pull down to refresh

I was always thinking it's gonna be number 4 without number 1:) Especially if Jason Lowery is right about warfare.
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @zx 6 Jun
What does JL say about warfare?
reply
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @zx 6 Jun
Thanks for that. one of the best 2hr+ podcasts I listened to in a while. Learned a few things.
reply
You are welcome:) he gets a lot of criticism for this but I think there is definitely something to think about:)
reply
Things will have to get pretty bad for #4 to happen. Blackrock now would have a lot to lose. They have deep ties (lobby dollars) into the government and they are massively increasing AUM, and I don't think they want to have to explain to all of their clients why they got rugged on their watch.
It is much safer to have your keys in cold storage than an IOU on an ETF. I don't understand these "I don't trust myself" plebs who don't want self custody. It's weak.
I do however understand people who have a retirement fund and want exposure to Bitcoin without taking the tax and penalty hit for withdrawing their funds.
reply
Well, you cannot rug the ETF holders as they don't have any bitcoin to rug to, So in my head it plays like that - companies are hoarding BTC using the customer's money and when the customer sells they don't. So they end up with a lot of BTC that nobody can withdraw. I'm just wondering if they can somehow hide it in the reports.
reply
when the customer sells they don't
That's not how it played out with GBTC. So much cash left when the ETFs opened, that they had to sell 300,000 Bitcoin to cover.
reply
Right, I agree, but I won't be surprised if in the future blackrock will come up with the solution that will allow them to keep all the BTC fromn the ETF. At the end of the day, if you understand the game then you will try to get as much BTC as possible.
reply