pull down to refresh
47 sats \ 2 replies \ @freetx 23h \ parent \ on: @denlillaapan Made Zero Hedge bitcoin
It is in this same sense that I conceive of Bitcoin Treasury Companies. They in fact hasten the end of the fiat system. It "exploits the flaw" of the fiat system that money is created via debt.
And if that money is being used to buy Bitcoin it creates a feedback loop that is positive to Bitcoin and detrimental to fiat.
Note: I know that the specific "debt" that Treasury Companies use is not the same kind of debt that directly creates money as in the banking sector....however it does so indirectly. In fact, its interesting that the large institutions that are closest to the money spigot are in fact the same ones who are most interested in the slew of financial products Saylor is offering.
You make a good point. I still can't bring myself to go near strategy or any of the other treasury companies, but his linked articles reminds me of my younger days borrowing money to buy what I considered hard assets pre bitcoin. Even during covid, those SBA 30 year 3.5% loans were too tempting to ignore. I am more bothered by Saylor's attitude towards self custody (despite his bullshit ex post facto explanations) and him seeing bitcoin as an asset rather than money.
reply
I disagree with a fair amount of Saylors "philosophy" as well, but I think thats the great thing about Bitcoin. Ultimately the shared incentive system is what binds us.
Whether or not he intentionally wants to hasten the destruction of the fiat system, that is the long-term net result.
To that end, the most pressing danger of fiat money games is that paper bitcoin winds up being rehypothecated. However, this is a case where Saylor has huge vested interest to not permit that. If all his fiat purchases are not resulting in higher bitcoin prices then he fails.
reply