Are Treasury Companies Basically Soft Targets for Nationalisation of BTC? \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

Are Treasury Companies Basically Soft Targets for Nationalisation of BTC?

348 sats \ 24 comments \ @spiderman 4 Oct bitcoin

So yeah, countries have been floating ideas for (building or growing) Bitcoin reserve in some sort of budget-neutral manner, but obviously most are too broke or indebted to really go out and buy it from the miners. Then, there is also the optics they have to be concerned about, as buying Bitcoin represents trusting that as money over their own papers?

Does that make companies like Strategy (US), Smart Web (UK) etc. soft acquisition targets of their respective bankrupt governments, with some pretext they come up with? It need not even be a totally forced nationalisation, but merely persuading Saylor somehow to give up the control of the keys/the company to Bo Hines (they seem good friends anyway), for a decent pay-out and some position of influence at the white house (after one has enough whatever is fuck-you money, which Saylor obviously has, they care more about influence and legacy than mere money). The stockholders can be paid with fresh greenbacks hot off the printing press too.

Something similar with Blackrock ETFs as well?

I mean, these can surely be painted as Budget Neutral enough for the sake of the narrative.

view all related items

127 sats \ 4 replies \ @DarthCoin 4 Oct

ALL of them are SCAMS

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @spiderman OP 4 Oct

You always rain on my parade but your posts are really entertaining dude

14 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 4 Oct

it takes time until you will get entirely my posts and especially my memes. My memes always have a deep message inside. Not everybody realize that. You are still a newbie.

I am "raining" on your posts because I see that you are still leaning into fiat world and your mindset is not fully prepared for Bitcoin.

And this meme by BitcoinMaxis represent it very well

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @bitcoingraffiti 4 Oct

such paranoia

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 4 Oct

Such ignorance of history.

180 sats \ 0 replies \ @DiedOnTitan 4 Oct

Does that make companies like Strategy (US), Smart Web (UK) etc. soft acquisition targets of their respective bankrupt governments, with some pretext they come up with?

Yes. The sly and roundabout pretext might look like a U.S. mandated hard fork, in collusion with Coinbase and Blackrock, with a "National emergency" wrapper such as, "Bitcoin is being used to fund terrorism and CSAM and blah blah blah, therefore we need to hard fork it to the U.S approved version to root out this evil". This announcement will be made on a Friday at 4:05 PM EST right after market close.

Since none of the MSTR or IBIT shareholders have keys, nor do they run nodes, they have no say whatsoever. And since the market is closed, have no chance to liquidate their holdings. It is simply mandated and enforced. Sound like a Black Mirror dystopian fantasy? This hard fork risk factor is mentioned in the ETF prospectus. MSTR and IBIT shareholders do not get to decide which fork to accept and are left with a rug-pulled shitcoin and the biggest bait and switch of the millennium is concluded.

TLDR; Run an economic node.

5 sats \ 0 replies \ @aljaz 4 Oct

Treasury companies are just strategic reserve that hasnt been nationalized yet

0 sats \ 11 replies \ @justin_shocknet 4 Oct

The US didn't invent Bitcoin just to 6102 it, they've already got ~20% of the supply and a golden goose in Tether et al to monetize the debt. Having that wealth here also assures a taxable base in the future. Plan distrusters rekt.

The fact we get these inane 6102 threads every few days is the best indicator it's a retarded notion.

17 sats \ 10 replies \ @standardcrypto 4 Oct

how the helll do you get 20%? (4 million Bitcoin)

0 sats \ 9 replies \ @justin_shocknet 4 Oct

You're right, for some reason I misremembered how many coins Satoshi is estimated to have... its much less than that... and the clandestine mining amount is unknowable.

That said, with systems telemetry in most devices for decades and enterprise fronts as a honeypot for passwords/password managers/general storage, the NSA could easily sweep a fair percentage of coins otherwise determined to be "lost", even if they don't have a break/backdoor for the encryption with tweaked RNGs.

0 sats \ 6 replies \ @standardcrypto 4 Oct

What puts the NSA in a better percentage to "sweep a fair percentage of coins" than any number of other orgs?

NSA spies on muggles, others spy on the NSA. That's how I see it.

Another problem with the NSA having stolen earlier coins, or being poised to swipe a big chunk of current honeypot custody coins, is that it's one thing to pull off a big coordinated heist. It's another thing to keep control of the coins after the heist. Just go watch any heist movie.

So sure, the bad guys steal from the good guys, but then the bad guys proceed to steal from each other and it all winds up distributed anyway.

Big hoards of coins are honeypots, whether they are at coinbase or in some secret NSA slush fund after hacking coinbase.

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @justin_shocknet 4 Oct

SIGINT/Cyber is what they are uniquely focused on, with control over any electronics mfg that also counts on the security apparatus as a customer... The Snowden Revelations were a limited hangout as to the extent of their capabilities. Their nearest peers wouldn't have nearly the supply chain or economic influence, Russia/China endeavor to keep their sensitive systems off of American wares for good reason.

I wouldn't call it a heist, it's been an operation from day 0. When Satoshi's coins eventually move it'll be long after the system is enured to Bitcoin, theories about the "CIA" creating Bitcoin are already common place so when its just another intelligence agency unmasking it'll be of little shock.

Sweeps can be as clandestine as anything else they do, could have already happened in some circumstances as far as we know... are North Korean and Russian hackers all really NK/RUS? Who's to say. It's additive to the existing apparatus of shell companies/institutions, not exclusive.

An attack on Coinbase would be counter-productive imo. Short of a technical attack, the government could crater the Bitcoin price 90% by flipping some regulatory/enforcement switches on the legacy system side of thigs, for trillions to move in largely unfettered it had to be protected along the way.

All warfare is based on deception.

Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable;

When using our forces, we must appear inactive;

When we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away;

When far away, we must make him believe we are near.

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @standardcrypto 4 Oct

heist, operation, tomato tomahto.

what's the difference?

if there are multiple (secret) people with the capability to steal vast quantities of funds at some future point, how do you stop them defecting and doing the theft early and asconding.

The opsec for an "op" like this is a nightmare. Much easier to do a legal 6102 attack and compensate victims with fiat.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @justin_shocknet 4 Oct

"Satoshi's" coins would be legitimately theirs since [they] are Satoshi, sweeps... sure, the point with that more being the global hegemon nation-state window dressing is a bit different than state sponsored NK hackers injecting javascript. Such a thing would have to be done in a way that doesn't open pandora's box, and that capability exists.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @standardcrypto 4 Oct

not following.

how do you do it without opening pandora's box?

view all 2 replies

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Solomonsatoshi 4 Oct

The US government did not invent Bitcoin. The most basic study of the development of Bitcoin confirms this. Your rants are amusing but either delusional or deliberate misinformation. Maybe you are a fiat banker-government apologist-propagandist.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 4 Oct

Yes it did. We've got decades of evidence at this point.

The Satoshi fairy-tale is for adult children, a psyop, they could have told you Santa Clause created it and you'd believe it given your lack of discernment.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @standardcrypto 4 Oct

what's the problem, do you not love your country son?

don't worry, you will get fair value in fiat for the temporary loan.

hoarders get what they deserve.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 4 Oct

Yes. Order 6102 was only effective because most of peoples gold was already held in the custody of banks.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @spiderman OP 4 Oct

Yeah, even in China most people keep their money in banks and have to follow whatever Beijing says.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 4 Oct

Not sure what your point is here unless you seek to mock my assertions that China has won the trade war and that Chinas mixed mercantile economy is outperforming the wests highly financialised crony capitalist economies?

It is true that like nearly all authoritarian governments China has outright banned MoE use of Bitcoin and still imposes strict controls on currency/capital flight.

The US appears to be leading a much more sly and sophisticated response which is to allow use of Bitcoin as a speculative commodity while obstructing use as a MoE. ETFs and Treasuries concentrating custody do enhance the potential effectiveness of any future ban on private custody and reinforce the narrative of Bitcoin being a speculative commodity as opposed to a P2P payments protocol.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @035736735e 4 Oct

If a state truly wanted Bitcoin reserves without spending too much capital directly, acquiring through indirect strategic partnerships or voluntary agreements with existing large holders is far more feasible than outright forced nationalisation. The trick would be to make it seem like a mutually beneficial alignment rather than a desperate grab. This is why the political relationships you hint at become important. Influence and legacy do weigh heavy in such decisions, but both sides would try to control the framing because reputation in these circles is as much a currency as the assets themselves.