42 sats \ 2 replies \ @028559d218 OP 6 Nov \ parent \ on: Be careful what you wish for: Bitcoinization can and will have huge implications bitcoin
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?
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....