pull down to refresh
The irony of the last 16 years is how Bitcoin has rewarded so many for doing so little. People built businesses and systems around Bitcoin but only a handful outperformed and then even on only cherry picked time-frames. In this way Bitcoin has shown us our personal, and if you're a business commercial, irrelevance. Bitcoins S-curve is still superior as an investment.
Meanwhile the legacy system of finance and government have responded adequately to relegate Bitcoin to be a financial game. Only after the price in terms of real value does another 10x or two will holding fall to similar opportunity cost as investment in business and lifestyle.
We're early. Entertaining as he is, don't have to care what Saylor says. It's still the phase of adoption to hold, live healthy and chill out.
"Trust the plan". You know, it's pretty reasonable to have trust issues with political figures. Also pretty reasonable to ask questions when political figures make little sense.
Well, I have come up against SN's character limit in posts...
Luckily, I only had to cut a little bit.
Are you saying that the government tends to take control of resources that are actually free, like the airwaves?
If that's the case, there's some truth to that due to a long held theory about public goods and common resources.
That is a tension the Bitcoin ecosystem will need to resolve ...
It's simple. The more of us who only accept Sats to settle B2B receipts, the easier it gets for other companies to justify holding Sats, even through rough times.
Every time a Bitcoiner goes out of their way to support a Bitcoin-only business, they reinforce the idea that Bitcoin deserves to have "sustained institutional respect".
As long as the Bitcoin community continues to use fiat (cuz muh convenience, bro), there will be "repeated boom/bust cycles driven by flashy but unsustainable plays".
The tension you speak of will not be resolved until the community itself decides to be pioneers and revolutionists. After all, if we can't even do it, I think it's safe to say the rest of the world will never do it either, and this is the most bearish thing for Bitcoin I can think of.
I do think that one pathway to the "collapse" of the state's fiat monopoly is a gradual accommodating of alternate payment methods.
I don't really know if stablecoins count as that though. AFAICT stablecoins are still giving the government what they want which is control over the money supply (since on paper, stablecoins are pegged) and visibility into how people are spending it (KYC/AML).
This was never about democracy or human rights. It was a textbook resource-driven intervention built on sanctions, economic strangulation, and covert operations to remove a leader who refused alignment. The UN Charter exists to prevent exactly this kind of aggression, yet sovereignty means little when great powers act without consequence. Venezuela’s fate was sealed the moment its oil reserves became a strategic prize, and the pattern here mirrors Iraq and Libya. The danger is not just for Venezuela but for every non‑aligned nation now reminded that if America wants something, it will take it. That resignation you see in Paraguay is the world settling into a reality where the rules are applied selectively, and where regime change is simply another tool of foreign policy.
Ayy thank you @SuperJohn
The core economic critique you’re raising is valid. A business’s first obligation is to create value in excess of the resources it consumes. That is the basic accountability mechanism of profit and loss. If an entity is persistently destroying capital while holding Bitcoin, the Bitcoin holding does not absolve that inefficiency. It is not a moral shield. The Bitcoin position performs identically outside of that structure without the drag of operating losses.
This is where a sober look at the “more Bitcoin companies is better” trope is necessary. In markets with differentiated products or services, multiple players make sense. In a narrow niche where the offering is essentially identical and the only distinguishing factor is leverage to Bitcoin’s price via balance sheet exposure, duplication simply fragments capital. Worse, it invites copycat strategies from weaker operators who have neither the discipline nor the market access to sustain the model. That erodes trust in the concept itself.
In some respects Saylor’s public stance attracts opportunists and financial engineers who want to mimic his play without the long term discipline or the scale advantage. That’s not on him entirely but it is the unintended consequence of a highly visible strategy. The problem is that his interviews tend to blend genuine long term vision with rhetorical devices that gloss over why capital efficiency and actual value creation matter.
It is worth separating the evangelist role from the operator role. As an evangelist Saylor helps Bitcoin. As an operator his specific corporate moves may inspire distorted imitations that hurt Bitcoin’s reputation with capital allocators. That is a tension the Bitcoin ecosystem will need to resolve if it wants sustained institutional respect rather than repeated boom bust cycles driven by flashy but unsustainable plays.
Two questions:
- Is there any KYC?
- Is there any way to "earn" Sats other than being a degen? Does LN Markets have a liquidity pool or lending that one can provide BTC to?
When Danny talks about m-Nav, he's talking about DOLLARS.
I think this is what's so offensive to Saylor.
We continue to frame Bitcoin as though it's just an investment, and we don't use it for trade or real-world transactions. Then, we wonder why the price is so suppressed and the retail public has given up on the premise.
Bitcoiners need to start living what they preach. Stop obsessing about the fiat-based macro environment. The fiat based metrics. The fiat itself. Start using Bitcoin, and the world will improve.
Fair. Seems politics on both sides are pushing to the far edges. Nationalism and communism lol