pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @fourrules OP 2h \ parent \ on: Is tokenisation a bad word in bitcoin maxi circles bitcoin
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.
The Yuan is already being increasingly adopted for settlement of international trade.
Iran, N.Korea and Russia now settle most of their trade via Chinas rapidly developing alternative trade payments protocols including CIPS and mBridge via which China has partnered with UAE, Thailand and HongKong.
The Saudis have joined mBridge and if they continue to increase their sales of oil in other than USD denominations then the end of the petrodollar is imminent and it does not result in the increased use of Bitcoin for settlement.
Bitcoin MoE use is virtually non existent, after more than 15 years the protocol is stuck in a narrative of NGU speculative commodity capture and control by bankers and governments who are not at all threatened by another speculative commodity swelling the demand for their fiat debt issuance.
Just like Trump hopes stable coin dollar can sustain demand for USTs while the Saudis and others lose interest in them...USA needs to sell many trillions in USTs to just remain viable over the next 12 months and after that the outlook does not improve!
The regaining of Hong Kong sovereignty by China has been crucial to the reverse engineering of the monetary hegemony the west imposede upon China at the start of of Opium Wars an which resulted in Chinas 'one hundreds years of humiliation'.
The IMF, World Bank, SWIFT and BIS are ignorant of the volumes of trade now settled via Chinas alternative trade payments protocols because they do not have access to or control over them.
BIS did quite recently distance itself from mBridge when it realised mBridge now being at an operational level of development poses an existential threat to the legacy US global trade payments hegemony that the BIS is part of.
China does not need to fall into the trap the US did of suffering chronic trade surpluses due to dominating global trade and trade payments- all that is required is to maintain a competitive economy and not become corrupted by the extraordinary privilege of systemic dominance.
For example acquisition of an increasing range of strategic offshore assets can absorb surpluses...and this is exactly what the Chinese have been doing.
You don't seem not understand history, monetary dynamics, political structures and consequences and like many Maxis seem to think Bitcoin Standard and continued US dominance is inevitable. Good luck with that. It is far from inevitable. A Bitcoin Standard if it does develop removes debt issuance power from governments and banks. Get your head around that one at the very least...difficult as it might be given the current system.
The wealth of nations is fundamentally and intricately related to the quality and strength of their governments and their ability to project power and preserve access to resources and markets. Fiat money can be sued to leverage that process- Bitcoin cannot.
Bitcoin would result in a neutral MoE for trade and that would result in a more free trade internationally, but that is unlikely to develop due to the political imperatives and requirements for military and strategic control over logistics and infrastructure.
Just one example for you that demonstrates how empires contest trade access and logistics- Trumps proxies Blackrock regaining US control over Panama canal ports reduces the ability for Venezuela to ship its heavy crude to Chinese refineries which would unleash another very large source of fossil fuel energy to power the Chinese empire additional to its already acquired Iranian and Russian tributaries.
Thinking monetary dominance can be solely an algorithm driven process is naive of real world trade, politics and history.
The decline of the US empire is certainly not being done 'by choice' but rather because of the extraordinary sense of entitlement that has developed in the US culture- the US Exceptionalism that delusionally believes US dominance is the natural order of things- this sort of hyperbole is exactly what commonly signals the end is nigh for an empire.
Very few US citizens realise what is happening let alone accept it, as is evidenced by comments and dialogues like the one you are proposing.
Trump does appear to have some awareness of the problem but also faces the reality that politically and culturally the US is far too divided and riven with corruption to respond in any manner better than damage control, at best.
reply