StackSats.IO's avatar
StackSats.IO StackSatsIO@nostr.com.au 1 year ago
Saylor: “It doesn’t have to be a currency … Medium of Exchange is a distraction” Are you prepared to oppose Saylor? Because that is coming. He is not a Bitcoiner, he’s a BitcoinBug here for NGU only. He will happily accede to the State if he can keep his coins.
StackSats.IO's avatar StackSats.IO
Saylor’s new line about #Bitcoin being “digital property not digital currency” is purely political and said for his own self interests. His company is a prime target for BTC seizure, if Bitcoin does threaten USD hegemony they’re going to knock on his door first. It’s in his interest that Bitcoin only be viewed as a SoV asset - more HODLers reduces liquid supply and pressures prices upwards. If it becomes broadly used as MoE, regardless of what layer, that will agitate the US Gov and cause them to fight back more and he knows that increases the risk to him and MSTR. Don’t naively buy the line just because he said it. Your interests might align with him today but you should expect to be on the other side to him on multiple things in future and this issue will be one of them. View quoted note →
View quoted note →

Replies (16)

TheGrinder's avatar
TheGrinder thegrinder@nostrplebs.com 1 year ago
In the event of the US gov attempting an nation wide asset seizure because of Bitcoin bring an "electronic peer to peer cash system", it would only affect a small portion of less than 5 percent of the global population. The other 95 percent doesn't give a fuck what the US Gov wants or does. Seized coins = lost coins making everyone's coinsore valuable. Or the gov dumps them back to the market like the DOJ just did In either way, Bitcoin is not just a store of value because it's more convenient for Michael and his friends.
StackSats.IO's avatar StackSats.IO
Saylor: “It doesn’t have to be a currency … Medium of Exchange is a distraction” Are you prepared to oppose Saylor? Because that is coming. He is not a Bitcoiner, he’s a BitcoinBug here for NGU only. He will happily accede to the State if he can keep his coins. View quoted note →
View quoted note →
RamenCoffee's avatar
RamenCoffee 1 year ago
He can think he's buying himself time, but in effect, he's buying us time and buying power. If he monetizes the asset as a gold-like asset, the network is still permissionless and we can still settle transactions without anyone beig able to stop us. Functionally, it doesn't matter that he sleeps on his growing pile, all it does is give a market to settle for dollars at the end of the day. He can never have a say about like e-cash settling on Bitcoin or LN or whatever. In the end he's fulfilling his role in the ecosystem and we are fulfilling ours. nbd really.
1 replies ↓
StackSats.IO's avatar
StackSats.IO StackSatsIO@nostr.com.au 1 year ago
Unless of course he’s a CIA front as @Magoo PhD speculates.. Still, if I’m gonna look at Saylor on a scale to Bill Gates, whether he is an asset or not, if I’m forced to choose I know which one is getting the guillotine and which is spared. My point is more, quit blindly trusting him. He’s in this for himself. He has said as much about his legacy. You’re likely to end up in a fork war with Saylor on one side and it will be the side best for him, not best for Bitcoin.
2 replies ↓
RamenCoffee's avatar
RamenCoffee 1 year ago
Look, the most likely failure mode of Saylor is him blowing up from debt. Your current argument is that Saylor can tell us on what to agree on, when we walked in voluntarily agreeing on a certain type of rule. That's just not going to happen. The only way anyone cen get this to stick is to wait at least one generation.
Justin_Tokyo's avatar
Justin_Tokyo 1 year ago
I think Saylor has enough understanding on how political systems work. As a founder of a publicly-traded company and being at the forefront of this arbitrage, I am sure he weighs his words carefully.
Chris's avatar
Chris 1 year ago
Justin and NgU get it….the author of this note seems not to.
Piriya ⚡🟧's avatar
Piriya ⚡🟧 piriya@rightshift.to 1 year ago
I'd say each to his own, but does money work if it can't be used as money? Can Bitcoin holds its' value if it doesn't ultimately become both SoV and Currency? I don't think so, you just can't have one without the other, or can you? One could use gold as an argument, but when gold was reduced to just SoV it also lost most of its monetary demand. The problem is, NGU need that monetary demand to keep Bitcoin healthy and strong.
StackSats.IO's avatar StackSats.IO
Saylor: “It doesn’t have to be a currency … Medium of Exchange is a distraction” Are you prepared to oppose Saylor? Because that is coming. He is not a Bitcoiner, he’s a BitcoinBug here for NGU only. He will happily accede to the State if he can keep his coins. View quoted note →
View quoted note →
2 replies ↓
Default avatar
npub1vxae...8e3w 1 year ago
Agreed. Saylor is trying to buy time for himself (and us I believe) to stack sats, write code, and infect people with liberty. I hope it works because this police state will suck to leave to the next generation if we don’t steer the ship.
BTC_P2P's avatar
BTC_P2P 1 year ago
SoV is the use case the world needs and the one Bitcoin is engineered perfectly for. Bitcoin is always easily transferable at low volume but it doesn’t scale as a medium of exchange yet.
techfeudalist 's avatar
techfeudalist 1 year ago
It seems like we’re fighting the blocksize wars again. All those Bcashers thought bitcoin should be internet money and a medium of exchange too. Bitcoin is our hope to replace central banks. We need to stay focused on the goal.
↑