up freely, they just lose it. Circumstances change, the ground shifts beneath their feet, the road runs out and they hit a wall.

The exorbitant privilege of the US government is ending. This is not surprising, it's a system only 50 years old, an aberration, a blip in financial history, a fleeting moment.

That moment is nearly over.

And none of your comments on China logically infer that the yuan will be adopted as a world reserve currency or medium for international settlements, given the exorbitant privilege this would give to China, which has already demolished everyone else's manufacturing base.

China won't have a choice, no more than they had a choice of adopting the US standard. They'll try gold, obviously, but settlement is slow too slow for modern economies and inevitably a new gold standard leads directly to a bitcoin standard, whether the CCP likes it or not.

It is necessary for YOU to think in a different way to understand that the reaction of the incumbent system obviously meant that Bitcoin had to become a store of value before a medium of exchange, but a store of value that has monetary properties will inevitably become a medium of exchange, and then a unit of account.

If a Bitcoin Standard does overcome the state power imperatives that fiat money supports, then a very different economic and monetary model would develop, but people will always bet on the future and tokenisation is the most efficient vehicle for debt markets.

I don't think you have a good grasp of this topic so this is my last comment.

Very strange comment.

I take some of your points, but in a multi-polar world a bitcoin standard is inevitable. The nature of governments is to distrust each other, including their tokens. In that context the dynamics of politics and economics disfavours fiat over the long-term.

I thought that was a basic tenet of being a bitcoin maxi, but maybe there are other kinds of people calling themselves maxis, who think it a maximal moral prerogative to own bitcoin or something like that.

But I assume the decline of the USD must result in the rise of Bitcoin BY factoring the significance of nation states and political power structures.

China can't issue the world reserve currency without hollowing out it's own manufacturing base the way the US did, which it needs to pacify it's massive labour force. Revolutions in China are extremely ugly. In that context no other country with accept the yuan as the denominator of debt or medium of international settlement. You are a very rare soul if you think that is the trajectory we're on.

Why would the US need to impose it's will on China for a combination of a bitcoin-gold standard to emerge in international trade? Surely it's the opposite, a bitcoin-gold standard emerges from a weak US.

I also perfectly understand that if a Bitcoin Standard monetary system were to succeed the USD the nature of the system would fundamentally change- student loans would no longer be a practical method of funding education- as traditional debt markets would no longer be a means by which the state and banks could issue capital funding, hence tokenisation would dominate.

The rest of your comment has very little relationship with my comments, I would find it difficult to respond, it's very confused.

Token values can go to zero as the issuer is deemed unlikely to pay, due to death or reputation damage or unfortunate accident. I don't think you have to deal with those contingencies because of they don't pay it off they will find it more difficult to issue new tokens in the future. That's the free market.

Maybe there is a contract that collateralises the token in some way, like "I'll pay it off with labour if I can't pay it with bitcoin" or "this token is issued to build an extension on my house, and if I don't buy it back by a certain date the owner of the town owns a portion of the land under my house, which they'll get back on sale on the land".

You'd need the existing system to enforce these contracts, but they are just contracts, they don't have to be smart.

The difference is that tokenisation systems can be built on more or less decentralised self-regulating blockchains like Bitcoin or Solana, meaning issuance is just a matter of software. If they are not collateralised by more than your reputation (and many won't be, I can buy a new Mac today on credit without collateralising the loan) then you don't additional legal agreements.

Of course legal agreements can be boiler plate or generated on the fly without paying lawyers, so software can help people add more sophisticated collateral agreements, one would assume there would be legal experts in the background helping to create the boiler plate and informing how the contracts are generated.

I don't think it's hard to predict. If you look at what happened in deregulated securities markets it's easy to predict what would have happened if they weren't able to debase the denominator. Those securities markets would have just dominated debt markets and generated a huge variety of financial instruments for extremely niche situations that involved asymmetric information, and those would have been packaged and sold as derivatives over time.

We live in a world polluted by motivated reasoning so basic speculation feels difficult, but it's really not.

I don't think you're really fully considering the implications of a bitcoin standard and what it means for debt markets. I mentioned student debt because it's clearly a market distorted to the point of breaking, and an alternative tokenised model will clearly take over.

Debt markets are inherently about the future, and anything that involves future payouts, including equities, involve trust. You can use a Russell conjugate with the phrase "trust me bro", but there is no way out of trust.

A bitcoin standard will blur the line between what is inside and outside the US financial system.

I think you're thinking 2-5 years out, and I'm trying to speculate on 20-50 years out.

I don't understand your point. I'm talking about tokenisation on a bitcoin standard, not a fiat standard.

I think things happen slowly then suddenly. We live in a dramatically different world to 2005.

You can't eat bitcoin. I expect anyone with marketable skills or other hard assets will always be able to get bitcoin without being impoverished slaves. I think HODLers dramatically overestimate their purchasing power relative to plumbers or very promising students.

Inequality will decrease over time as the rich can't put their thumbs on the scale by influencing monetary policy.

Do you think that pushing large boulders up to a high hill like the neolithic tribes who made stonehenge is the equivalent of converting energy into currency and status, considering what we know about the closest equivalent in cultural memory, the yap stones of Rei? And if so, is Bitcoin the new highest hill, like the ones temples were built on that were used to converge on a place on specific dates in order to come to consensus beyond the limits of the dunbar number?

I'm trying to solve the devilish event aggregation problem using LLMs.

Sometimes these personal things you're dwelling on and not processing on your own or a partner or parents or a siblings or friends are simply due to a lack of iron or some other deficiency like your gut micro-biom being disturbed.

I wouldn't make the assumption that your analogy of offloading hazardous waste to a professional is particularly healthy or helpful.

Sometimes you just need to own your shit.