pull down to refresh
5 sats \ 8 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 11 Mar \ parent \ on: Saylor says Bitcoin is Capital not Currency bitcoin
Saylor has done a lot for Bitcoin, but it seems to me that he's drifting away from its essence.
I also agree that Bitcoin is not a currency. It doesn't act like one.
It isn't used like one (at least not enough or in no way consistently right now) and Bitcoin does not have an issuer like all currencies do.
The Yen is issued by... Japan.
The Dollar is issued by... the United States.
The Euro is issued by... the European Union.
Bitcoin is issued by.... ASIC mining machines and coinbase transactions?
Bitcoin is "digital capital".
"Capital" is defined as ( https://onlinemba.ku.edu/experience-ku/mba-blog/what-is-capital-in-business )
- In business, the term “capital” refers to financial assets used to fund operations and growth. It can be used to purchase assets, cover expenses, and invest in new opportunities. Businesses have to efficiently manage their capital to meet their obligations as well as innovate and expand into new markets. Although capital is money, from a business perspective, it’s specifically money for current operations and future investments.
Therefore Bitcoin is money... but it's 'high-powered' money that is for investing too or large evaluations over long time periods or distances. Something which 'currencies' do not excel at because they have an issuer and depreciate continuously.
Peer 2 peer "digital cash" refers to in my opinion "digital settlement" not necessarily "digital currency" and it's the settlement of "digital capital" across time and space that's the digital cash.
reply
It seems like Saylor wants to relegate bitcoin to a reserve asset to help the USD stay dominant. I believe he has always refuted its "currency-like"/medium of exchange characteristics.
But that being said, Saylor seems to know exactly the semantic game he is playing. By refusing to acknowledge the MoE value of bitcoin, it really appears as though he is cosying up to those who would dollar dominance for eternity.
Lewis' essay, on the other hand, across as much more genuine.
reply
If he said 'oh it's money the best money blah blah...' I believe it might concern regulators. So he doesn't say that specifically.
There is no way that Btc helps the USD stay dominant... I never understood that logic.
It's like saying that the winning hockey team... helps the losing hockey team stay dominant. How?
reply
The most important aspect of Bitcoin is the network of people using it. They can choose to use it how ever they want (ofc) but most likely people are going to do whatever is in their own best interest, and the government has its way of convincing people that it's in their best interest to comply.
Bitcoin circular economies can keep it out of the hands of nation states and big corporations. But with < 5% of the global population using it and now nation states and corporations getting involved, saying they'll never sell, I think it is reasonable to presume it can become captured. Circular economies keep it in circulation, nation states want to keep it out of circulation, because they can't tax or control it. I don't believe they are in the interest of pumping your bags. They won't sell, more likely, because bitcoin threatens dollar dominance. Circular economies benefit those involved, but hurt tax revenue.
Bitcoin was borne out of the cypherpunk movement in order to enable internet-native, permissionless payments. For what exactly, do you imagine Fink, Saylor and Trump plan on paying in bitcoin?
reply
It wasn't about payments. It was a monetary network that included peer to peer payments (and settlement specifically).
I don't believe it's <5% 'using it' I think it's more like .1% at the very most and probably not even that many. The coporate 'adoption' is basically MSTR at this point and maybe Square (Block) but that's about it.
Most people still think it's a scam because 'crypto is a scam' and Bitcoin is just another crypto somehow.
There are zero European companies using it (except for small Lightning developers) and even fewer in Asia.
There's a circular economy in El Salvador maybe and a very small, very nascent 'circular economy' in and around Lugano on a good day. But that's about it.
The biggest threat to Bitcoin in my opinion is miner centralization and fees that are 'too low' out of laziness and complacency - both of which effect people who just want it to 'go up' without having to learn anything or actually use it.
And we don't live on a Bitcoin standard - maybe in 10-15 years we'll see a lot of progress but we're nowhere near that point yet and vendors, merchants, and commerce-like adoption is still extremely limited.
Bitcoin has been growing in the 'capital markets' basically as a kind of digital gold and I think it will continue to... but it's most limited by lack of education and the possibility of miner centralization in the future due to laziness.
reply
It wasn't about payments.
WTF?
I don't believe it's <5% 'using it' I think it's more like .1%
Anyway, I won't be cheering on institutions as they start to gobble up what's remaining and promise us that they'll never sell confiscated bitcoin.
electronic/digital cash is great 🤠
reply