I don't believe this Jack, I KNOW THIS IS THE CASE. And let me explain myself:
This is not against you or Strike, but against a debt-based fiat monetary system that constitutes a form of modern slavery. Because loans secured with bitcoins are anti-American, anti-Austrian, and anti-cyberpunk.
Incurring fiat currency debt by securing bitcoins represents a philosophical contradiction that undermines Bitcoin's three historical pillars:
It is anti-American (against the Founding Fathers) because it exchanges the absolute sovereignty of private property for a contract of servitude and debt, subjecting the free individual to the terms of a creditor and risking their hard money for temporary liquidity; Jefferson warned us against this form of slavery.
It is anti-Austrian because it reintroduces the risk of ruin (liquidation) and validates the existence of inflationary currency, mixing the hardest money ever created with the artificial credit and leverage system that distorts price signals and encourages consumerism over genuine savings. You are giving something of value to get a worthless token.
Finally, it is deeply anti-cypherpunk, as it inevitably requires handing over custody of private keys to an intermediary or “trusted third party” (whether a bank or a centralized institution), breaking the cryptographic shield of digital physical possession and violating the maxim of “not your keys, not your coins,” which leaves the user once again exposed to censorship, confiscation, and institutional fragility that Bitcoin was designed to eradicate.
True “Opt Out” requires total secession, abandoning the rigged game of fiat currency rather than seeking strategies to perpetuate it from within.
Using Bitcoin as collateral to obtain fiat debt, under the pragmatic excuse of avoiding capital gains taxes, is not financial cunning, but hypocrisy that remonetizes and validates the corrupt system we seeks to destroy. The individual not only refuses to cut the umbilical cord with the old regime, but becomes an active accomplice, providing liquidity and demand to the very monetary machinery that finances wars, corruption, and pedophiles.
Sovereignty is not about negotiating better terms with the masters to save money, but about stopping feeding the parasites understanding that financing, even indirectly, a morally bankrupt system nullifies the very purpose of the freedom that Bitcoin represents.
THIS IS WHAT I STAND FOR, AND I AM DISAPPOINTED TO SEE SO MANY SELF-PROCLAIMED BITCOINERS WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT.
View quoted note →
Login to reply
Replies (9)
Haha! We’re together 💪🏼
“Sovereignty is not about negotiating better terms with the masters to save money, but about stopping feeding the parasites understanding that financing, even indirectly, a morally bankrupt system nullifies the very purpose of the freedom that Bitcoin represents.”
Yes, exactly. If we want to kill the beast and live free, then sats must flow.
1% nsa
Thank you mate!
Well thought out and phrased. Logic checks out.
I do think moneyleding does have its time and place. The fiat system we are currently living in is credit and debt stretched to its absolute, absurd limit. With a system engineered to protect the beneficiaries of the system from any real risk. In hard money systems the risks and rewards of lending/borrowing money are subject to a free market rate. In other words if we were already in a hyperbitcoinized world (or any hard money standard) there would still be borrowing and lending but it would be much more thermodynamically sound (not to mention fair).
That being said I agree with you...lending Bitcoin for fiat is a very bad idea generally speaking, and if history is any guide it usually ends very poorly.
I agree thar credit is necesaary and important. We still have to figure out a sustainble and fair
credit system, but fiat bank credit is definelty not the way to go.
I agree with what you said about being anti cypherpunk, but the other two are a stretch imo.
The founding fathers surely all took loans against their collateral at one point or another and Austrian economics leaves plenty of room for banks to operate however they and the market see fit.
I'm sure many bitcoiners will get their stacks wiped out by doing this and it's completely their choice to take that risk or not. Thats the free market.
I don't see Bitcoin backed loans the same way I see mortgages or car loans for two reasons primarily. One is that anyone taking a bitcoin backed loan is never in debt. They are making a trade by paying interest and staking collateral (that's potentially the anti cypherpunk part) If the loan fails they don't end up in shackles, they just lose their collateral.
Looking at these products from another angle you can see that they are enabling anyone to engage in a speculative attack. The more this is done effectively the faster fiat dies and it results in less Bitcoin being available on the open market.
I don't think there's anything to get worked up over at the moment. If we found out that strike was using collateral to get into a short position that would be a huge scandal, but they aren't that stupid.
I thought this might have been about strike since it was directed at Jack.
Time will tell regarding the speculative attack. I'm not an MSTR fan boy, but Saylor is leading the charge on that one.
Whether it works or it doesn't work it'll be epic to watch 🤙
Jack asked if there’s people that actually believe strike or other companies want to trigger liquidations. I answer with honestly.