Bitcoin Reserves And The Incentives Of Civil Asset Forfeiture \ stacker news ~Politics_And

pull down to refresh

Bitcoin Reserves And The Incentives Of Civil Asset Forfeiture bitcoinmagazine.com/legal/bitcoin-reserves-and-the-incentives-of-civil-asset-forfeiture

1444 sats \ 9 comments \ @User21000000 23h Politics_And_Law

view all related items

320 sats \ 8 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 23h

What all of these criticisms have in common is that they completely miss the point. Whether the Reserve is composed of additional coins, or may serve nefarious interests of the administration, is of little actual consequence for those holding Bitcoin.

What is very much of consequence, is the question of how said Reserve would be funded. On the one hand, many are speculating that the US may divert taxpayer funds to purchase cryptocurrency – a proposal that inevitably would have to go through Congress – which seems unlikely, as Trump is rumoured to make a new announcement on ‘investments’ today.

Another, much more likely approach, as already outlined in Trump’s Executive Order to “Strengthen American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology”, is that the Reserve would be “derived from cryptocurrencies lawfully seized by the Federal Government through its law enforcement efforts.”

Yep, and now they even have a greater incentive to apply asset forfeiture to accounts on platforms where cryptocoins are being held. If you do not self-custody your BTC or any other cryptocoin, you are just asking for trouble with any authority that thinks your property should be their property. Self-custody on paper or something other than even your computer is a great idea until they find asset forfeiture unconstitutional. FTS

60 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 21h

It's funny that I didn't make this connection, because I've been warning about the civil asset forfeiture threat to bitcoiners for years now.

31 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 20h

It is sort of an underlying problem if, perhaps, you don’t recognize civil asset forfeiture as a civil rights violation. Of course, statists would deny civil asset forfeiture is a problem because, according to them, everything is owned by the state, as you can see their desire to tax anything that they can. But, this is especially egregious in relationship to cryptocoins that are supposed to be secure (but really aren’t). Being on the blockchain has its disadvantages where privacy is concerned.

18 sats \ 5 replies \ @optimism 22h

So... Announcing an investment before you execute is dumb AF. So they already bought? Or does this fall under the "spending other peoples money on someone else" category and they just did another 50x long SOL privately 😭😂

21 sats \ 4 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 20h

Or does this fall under the "spending other peoples money on someone else" category

I think this may be along the lines of what Pelosi does, you know, good investment strategy. Pre-announcing is stupid, unless you have call options or bought the underlying asset beforehand, you know, another Pelosi investment strategy. Now watch, they don’t buy any of those mentioned, wouldn’t that be nice?

20 sats \ 3 replies \ @optimism 18h

Now watch, they don’t buy any of those mentioned, wouldn’t that be nice?

That would make it complete.

100 sats \ 2 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 17h

Don’t these people think they will get the SBF treatment? All of the fraud, rug pulls and other assorted tricks of the trade will eventually get outed and when they do, excrement will hit the rotating blades. Under this administration, I think there would be a lot of exposure, even if DJT did it himself. As for his cronies, it would be a complete disaster because the opposition is looking for just such a thing as they are doing themselves.

20 sats \ 1 reply \ @optimism 7h

Don’t these people think they will get the SBF treatment?

That's been my thought for a few weeks now... it screams an attitude resembling MC Hammer's hit song but where does all that untouchability originate? Pardon maximalism? We'll know what's what in Feb 2029 if that's the case.

From that perspective, am I right in concluding that the only thing needed for such a thing to succeed is plausible deniability for DJT himself to prevent impeachment - and anything else goes?

view all 1 replies