I used to think that we would see diminishing returns over successive halving cycles, but can no longer hold that view. What we will see is diminishing volatility. If adoption follows the s-curve, which we have strong reason to believe it will, we are - in terms of total world wealth - barely at the beginning. Easily below 1%. (1.3T of 900T) Similar to all the shitcoins which clearly show exponential decay when priced in #bitcoin, the price of bitcoin should show decay in *volatility* while finding the underlying s-curve. At sub 1%, the s-curve has barely started its exponential trajectory. Diminishing returns will occur only after the halfway mark of adoption. As #JeffBooth so clearly explains, the 900T of world wealth will easily be twice that in a while, due to the unstoppable debasement of all fiat. It won’t stop there. Bitcoin will gain as a function of both depreciating fiat, and increase in demand and adoption along the s-curve. I have no frame of reference to guess what this will look like, anon. Do you?

3.125 #bitcoin #halving

#Bitcoin does not have a security budget. This makes no sense. You could call this the censorship resistance budget, but it is not a budget, it is a market price. There is no minimum average block reward under which bitcoin becomes insecure. At worst, transactions can be censored, but the security of coin ownership is unaffected. The censorship resistance price is dynamic. If censorship occurs, it remains for the censored transactions to increase fees, to overwhelm the censors. The censor can never win for perpetuity, nor can the censored parties.

No market in human history has priced a good with a fixed supply till #Bitcoin. All the charts we see, all of our intuitions about price movements - are based on pricing goods with a non fixed supply. The final form of Bitcoin’s “price” chart will be, like Bitcoin, one of a kind.

Holding your own keys gives you ownership of all future forks. The no effort (in)action of never selling any such forks ensures that you will always have the working fork, no matter which fork ultimately succeeds. You don’t have to choose. These ETFs get to play god, deciding which fork is now the underlying asset, and hence which one you have a claim on. They, being the key holders, are not exposed to this risk. Surely they have no motive to create forks as a way to rugpull? All perfectly legal and clearly explained in the terms and conditions. If the underlying asset can fork, SO CAN the ETF. In terms of giving the ability to choose which forks to hold, or do nothing, this would put the ETFs on par with self custody. If there’s truly an interest in “investor protection”, that is.

On Twitter, you could put yourself and your followers into a circle jerking echo chamber by blocking everything that doesn’t follow your narrative. On #Nostr, your blocking puts only you into your own echo chamber.