You raise reasonable points regarding how some of the initial bitcoin accumulation justifications might flow (and we have to remember that these are the earliest of adopters coming in as countries, companies and/or rich individuals in their earliest of stages of starting to figure out bitcoin's value proposition), yet one of the problems for governments, institutions and even individuals is that the more that they learn about bitcoin, the more bullish they likely are becoming about bitcoin based on their growing understanding of what the hell it is, and they can sometimes start to become more bullish based on incomplete understandings of bitcoin (merely number go up understandings), and so it might take some of them a bit of time to figure out that bitcoin is more than just number go up and some of the other attributes of bitcoin contribute to why its number has been going up and is quite likely to continue to go up. 

So, governments, institutions and even individuals may well start out considering that they will just accumulate 1% or some modest amount in their budget (investment portfolio allocation), and then they continue to find more and more and more reasons to increase their cornz allocation and it becomes a bit of an unstoppable snowballing of the accumulation of bitcoin.

Another thing seems to be that there are early adopters, and they realize that they are early, and they also realize an incentive to front-run others who might also be early adopters yet also those who have not yet sufficiently figured out bitcoin and/or are not acting upon their knowledge of bitcoin in order to accumulate bitcoin.. which maybe is just another way of saying information asymmetry motivates more early adopting, front-loading and front-running. and with the passage of time, these dynamics do not really settle down since we are still so early to bitcoin.. and yeah, we can frequently consider ways that bitcoin is broken or might be broken, but the more information that any of us has, we likely consider that bitcoin is way less not broken than it is broken, so even if we might feel quite ignorant in terms of the various ways that bitcoin is broken or might break, we still likely recognize that even if bitcoin is broken or might break, there still are reasons to get some in case it catches on... which surely it used to be the case to just say 1% to 5% allocations to bitcoin, yet more and more are understanding that 5% to 25% allocations to bitcoin are also quite reasonable, and surely there are a decent number who are rationalizing that it is reasonable to allocate more than 25% to bitcoin.

Some might conclude that we just don't have enough bitcoin, or at least the ongoing demands upon bitcoin are going to continue to cause bitcoin prices to go up which make the smaller and smaller units to be more valuable, and even 10 years ago, there were folks still considering that 100 BTC stashes could reasonably be reached, but then sometime around the 2017 bullrun personal stashes of 10-30 bitcoin started to be more reasonable targets, and in 2021-2023, there were still thoughts of 1-5 bitcoin, so now it has already become quit an elite proposition to suggest that greater than 1 BTC is reasonably reachable by any particular normie.  We should already be able to see the path in which 0.1 to 0.5 BTC are no longer reachable by an overwhelming number of normies, even if they start to accumulate bitcoin within as aggressive of an approach that they might be able to accomplish within their own cashflow and savings  situations.

Many of us likely realize that some entities are likely continuing to fractional reserve bitcoin based on clients believing that they have the bitcoin that they claim to have, and some of their clients are likely going to find out the hard way that such fractional reserve practices are taking place, at some point, and that several of the third-party custodians do not have even close to the quantity of bitcoin that they claim to have.

We likely can logically deduce that many countries, institutions and/or individuals are going to end up suffering some kind of bitcoin rug pull, yet at the same time, they also may be screwing their own little selfies in some of their own cashflow management practices... and yeah, some of the countries will be printing their fiat to buy bitcoin and others may well not be advantaged by bitcoin in terms of their own inabilities to spend within their means, so they will continue to abuse debt like they have historically done, and bitcoin may not end up advantaging them if they don't figure out how to manage their budgets even within a state actor or even large corporation kind of way, and it seems that bitcoin will still reward the prudent rather than the reckless. .... including recognizing and/or appreciating the power of holding your own keys (to at least a decently large proportion of your stash), yet we are still witnessing how these matters are going to play out in the coming years as larger and larger players are coming to bitcoin, yet some of the same fundamentals about bitcoin still apply to them, even if some of the larger entities have been so spoiled by fiat and their status in the fiat debt system, that they might not recognize the power of sound money and/or following prudent cashflow management practices.


That seems to be pointing out the level of early that we continue to be, and surely some sovereigns and/or quasi-governmental bodies might find it more convenient to get exposure through ETFs, and others might consider some form of self-custody or ways to have strong checks on their custodians (private custodial arrangements), so the solutions in regards to how they hold their bitcoin might not be clear, and even Bhutan does not seem to be completely transparent regarding their bitcoin holdings. and they seem to have a lot, relative to their size (GDP, budget and population).


You are expressing a truth that seems to apply whether you are a government, institution or individual.  Those with greater discretionary income have more options to buy bitcoin and even more options to screw things up but still end up accumulating more bitcoin than those with smaller levels of discretionary income..... yet at the same time, it seems to me that a decent number of governments, institutions and individuals are going to get ahead of the similarly-situated (or better off) status quo governments, institutions and individuals based on their level of aggressiveness in accumulating bitcoin within their means and without screwing things up, so they may well be way smaller and with fewer resources, yet bitcoin may well end up contribute towards their relative advancement in the pack of relative comparisons.


I think that Trump had set forth various internally contradicting positions, yet many of the revised (and actual putting into practice) situations have been largely focused on the accumulation of bitcoin and just a recognition of shitcoins without really considering them as actual reserve assets.

I am a bit more torn on the bullshit around stable coins and/or some of Trump's (and his families) seeming grifting with shitcoins, stable coins and even including bitcoin in their own accumulation targets.. which still tends to be bullish for bitcoin, even though surely they may well fuck things up with their own involvement and even various pushing of limits in regards to various personal gains from the presidency position from Trump himself, his family and the various ways that he seems to employ nepotism (or is it love/hate relations?) - might we even include some of the Elon drama in this... which likely confuses a lot of people in regards to how drama can play out and even if some of it might be staged.


Hahahahaha.. Quite funny that Connecticut law makers seem retarded, and one of the consequences of their retardedness will be that it may well take several years before they recognize and/or appreciate the gravity of their screw up.

Whether we are talking about governments, institutions or individuals, they are subject to the same kinds of errors in their thinking in regards to being hostile to bitcoin based on wrong and/or incomplete knowledge, and those no coiners, low coiners are likely going to suffer from their choices...and even the whimpy accumulators of bitcoin will likely be way better off for merely taking some kind of a bitcoin position that involves getting the fuck off zero...so then there are at least a couple of errors which are either being hostile to bitcoin and the other one is failing/refusing to get off zero.. .and so other errors of being whimpy remains less detrimental than the errors of hostility and/or refusing to get off zero.


As many of us likely realize, there can be a bit of a mal-incentive for countries and local governments to be accumulating bitcoin (and/or shitcoins) through confiscation.... Many of the laws around confiscation can be unjust, yet it is also unjust for countries to print money and steal from the population by diluting the currency, even though many countries do engage in printing and currency dilution.


What an arrogant dweeb.  Even though there are ambitions to "dominate crypto and bitcoin," and even though that pumps the bags of current bitcoin holders, it is an arrogant kind of goal, and surely reflect the mindset and desire of a lot of governments to want to control and dominate, when bitcoin is not really designed in that kind of a "proof of stake" kind of a way... even though Trump seems to be talking about bitcoin as a kind of proof of stake system (which ultimately pumps the bags of bitcoin HODLers).

On the other hand, I do agree that bitcoin incentivizes early adoption.. and I suppose attempts to dominate.. but the country (even the USA) has to figure out ways to spend within it's limits and to make sure to not fuck up whatever bitcoin holdings they end up being able to establish... by hook or by crook.. Can you imagine (as many have asserted to be possible) for the USA to nationalize MSTR's stash?  and other draconian governmental behaviors in the process of their trying to be Hungry Hippo with the bitcoin.

"

https://merchantwise.com/brand/hungry-hungry-hippos/#:~:text=Hungry%20Hungry%20Hippos%20is%20a,most%20marbles%20wins%20the%20game.


Your response reminds me of the short-sightedness of many earlier adopters of bitcoin who somewhat recognized the future value of bitcoin, yet they spent so much effort to search out and participate in "free bitcoin giveaways" when the likely smarter move would have had been for them to either buy from their regular income or to figure out ways to increase their discretionary income so that they could accumulate bitcoin through their regular income rather than fucking around with "free bitcoin," which likely ended up with their having way smaller of a bitcoin stash than what they could have had if they had chosen to have been more aggressive rather than purposefully whimpy (and cheapskates) in their bitcoin accumulation practices.  Even $10 per week  in the past 10-14 years would have brought amazing results in terms of returns on the money invested, and of course, higher weekly amounts would have had been even better for those who might have been capable of generating higher levels of BTC accumulation based on their having discretionary income that they were purposefully choosing to not use to accumulating bitcoin.