I don’t think there’s any strong evidence that the existing system can coopt and control bitcoin.
What they can do is build a bitcoin investment vehicle that is attractive enough to the average investor and is connected well to the existing system such that the fed gets their taxes and can go after money launderers — which I realize is ineffective, but it keeps these people in their jobs and their agency funded, which is where the incentive comes from.
All this does is push up the BTC price and incentivize the Fed to ensure those funds keep bringing in the tax dollars.
It doesn’t stop us continuing to promote holding one’s own keys, and building better tools to help everyone transact safely and easily.
Here's a hypothetical that can cause me to lose sleep: The US is going into debt to fund a war, so begins to take advantage of its reserve currency status. Other countries realize that the US is suppressing the gold price. Nixon removes the link between gold and the dollar. Chaos ensues since the reserve currency is backed by nothing. The U.S. finds a new commodity-oil. It makes deals to ensure oil is denominated in dollars. Wars are fought to defend this link. Fast forward-the U.S. is losing control of oil's dollar link. It needs a new commodity link. Here's where bitcoin comes in. Larry Fink is well connected to the government. Bitcoin's price is already denominated in dollar terms. The most important stable coins are dollar based. The U.S. government owns a tremendous amount of bitcoin. Bitcoin can be used as the new commodity link to keep the worldwide dollar ponzi afloat. Please poke holes in my nightmare.
reply
I think the main question I’d have is what maintains this petrodollar style ‘commodity link’? Oil is a physical asset that runs out as it’s used with relatively few major providers, that can be bought off (with military support in the case of the petrodollar).
In what way is bitcoin similar? In my view, it’s materially different:
  • it doesn’t run out when used, mining bitcoin is only superficially similar to oil production
  • miners can be in any jurisdiction. Oil (or gold) production is very centralized
  • unlike oil or gold, bitcoin can cross borders in massive amounts instantly and invisibly, which makes it hard to exert physical control over
.. and therefore cannot be weaponized in the same way.
reply
We can point out the differences between the three all day. Most bitcoin has already been mined. A massive price appreciation would cause almost all the "diamond hands" to sell to captured entities like etfs. Your points about cross border payments, centralized mining, etc are all valid. It's just that after the confiscation it will be quibbling about crumbs (newly mined bitcoin)
reply
Confiscation is about the only valid method I see. But that’s difficult to imagine in todays world - it’s very different from the one in which it was achieved in the USA with gold.
reply
I'm sorry. I shouldn't have used that term. I didn't mean literal confiscation. I meant basically bribing all the self custody holders like us with an enormous price appreciation. In mafia terms-make us an offer we can't refuse.
reply
Ah, ok.
It just seems to me that the US holding some amount of real BTC, while supporting Bitcoin investment vehicles (even if ‘paper’) further legitimizes bitcoin as a commodity and increases the market cap , and in turn helps stabilize its value in time.
I suppose it might bolster the dollar at least for some time, but I wouldn’t be too concerned about that personally. Is that a nightmare to you or do you foresee the dollar somehow remaining perennially due to this new scheme of the government and Blackrock? If so, I’m still unclear as to precisely how that will be achieved.
It doesn’t stop us holding it and transacting with it, ultimately, and anything that fails to do that is really supporting it.
reply
Despite everything I'm saying I'm still buying as much bitcoin as I can. I just think it won't be smooth sailing.
reply