pull down to refresh

All FUD has some sliver of truth or rationality to it, while I would disagree with his stance, I think SoV is a massive TAM, a massive problem that needs to be solved, what greater market is there than being the base layer money and transfer of wealth between all asset classes?
If I were to steelman some of his arguments i'd say
I think Bitcoin could increase demand for fiat, if we reach an end game where countries are racing against time and doing a straight printing to buy Bitcoin. We would have super loose monetary policy by this point because stability of fiat no longer matters.
Oligarchs will benefit from Bitcoin, if you're smart enough to transfer your wealth into the system to secure a portion of the fixed supply, so in a way that is true.
In the end incentives remain in tact, Bitcoin doesn't fix stupid and wealth in the hands of a moron will always transfer towards the smart and productive over a long enough time period, BTC is just going to supercharge financial darwinism and people will blame BTC instead of themselves and try to play the victim.
So let them FUD, i'll take their Sats
I think Bitcoin could increase demand for fiat, if we reach an end game where countries are racing against time and doing a straight printing to buy Bitcoin. We would have super loose monetary policy by this point because stability of fiat no longer matters.
It seems like you are saying the marginal increase for fiat that of this FUD is negligible until we have this end-game. Or in other words, someone borrowing to buy more bitcoin is just a drop in the bucket in comparison to what is actually possible in terms of the 'generating demand for fiat' line of reasoning.
reply
Yes, I'm just gaming out what Saylor is doing on a way bigger scale in this scenario, he is issuing debt creating demand for new credit creation, but he is limited in his borrowing capacity, what borrowing limit do countries have?
reply