pull down to refresh

Bitcoin Treasury bonds may help US refinance $14T debt — VanEck execcointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-treasury-bond-refinance-14-trillion-us-debt-vaneck
203 sats \ 4 comments \ @Coinsreporter 16 Apr bitcoin
“BitBonds” would allow the US to save money to refinance $14 trillion of debt even in a scenario where Bitcoin “goes to zero,” VanEck’s Matthew Sigel said.
I think he wants to suggest otherwise but pitching Bitbonds to USA requires this language. We all know what will ultimately go to zero.
This pitching of Bitbonds is not new. A similar has been done earlier in March by Bitcoin Policy institute.
write
preview
related posts
20 sats \ 3 replies \ @Car 16 Apr
Fiat Bitcoiners always looking for the next bigger wave. First ETFs now Bonds. 1sat = 1sat
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Coinsreporter OP 16 Apr
Mathew Sigel might be a fiat maxi or a Shitcoiner. But what about Bitcoin Policy Institute? Are they also Fiat Bitcoiners or Fiat Maxis but cashing in on by adopting 'Bitcoin' in their naming?
reply
17 sats \ 1 reply \ @Car 16 Apr
“BPI is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 501c3 organization researching the policy and societal implications of Bitcoin and emerging monetary networks.”
Directly from the website. cc: @justin_shocknet
reply
421 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 16 Apr
Am I being summoned for a spicy contrarian take or the conspiracy angle?
I'll do my best at combining both... touched on this topic briefly when it came up recently: #930514
Regarding BPI there's little to conclude from directly, so we need to look at the big picture. What we do know for a fact is how Washington works, and what signals are being sent around the Bitcoinization issue:
  • Nation-state intelligence agencies and/or their megacorp counterparts in the private sector want a thing to happen (or to not happen)
  • They set up public facing organizations to make that happen in a more organic looking way, while keeping themselves out of the spotlight.
  • If it's something they don't want to happen, that public facing org is set up to fail and in the process of so doing inoculate against that thing, or shift the Overton window towards another thing.
So are BitBonds supposed to happen, or not happen?
Trump, Bessent, Lutnick, Lummis, Sacks, Hines, Cruz, probably others... are pretty good signal unto themselves that Bitcoin has mindshare at the highest levels. At face-value, they're telegraphing what is going to happen.
Add in the tariff/globo-monetary order stuff, and that's even further signal that actions are being taken in this direction.
Bessent himself has unpromptedly thrown Bitcoin into the conversation re: store of value, and the "Golden Age" messaging is a clear signal that the dollar reserve Triffin Dilemma system is going to yield to a neutral reserve system and address a massive national security liability.
Any Bitcoiner worth their sats has come to understand the game theory behind all of this, so none of it should be at surprise.
That still leaves the question, is BTCPolicy proposing something sane that can be adopted without any of the aforementioned politicians and Bitcoin companies having to say it themselves? Are there actually buyers lined up for these BitBonds? Or is it set-up purely to fail?
I can't pinpoint anything insane about it, so I err towards its going to happen. It's not materially different than the MSTR playbook, which is seemingly working in the open market, and MSTR itself is an organization that openly linked to Intel-Agencies. It's either a very elaborate and costly trap they made no effort to conceal, or they're tipping off allies who know how to interpret signal.
It's possible of course that these BitBonds require a different buyer scale that never materializes, making the whole thing (and Bitcoiners) look stupid. There's only one way to find out for sure, but it seems counter-intuitive given yet other signals:
Who's who behind BTCPolicy, at least publicly? To me it seems like mostly nobodies, except David Zell, one of the founders of BTCMedia (Bitcoin Magazine) which has gotten the big names at their conferences, Ross pardoned, etc... at times it seemed like David Bailey also of BTCMedia was the only one to think the SBR would actually happen, and he's been vindicated at several steps along the way. He also hinted at the UAE buy before it was public, and the UAE is massively important in the global order as a financial center.
Totaling all this up, I think it's legit, the policy itself isn't overtly stupid, there's people connected to it we've been given no reason to doubt, and all the signaling from the incumbents is at minimum directionally supportive.
Hipstercoiners may not like Bitcoin becoming a political lobby, but Bitcoin becoming the world reserve currency always had to be a transformative process, not a revolutionary one. Massive institutions that are interlinked and are where most of the worlds wealth resides can't simply rip off the band-aid like individuals can.
The financial world is a tangled web of contracts and liabilities that will take decades to untangle.
Hipstercoiners also need to accept that the Satoshi fairy-tale is operational deception, and that Bitcoin itself in being necessary to address the aforementioned NatSec issues is part of a larger anti-corruption operation. If the NSA or whoever else came out in 2010 and said "hey check this out" no one would have touched it.
My advice is to think strategically more than 5 minutes out and trust the plan.
I'm reminded of this post to all the people wondering where the arrests are, now that Trump is in office. O-Plans of this scale take decades. This was published only 1 year into Trumps first term:
"Those who cannot understand that we cannot simply start arresting w/o first: ensuring the safety & well-being of the population shifting the narrative removing those in DC through resignation to ensure success defeating ISIS/MS13 to prevent fail-safes freezing assets to remove network-to-network abilities kill off COC to prevent top-down comms/org, etc. etc. should not be participating in discussions." Q
reply