Bitcoin's sound money aligns with our ancestral pursuit of unadulterated value.

The paradox of successful money is that everyone wants to keep it. The paradox of useful money is that nobody does.

🎯 PoW🤙🧡

I'm not smart enough to understand what you mean Don't treasury companies arbitrage the difference in rate of bitcoin growth and cost of borrowing? How does using bitcoin as currency change that?

Very true Jeffrey, the supply side acceptance of Bitcoin is missing.

Like gold - if you build derivative games on top of bitcoin (inflationary money) and people use it, and try to get higher interest rates in it to keep up with prices going up, many people will choose that (they need the income to support prices unnaturally rising and it “seems” like a safe bet. That centralizes bitcoin and the store of value ceases to be a good store of value because the rules change (Like gold) Fortunately, this is protocol and the nodes matter. When that day arrives- and it surely will if this continues, there will be a fork and the coin that has the leverage on top of it versus the one being used in the economy will likely fail (as will all claims on top of it. (like bcash) Just the long and winding road we must go through to for bitcoin to move us from a zero sum game to an infinite game.

The treasury company model, at least in its current form -- loaded up with preferreds -- requires NGU, and by a lot. Are you saying that, for the price to increase a lot, we need bitcoin to be used for payments? The problem, I think, is medium of exchange will benefit from less volatility. But number go up (a lot) needs volatility. So, do the treasury companies really want to push a medium of exchange narrative? I dont think so? 🤔

Like gold - if you build derivative games on top of bitcoin (inflationary money) and people use it, and try to get higher interest rates in it to keep up with prices going up, many people will choose that (they need the income to support prices unnaturally rising and it “seems” like a safe bet. That centralizes bitcoin and the store of value ceases to be a good store of value because the rules change (Like gold) Fortunately, this is protocol and the nodes matter. When that day arrives- and it surely will if this continues, there will be a fork and the coin that has the leverage on top of it versus the one being used in the economy will likely fail (as will all claims on top of it. (like bcash) Just the long and winding road we must go through to for bitcoin to move us from a zero sum game to an infinite game.

Really well said. Thanks @Jeff Booth

🙏

Ah OK, So if i can reword it to confirm i understand: If treasury companies succeed in centralizing bitcoin the systemic risk is that they will have to fork to make the debt built on top solvent Could an mstr win by collecting the bitcoin using the debt and defaulting on the leverage on the fiat currency if bitcoin remains decentralized and secure?

Doubt it - becomes too intertwined and is a part of default inflationary system. Investors, government, bonds, stock market, etc etc. Payments is the way they “might” get their cake and eat it too - but how many people will spend it versus getting interest. Incentives matter.

This is uncomfortable to read but it is completely TRUE and needs to be said. I repost it!

Bitcoins value is the ability to monetarily exit the control system. Let’s build financial products so you don’t leave the control system, and Bitcoin is never used as money 💀

Interesting,thanks you for for the lesson I appreciate how you always teach me so much

Thank you. Very thought provoking and appreciated. Sorry for the delayed response. Your thinking is next level. Mine is not. So I am learning and appreciate your patience. My understanding... Derivatives on gold effectively increase the supply, putting downward pressure on price through rehypothication. In other words, paper gold and physical gold are treated as (near) perfect substitutes. I think this describes the situation? I am not sure that investors in treasury company preferreds are treating them as substitutes to bitcoin. I think they are betting bitcoin's price will go up "enough" over time (and Strategy's holdings and ability to attract capital will remain sufficient) to keep the dividends coming, and ideally keep the preferred price near par. Conversely, investors in Strategy common are largely betting bitcoin goes up a lot. Around Saylor's assumption of a 30% CAGR. With leverage provided by the converts and preferred, the common is a leveraged bet on bitcoin. Strategy is not (yet) lending out its bitcoin. Its shares are not perfect substitues. So I dont see rehypothication from their activities. Instead, I see Strategy bringing capital to the network by facilitating an more granular alignment of risk appetite for various investors. That is the value that Saylor is creating. He is building Bitcoin's yield curve. But, again, I dont see the value coming from rehypothication or increased supply from substitutes. I dont see a centralization of control from these activities. So I am not sure we will need a fork. Or the medium of exchange use case to solve the problem, etc. But, again, I fully appreciate your thinking is beyond mine in many ways. Just thought I would be transparent, if it helps align our communities view of the situation and risks?

Lol, Jeff don’t give them ideas! 😂

ты знаешь английский лучше меня если ты понимаешь что Джефф написал 🤣 😜

Once I truly understood this part of what Jeff was saying, it all clicked for me.

Yes, only using Bitcoin as money will they fullfil its purpose. By the way, Jeff, check this out:

What If the Pyramids Were a Monetary System?

The Great Pyramid contains roughly 2.3 million stones. What if each one was a monetary unit recorded in plain sight for all of civilization to verify?

You know I keep thinking I might just be getting it then Jeff says something and I'm back to nope I understand nothing

That why we wrote about Bitcoin Native Yield via Lightning framework. It’s the first step for most companies.

Those Treasury companies could - to some extent - play the central bank game in the Bitcoin world by dumping a high number of BTC to the market and make the price in Fiat drop short term, then buy cheaper than they sold. (Similar to what we saw just these days, with ridiculous 32 BTC on June 1st.)

Isn't that return just hijacking the "return" that would otherwise be there if everyone self custodied? I mean if all these ETF's and treasury companies didn't exist and the only way to get btc was actually owning it wouldn't that force all these entities into the only method available?

There’s no limit to how much we can learn - individually and collectively - and we’re all on different points of our own paths

😂😂😂

💯

Goat. View quoted note →

Agreed, I think all of us should be spending more our energy towards using Bitcoin as a medium of exchange.

I think this is the root of it all that others haven’t been able to nail down

I love first principles thinking so hard.

💯

The friction to spend is still too high for the average user. If they truly believed in the currency thesis, they would build rails instead of just accumulating piles.

I finally bought a sandwich with bitcoin at a square pos and it was awesome and easy. The hardest part was building the confidence to ask for it. It should just pop up without anyone having to mention Bitcoin.

You folks investing in the spend your BTC narrative over at Ego Death?

🎯

it's like opening one of those jurassic parks

This is a fundamentally self-contradictory statement: "That is the value that Saylor is creating. He is building Bitcoin's yield curve." Bitcoin has no yield, so building a yield curve just means reintroducing the credit-money stack that bitcoin was designed to retire: someone, somewhere, is now taking leverage and credit risk so that "bitcoin" can pay a coupon it cannot natively pay. With MSTR and the preferreds, we are very much on a path towards what Jeff is describing: 1. Over time, more of the money that would've just bought bitcoin buys the yield product instead, because it pays income and feels safer. At the margin, the preferred quietly becomes a substitute for buying bitcoin. Not in today's snapshot, but that's the direction every year this thing grows. 2. Strategy doesn't lend its coins, but the preferred itself becomes collateral out in the world. One coin sits reserved while the claim on it gets pledged and borrowed against again and again, in margin accounts and structured products. 3. Even if none of that happened: moving more and more coins off the network into a handful of company balance sheets, parked at two or three custodians, is centralization on its own. These all contribute to the centralization of bitcoin when you have infinitely expanding claims on top of a fixed base. Eventually, when there is a bank run, the system tries to change the rules to stay solvent. Because of the nodes and the protocol, it will not succeed this time.

They are all regulated by the State anyway, which means they forfeit Bitcoin's entire value proposition of being money that the State can't control. Bring regulated by the State also makes them a branch of the very State that Bitcoin defunds. The State will weaponize these companies in their fight against separation of Money from State. If Bitcoin survives, these companies will not.

MSTR’s coins are still part of the network. They just have contracts with preferred shareholders to pay them in fiat later for fiat provided now. Investors in the common have contractual ownership over future balance sheet assets. Both are taking on counterparty risk of course but the network itself doesn’t care.

Can I send you a deck?

Yes to ego death contact email and please mention me.

Will do thanks Jeff

Just shot it over through the contact form a moment ago. Cheers 🙂

Jeff. I just completed a podcast with Matt Crosby from bitcoin magazine pro. We discussed the

Sovereignty Summit 2027

Sound money, sovereign life. Coronet Peak, Queenstown · 2–3 April 2027.

coming up next year. Would you consider coming on my podcast and discussing it?.

Sent DM.

Don’t ask don’t get

Hmmm. Interesting. Hadn’t thought of it quite like that.

Stable coins are just basically central bank digital currency

Does it require Bitcoin to be a currency or capital? In my opinion capital = currency + store of value

Signal

Doesn’t Gresham’s law dictate that Bitcoin will always be hoarded as long as it’s the superior money?

That would be smart if they weren't cantillionaires