1472 sats \ 9 replies \ @freetx 8h \ on: Be careful what you wish for: Bitcoinization can and will have huge implications bitcoin
Good write up and good questions.
Tangentially I was an early Linux adopter. I first installed it around 94-95. There are some interesting historical parallels to Linux and Bitcoin.
This has been largely forgotten to history, but up until 1999, there was constant FUD and legal threats over linux (in fact the term FUD itself was created during this time from a leaked Microsoft memo on how to combat Linux).
At the time, I had colleagues tell me "....we can never install linux here because we will get sued out of existence for that....".
During 95-98 acceptance increased and the linux ecosystem grew by leaps and bounds. In 1999 an unexpected and momentous thing occurred....something no one really predicted and it changed the course of computing history. IBM announced that it was working with RedHat to both port its applications to Linux as well as port Linux to run on System Z.
This was really a game changer. Within months Linux went from this fringe sort of quasi-hobbyist endeavor, to being fully embraced across the IT landscape. The rest of course is history....Linux basically took over 90% of the data centers....and invisibly worked its way into all sorts of embedded products.
Regarding Bitcoin, the US announcing the establishment of Bitcoin Strategic Reserve -- even if rather minor of a few billion dollars -- would be a similar situation. It would greenlight bitcoin and give it a permanent seat at the table. The resulting game theory would basically ensure that it got bid up orders of magnitude in value.....maybe 1000x. Particularly if corporations followed suit and each adopted their own "BTC Treasury" solution like MSTR.
Linux has been largely captured by corporates - the vast majority of proles use corporate surveillance shitware OSs ... because its been managed that way.
Much the same sad fate could befall Bitcoin.
It would not be a victory, but a case of the revolution being captured and controlled by the very entities it set out to provide an alternative to.
reply
this is a very interesting take.
it is why we need to run our own nodes... while being serious about miner centralization and decentralized block construction if possible.
reply
You do not appear to fully appreciate the implications of ever increasing institutional custody.
Blackrock & co are buying up miner interests as well as accumulating custody and control of ever more Sats.
reply
ive watched this video several times and i'm a huge fan of anton.
however i don't see any way to keep institutions from buying, and buying a lot,.
they want to buy ok so... that's it they will. global money means everyone will use it full stop
reply
Sure but that's no reason to ignore the obvious risks - given how most here are ignoring the risks its all the more reason to highlight them.
Unless you are only here for number go up fiat denominated speculative gain.
reply
Thank you for your write-up.
I agree... and I feel like the 'strategic reserve' even if mostly symbolic... if announced by a sitting president with an overwhelming political support would really 'legitimize' it for everyone. Businesses, countries... they would each want to have at least a little bit just to say 'they can participate' and 'are on the cutting edge too'...
While not the same as MSTR's treasury strategy it seems to me there will be more MSTRs... it will be interesting if the vote from shareholders in December (it's december) for Microsoft is in the positive that would be cool.
I wasn't familiar with linux's history as I was... young in the 1990s. It's interesting you compared today's events with Linux in the late 1990s. I guess you would say then that Bitcoin is the equivalent of 1999, 1998 in OS terms?
reply
I guess you would say then that Bitcoin is the equivalent of 1999, 1998 in OS terms?
Well we don't know the future so either we are 1999-2000 and our big moment was the ETFs.....of we are 98-99 and our big moment is Bitcoin Strategic Reserve announcement.
Honestly, I think the BSR idea will happen...eventually. However, to be honest, I think it makes more financial sense for the Federal Reserve to decide to hold bitcoin rather than the Treasury / US Gov itself (obviously they could both decide to hold BTC).
Bitcoin would serve as a natural counterbalance to the Feds balance sheet....the problem they have now is their entire balance sheet (except for the gold holdings) is just other forms of debt. So they hold US Treasuries as their "asset"....but it all becomes a messy circular loop of debt. In order for them to get more "assets" the system must take on more debt, the increased debt then makes existing bonds more suspect, etc etc.
BTC being a "pure asset" escapes this cycle. There is a long-story to this, but this was originally the goal of holding Gold...it would be a pure asset that would automatically expand in value as monetary base increased....but Congress passed a law in early 80s forcing the Fed to value its Gold permanently at $42.22 per ounce. Congress did this because they were concerned that there was an incentive for the Fed to keep printing but remain solvent....so they stepped in to limit the value of their gold holdings.
The Fed could side-step the entire issue now and just hold BTC....
Interesting, I did not know that is where FUD came from!
reply