pull down to refresh

"Government bitcoin and crypto reserves serve no useful purpose and invite political mischief."
Mr. Trump’s new executive order issued Thursday directs the Treasury Department to take custody and preserve government holdings of bitcoin and other crypto-currencies that agencies seize as part of investigations into wrongdoing. His stated goal is to create a crypto version of Fort Knox, which is where America’s gold reserves are stored.
OK, cool. What's the problem? And what's different about gold?
U.S. dollar reserves provide liquidity and facilitate payments with the rest of the world. Bitcoin doesn’t. While Mr. Trump describes bitcoin as “digital gold,” many countries don’t recognize or accept it as legal tender. While gold has been used as a store of wealth for centuries, bitcoin has been around for all of 16 years.
Alright, so what's the cutoff... when it's been around for 116 years, gold still has millennia on its side? If Lindy matters, we should get off fiat very fast, right?
At least the next paragraph is true enough, and a major problem with this misbehaving uppity rebel money (#908702):
Its price is also highly volatile. Investors sold off bitcoin last week as they have other risky assets amid growing trade uncertainty. The prices of bitcoin and other tokens on Thursday fell after Mr. Trump issued his executive order, apparently because crypto investors were hoping he’d do more to bolster their speculative crypto bets.
The Editorial is pretty adamant that govs shouldn't be involved:
A government crypto reserve serves no good purpose while creating an opportunity for political bad behavior. Let private investors speculate all they want without the government having a stake in crypto-currency prices.
It's already involved in gold (maybe?) and a heavy benefactor from its fiat money printer, so how, practically speaking, does a gov stay neutral with regards to all those assets?

non-paywalled here: https://archive.md/M7N8s
So, if bitcoin does become widely enough accepted that it's purchasing power is similarly stable to gold's, will this author recant and say Trump was a genius after all?
reply
54 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 3h
Naw.. they'll just go on to criticize something else. Haters be hatin.
reply
yes. I except nothing less
reply
38 sats \ 8 replies \ @Aardvark 3h
These editorials only really highlight a general lack of education surrounding bitcoin.
It's said so often that it's become cliché at this point, but we are still so early that it's insane.
reply
...or "late" -- who knows??
reply
i don't see how 'late' makes sense. YES it's a trope and "we're early bros!!!!"
but seriously read the comments to that editorial. Apparently the average American even one reading the WSJ that 'sophisticated'... has no idea how or if bitcoin is any different from $trump or $blowjob coin.
"it's all tulips"!!! Really. They have never heard of lightning and never made a Bitcoin transaction so...
reply
Exactly... they are all speaking from a place of ignorance. If they really understood Bitcoin, it would be okay to be skeptical, but you're more likely to say something along the lines of, "I just don't think it'll work," rather than all the strawman attacks about it being a scam.
reply
calling it 'a scam' i mean... junk email from nigerian princes is a scam. advance fee Nigerian-inheritances are... a scam. 'investment schemes' on telegram or from random text messages... ya those are scams.
but i have a home miner, it heats my living room i receive payouts to my LN Address... which i use to post here stack sats + play lightning blackjack.
if they've never heard of lightning or a 'bitcoin node' how can give a fair assessment of bitcoin?
reply
they can't, that's why we should ignore them. they are just ignorant speaking of things they know nothing about.
I'm not such a zealot that I think bitcoin is inevitable. Anything can happen, and it could absolutely die and go to zero. I don't belive it will though.
I belive in it enough to be all in, but also understand that my position is not without risk.
reply
I don't think mainstream adoption is inevitable but I also don't think "going to zero" is a possibility. It could just remain niche for a very very long time.
reply
everyone wants legitimately better money... now it's on your phone...
reply
Governments aren't involved in Gold, not everywhere fyi. Also the physical existence of gold is a + (only) to avoid any interference.
BTW, It's been already published #908760 Not in ~econ so it's a crosspost!
reply