Saylor isn't a hero. He's not the same as most bitcoiners on many levels. You can like some of the stuff he says but for me personally I take every word out of his mouth as that of a fiat based businessman / politician. By that I mean he is playing the game. He's obviously not a crypto-anarchist. He likes bitcoin as a store of value. Even if he did believe eventually bitcoin will or just can function as money there is little incentive for him to say that. He has far more upside in stuff like this.
The real question between Currency vs Commodity comes down to tax treatment.
I haven't kept up with all his beliefs.....Does he think that there should be either a "de minimus" exemption or a "time exemption" for capital gains tax?
I saw that chart. It doesn't quite jive with the dictionary meanings:
currency: /kûr′ən-sē, kŭr′-/
noun Money in any form when in actual use as a medium of exchange, especially circulating paper money. Transmission from person to person as a medium of exchange; circulation. "coins now in currency."
Money :
money /mŭn′ē/
noun A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit in a checking account or other readily liquefiable account. The official currency, coins, and negotiable paper notes issued by a government. Assets and property considered in terms of monetary value; wealth
currency is money by decree (gov) and controlled by a gov/central bank. As it says "is a promissory note". money can be whatever the 2 parties in a trade want to be (just digits on a blockchain or pink shells).
That's how I looked at it until I looked up the plain dictionary meaning right now. Either way, that means that Saylor's stance saying bitcoin is not currency is true. So his statement doesn't mean much. It's obvious now that all Saylor cares about is his gigantic bags anyway.
because he consider bitcoin an asset... and that is another story. It's the trick he want people to believe. Saylor is not dumb, he's really smart, and that's why he's really dangerous for Bitcoin.
Nothing too surprising in here. It does further highlight the demographic bitcoin is now "serving."
In his proposal presented to the SEC, Saylor describes Bitcoin as a commodity, meaning "an asset without an issuer, backed by digital power." Bitcoin, according to Saylor, is to be distinguished from digital currencies, which he defines as "an asset with an issuer, backed by fiat currency."
Saylor does propose that cryptocurrency owners have the right to self-custody, as well as to trade and transfer their assets. However, Saylor also states that cryptocurrency owners must comply with local laws, stating that "all participants are civilly and criminally responsible for their actions," hinting at possible sanctions compliance to be enforced on a wallet level.
His overall goal, as described in the section of his framework titled "Opportunity", is establishing "USD as the Global Reserve Digital Currency" to "strengthen the US dollar, neutralize the national debt, and position America as the global leader in the 21st-century digital economy," which, according to Saylor, could for example be enabled by creating a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve.
That's a good way to put it. I try to explain to people about its volatility in the same way. Just as if we discovered a new metal and it had many uses or powers that we still didn't understand, it would trade with a ton of volatility.
Bitcoin is what it is.
A separate question is how are the majority of people using it or thinking about it.
These are independent of each other. Bitcoin can function as money, store of value, and unit of account. Saying it isn't money or digital currency doesn't change what is possible.
Let them think its not money... If the US gov thinks it is a threat to the dollar you will see a lot of "pro-bitcoin" politicians flip real quick.
The question many of us have - is in 5-10 years will saylor be seen as a net benefit or net negative for bitcoin... Time will tell, but I am optimistic.
Saylor isn't a hero. He's not the same as most bitcoiners on many levels. You can like some of the stuff he says but for me personally I take every word out of his mouth as that of a fiat based businessman / politician. By that I mean he is playing the game. He's obviously not a crypto-anarchist. He likes bitcoin as a store of value. Even if he did believe eventually bitcoin will or just can function as money there is little incentive for him to say that. He has far more upside in stuff like this.
Well said!
this
The real question between Currency vs Commodity comes down to tax treatment.
I haven't kept up with all his beliefs.....Does he think that there should be either a "de minimus" exemption or a "time exemption" for capital gains tax?
I'd guess he's mostly trying to protect his bags right now. I don't think he'd take any position that could distract from or undermine that.
100%. This is the most generous way to take what he is doing/saying.
I saw that chart. It doesn't quite jive with the dictionary meanings:
currency:
/kûr′ən-sē, kŭr′-/
noun
Money in any form when in actual use as a medium of exchange, especially circulating paper money.
Transmission from person to person as a medium of exchange; circulation.
"coins now in currency."
Money :
money
/mŭn′ē/
noun
A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit in a checking account or other readily liquefiable account.
The official currency, coins, and negotiable paper notes issued by a government.
Assets and property considered in terms of monetary value; wealth
currency is money by decree (gov) and controlled by a gov/central bank. As it says "is a promissory note".
money can be whatever the 2 parties in a trade want to be (just digits on a blockchain or pink shells).
That's how I looked at it until I looked up the plain dictionary meaning right now. Either way, that means that Saylor's stance saying bitcoin is not currency is true. So his statement doesn't mean much. It's obvious now that all Saylor cares about is his gigantic bags anyway.
because he consider bitcoin an asset... and that is another story. It's the trick he want people to believe.
Saylor is not dumb, he's really smart, and that's why he's really dangerous for Bitcoin.
Forex traders have a de minimus exemption... I forget the amount, I'm going to guess $600
Nothing too surprising in here. It does further highlight the demographic bitcoin is now "serving."
it's like gold which is a commodity for purposes of regulation but can also be used as a currency if people want to barter with it
That's a good way to put it. I try to explain to people about its volatility in the same way. Just as if we discovered a new metal and it had many uses or powers that we still didn't understand, it would trade with a ton of volatility.
Bitcoin is what it is.
A separate question is how are the majority of people using it or thinking about it.
These are independent of each other. Bitcoin can function as money, store of value, and unit of account. Saying it isn't money or digital currency doesn't change what is possible.
Let them think its not money... If the US gov thinks it is a threat to the dollar you will see a lot of "pro-bitcoin" politicians flip real quick.
What I was screaming out loud here about this motherfucker?
Remember this post just 1 year ago? #446513
Bitcoiners advise Michael CIAlor, we don't give a fuck about state laws and regulations.
The question many of us have - is in 5-10 years will saylor be seen as a net benefit or net negative for bitcoin... Time will tell, but I am optimistic.
Saylor has been saying so many different things since he first started buying bitcoin.