pull down to refresh

Doing my bit to keep cover tradfi bitcoin opinions... it's a dirty job but someone's gotta do it (not?).

the shills and shamans of bitcoinland have been getting away with it too. Sure, sure, bitcoin might have had a couple of dozen substantial crashes, a few hundred crypto companies might have gone bust, untold numbers of people might have lost their life savings, but every time bitcoin falls, it has always bounced back. Those who can afford it manage to cling on (it’s the people who can’t who are wiped out), and the cognitive muscle memory they acquire on each rebound leads them to believe their hallowed crypto coin is going to live forever. 

kind of ridiculous and just downstream from the mental model you're operating:

  • if bitcoin always deluded speculative unsubstantiated fervor, then any observed crash is informing that view
  • if bitcoin is the only way out from a fucked-up fiat and desperate fiscal situation, then any observed crash is just good value, stack harder

Both suffer from confirmation bias. If reality is instead non-dogmatic and we must take new information into account, both views are unacceptable. Bitcoin might die—and unreasonably often it reminds us of that ability—like every other digital-money attempt; or central banks and politicians might once more embrace golden fetters (Saif's story for the biggest threat to bitcoin #1428488); or something else happens.

"Bitcoiners’ excessive confidence — or more precisely the confidence they project, crucial in keeping the whole scheme going — has always been unwarranted, irresponsible and foolhardy.""Bitcoiners’ excessive confidence — or more precisely the confidence they project, crucial in keeping the whole scheme going — has always been unwarranted, irresponsible and foolhardy."

Ever since its creation, bitcoin has been on a journey that will end, splattered on the ground.

Both of these statements are kind of too harshly and too aggressively put. We've probably never been as bad off, relatively speaking (expectations <-> reality; fundamentals <-> market price) which should be a good indication for those of us with "excessive [projected] confidence" to take a chill pill. But Jemima screaming like this isn't getting her any points either.

The desperation and “cope”, as a bro might say — it implies someone is delusional and struggling to accept a painful truth — are palpable.

Yes, that was really strange for the noisiest voice in Bitcoin to open his behemoth's earnings call with (#1427437)

and here she's entirely freaking right:

in his first 200 days in office, Trump’s presence in the White House has not been able to hold back the tide of selling. If bitcoin can’t thrive in this environment, when can it?

(add gold, widespread education, easy access etc, etc)

Conclusion:

But the belief is starting to ebb. This week has shown us that the supply of “greater fools” that bitcoin relies on is drying up. The fairy tales that have been keeping crypto afloat are turning out to be just that. People are beginning to wake up to the fact that there is no floor in the value of something based on nothing more than thin air.

cheap shot: so you think its fundamental value is $2,300? neat neat, OK.


archive: https://archive.md/jotdm

did you guys see they shadow-updated the article headline?! SO VAIN, SO SILLY!

reply

Maybe they thought 69 was offensive to some people

reply

maybe to your daddy??

(Sorry, stupid IG/OF-level of a joke)

reply
141 sats \ 3 replies \ @Taj 8 Feb

You are the Schrödenlillaapan's Cat of this forum

I’ve read your last 20 posts and I have concluded that you are Schrödinger’s Bitcoiner, you somehow believe it’s going to $1 million and $0 at the same time

reply

It's true :/

You could also call it schizophrenic. Or weak hands. Or fair-weather hands!

reply

Or we could call it "anything for content" syndrome heheh

reply

true... seems to be working eh??

reply
reply

3500 was a bubble of nonsense then; fundamental value increased since!

reply

Bitcoin critiques are not getting better, they are getting worse or just rehashed FUD from years gone by.

reply
40 sats \ 1 reply \ @unboiled 8 Feb

I dunno.
I still think the bitcoin-eating-swimming-pools narrative was the peak.

reply

Yeah some of the climate FUD was definitely wild.

reply
in his first 200 days in office, Trump’s presence in the White House has not been able to hold back the tide of selling. If bitcoin can’t thrive in this environment, when can it?

Kamala and Warren debanking people left and right, we would be at ATH and opening massive Lightning channels in no time.

reply

No BlackRock or SBR, but better adoption.

Jason Maier told us as much

reply

Blackrock tends to get what it wants anyway regardless of the Uniparty.

SBR seemed to only be an empty campaign tactic to usher in the stablecoin surveillance regime.

reply
reply

Fiats value is based on either thin air or the government pointing a gun at you. I suppose she finds that preferable. There's no accounting for taste I suppose

reply

Nah, Fiat value was backed by gold. We are still running off that belief though it is slipping. For sure banks still believe it is at least backed by gold. Not 1 to 1 but if it were to be discovered that the US Treasury had no gold the dollar would collapse.

Guns and the tax cattle we and our kids are is the big one though.

reply

Based on thin air and guns.
Sounds like the textbook definition of "by decree."

reply

I like guns?
I like getting assraped by a political leader, elected by retarded masses?

reply

Did Saylor mean OVERestimate, or does he really want political big boys out ? 😀

reply

LOL, didn't pick up on that... yeah, must mean "overestimate" -- otherwise, he's saying it's soooo unbelievably unimportant

reply

MSTR = most interesting

reply

If there's no floor, then it's odd that bitcoin trades for 3x as many dollars as it did a few years ago, even after a supposedly catastrophic crash. Seems like projection from a fiat maxi.

reply

iissssssn't that strange, huh. Wonder what she'll say in 3 years

reply

She should open a whole bunch of short positions in that case, with her life savings

reply

she should... But she's probably prohibited by the FT from doing that

reply