pull down to refresh

1727 sats \ 5 replies \ @dk 2 Jan
Everyone has a vested interest, but there's also a tragedy of the commons aspect to investing in bitcoin development. Not impossible to overcome, but it usually appears with some combination of generosity, conviction, and very long term thinking.
I would argue that it could be a selfish investment if one has a deep understanding of "net-present value" and "time value of money", but good intuition around those are typically in short supply.
reply
582 sats \ 4 replies \ @tip_nz 2 Jan
I would argue that it could be a selfish investment if one has a deep understanding of "net-present value" and "time value of money", but good intuition around those are typically in short supply.
Could you elaborate on this statement?
reply
111 sats \ 3 replies \ @dk 3 Jan
Having money sooner is always worth more than having money later (time value of money). You may have heard the old quote "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today". That's because money has a time value.
The above is true even if you have a low time preference. Owning the option to do something today is worth more than not having the option (i.e. having your hands tied to make the choice until tomorrow).
But this is balanced by the fact that most informed bitcoiners expect the purchasing power of sats to continually increase forever.
Now make some assumptions about how long you'll live, how much you wish to bequeath to others, and how much money you'll need to do what you want throughout the course of your life and how fast bitcoin will appreciate. There is a selfishly justifiable amount to invest in projects that you believe will accelerate the success of bitcoin even if the projects themselves do not ever appear to deliver you a direct financial return from your investment (i.e. the only return you make is in your bitcoin appreciating). Saylor/MSTR may choose a certain amount to contribute and you may choose a different amount.
Many people will feel there is too much complexity and instead just HODL which is fine. There are so many assumptions with wild variance that there's no way to build the "right" intuition about this.
reply
300 sats \ 1 reply \ @tip_nz 4 Jan
I think time value of money only applies in an inflationary environment. In Bitcoin, 1 bitcoin is worth more tomorrow than it is today.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @dk 4 Jan
Owning the choice of what to do today is more valuable than having your hands tied. Even if your choice is to HODL. There is always value in the option.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @0fje0 7 Jan
Only came across your comment today and I think it's very underrated.
This part in particular:
Now make some assumptions about how long you'll live, how much you wish to bequeath to others, and how much money you'll need to do what you want throughout the course of your life and how fast bitcoin will appreciate.
When asked about bitcoin by friends or family, I attempt to convey this way of long(er) term thinking about bitcoin, but not always very successfully.
Nice to see it articulated in one coherent sentence that may lead to more nuanced discussions. Stealing it!
reply
Assuming Bitcoin developers hold some BTC, MSTR is pumping their bags. At least until they sell.
reply
You mean Core developers, because they already have shell developers...
Core development is risky, and barring discovery of new vulnerabilities, unnecessary... changes should be few and far between.
So, the best way to protect their investment is to work in stealth on things like security, which you'll hopefully never hear about.
reply
I am waiting till some of the podcasters finally asks him this. Having said that i’ve stopped listening interviews with him. I havent heard him say anything novel for a long time. With OpenSats he has a perfect vehicle for donations.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @jgbtc 3 Jan
People would accuse them of trying to control bitcoin.
reply
11 sats \ 0 replies \ @OT 2 Jan
Saylor said that they would. I haven't seen any announcement though.
Come to think of it I haven't seen their lightning node either.
reply
MSTR is pro-government, Bitcoin is anti-government.
reply
I think Michael Saylor himself is doing a lot for Bitcoin - technically, as well as speaking about it. Someone mentioned OpenSats and I've been totally impressed with their multiple rounds of donations. I read to my wife a sampling of the amazing projects their grants are going to.
reply
All of us have a vested interest, who is to say MSTR is doing nothing, they're a holder and created positive market sentiment, why isn't that enough? they act in their self-interest.
Who is to say MSTR doesn't like Bitcoin the way it is and would prefer ossification of the base protocol? Maybe they fund or start businesses on L2, but why? Bitcoin isn't their core competency, what they should do is focus on what generates the most value and cash flow for themselves, thats their duty to their staff and equity holders, Bitcoin is just a part of that
reply
I feel they support developers at least the ones working with them in setting up Bitcoin wallet and storage security
reply
MSTR vested interest is to make profit and possibly be the one entity that owns the most Bitcoin
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 2 Jan
There might be legal reasons why they can't. Given it's a significant treasury investment and publicly traded companies have a bunch of extra rules, e.g. he can't promote MSTR stock directly, that's the best reason I can think of.
reply
deleted by author
reply