So Bitwise and Van folded like a weak chair 🪑
Login to reply
Replies (47)
NOPE. THEY BOTH COMMITTED TO SUPPORTING DEVS. THEY ARE LEGIT.
THE OTHER ETFS DID NOT SUPPORT DEVS. ONE SPECIFICALLY WAS GOING TO AND PULLED OUT AFTER TALKING TO SAYLOR. I DO NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE MENTIONING WHICH ONE BUT IT WAS INCREDIBLY DISAPPOINTING. I TRIED TO HANDLE IT PRIVATELY BUT IT HAS BEEN OVER THREE MONTHS SO FELT LIKE IT SHOULD BE MADE PUBLIC.
👋 Hey! Interested in a new opportunity?💼 Join a company changing lives! Act now - don't miss out!💰 Make $3,000 daily, $15,000 weekly!👇 Join here: 
Telegram
Telegram: Contact @Walmartinvestmentloans
So it’s Blockrock
This what people waiting for. The money shot 😂
Fidelity maybe?
Sounds like something Ark would do
Storing this data for later analysis Orange Leader o7
Thank you again💜
I know everyone is a spook these days with their own motives but I don't think Saylor has the juice to tell BLK or Fidelity who are 500X his size what to do lol. But this was way more helpful than the original post, thanks Odell.
#TeamODELL 
I don't want ETFs anywhere near bitcoin development.
Allegedly since there is no evidence and all
I'm guessing ARK, but I hope not. I would think they understand the importance of supporting the devs, but they haven't made the same commitment as the others.
Man of the people
My money is on Ark
Confusing af
Vida larga a los devs 🫡
Probably Fidelity, as they hold some of Saylor’s coins.
🫡💪
FUCK THE HATERS
ETFs have no business investing client money into devs or anything besides spot… that’s some fiat bullshit. Individuals can decide if they want to be charitable or not.
I can't read all caps. it hurts my eyes
I can't read it. allcaps hurt my sanity
Sounds like Fidelity to me
Gonna guess Ark
If the claim is true, it would be helpful to include Saylor’s rationale. Maybe he’s got a good point…maybe a point like funding should be through things like opensats and not through corporations.
The logical question then would be why is Saylor concerned about the direction the devs are taking?
It’s all so tiresome. Never thought the ETFs and Michael would consume the open source funding discussions. Moving on! @ODELL
Because of Saylor? Come on. What influence does he have over one of these big banks. Like, who gives a fuck what he thinks. This sounds like high school drama bullshit.
Am I not saying that you didn’t hear that but I question why an etf provider would care what he says. I still don’t understand that logic
It’s still confusing to the point of just not making sense.
Saylor could make any number of opinionated arguments for his position.
But threatening to “crush” an ETF for supporting open development?
I simply don’t understand the financial mechanics. Are you certain the guidance was issued this way? As a threat?
What’s his motivation?
🌶️🌶️🌶️🥵 content
Saylor is correct in this situation. Cooperation sponsoring devs directly opens up a whole new can of worms
Not it doesn't. It is nothing new. Especially in Bitcoin circles.
If anything, they would do the opposite of what Saylor tells them. After all aren't they competitors?
Yes.
Saylor is DAN
Big Pharma fund doctors and researchers.
That didn't go too well.
True
THATS A REAL SPICY AND URGENT TO BE AWARE, AND MORE THAN THAT TO TAKE ACTION! HOPE TO SEE HIM AND YOU IN CITADEL DISPACH!
So Saylor is campaigning against Bitcoin development? So disappointing...
DAN it and will DAN again
What you are insinuating ?
How would Saylor “crush” an ETF? 🤔
That makes no sense
What about the Iranian national guard ?
Odell = Good Thanos