Search content
Sort by

Showing 11 of 11 results by Orluemma
Post
Topic
Board Nigeria (Naija)
Re: Naija Novice Hangout {Newbies introduction & Orientation} Thread.
by
Orluemma
on 16/06/2025, 19:28:43 UTC
Username : orluemma
Gender:  male
Skill: graphic designer,instrumentalist

I have been three months here and i would love to learn how to grow in this space
Post
Topic
Board Economics
Re: Central banks and financial instutions selling gold to retail to buy crypto
by
Orluemma
on 16/06/2025, 18:50:02 UTC
Retail buying gold and banks selling them to buy crypto.
Gold is useless for banks in the new financial system gold is not corruption free like btc or crypto there is no actual track of gold how much gold is minted and controlled so bankers don't need gold they need btc and crypto.
Retail buying gold so bankers selling gold and buying crypto.
The biggest secret is that banks buying crypto a lot not gold the gold is for retail buyers.

Even If gold have utility and use case then corporations want to buy gold for cheap off course they do that when gold crashing while btc and crypto will go up.
All this gold shilling what's going on is just for bankers to get rid of their gold and buy btc you see brics nations buying up gold so that gomex of western countries can use gold futures to manipulate gold price up without even buying gold with eur usd or gbp currency.

Gold now is biggest dump project on the silly retail traders with the help of india and china together with wall street and western bankers.


Honestly, I think what’s happening with central banks and financial institutions selling gold to the public is kind of revealing. It’s not just about gold as an investment—it’s about trust.

Central banks usually guard their gold like a dragon guards treasure, right? But now, some of them are quietly allowing regular people to access tiny slices of that same gold. Coins, bars, digital tokens, gold-backed bonds whatever form it takes, the message is the same:

“We know people are worried about inflation, about weak currencies, about instability… so here’s a more solid option.”


It’s not them dumping gold or trying to get rid of it. In fact, many central banks are buying more gold behind the scenes. What they’re doing is kind of strategic—they’re giving the public access to gold as a safety valve. It’s like saying:

 “We still control the system, but if you need to protect yourself, here’s something trusted.”


To me, that’s powerful. Gold isn’t just an ancient relic anymore. It’s becoming relevant again not as the main currency, but as a quiet backup. A side-door out of a failing system.

And you can see the shift happening especially in countries with economic trouble Turkey, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, India. In those places, people don’t want to hold cash anymore. They trust gold more than their own currency. And governments are realizing it’s better to let them hold gold, in a controlled way, than to push them toward dollars or crypto.

So my take?

If you’re in a country where inflation is rising or the local currency is shaky, owning some gold makes sense—even just a gram at a time.

But be smart. Don’t just buy anything that says “gold.” Look into how it’s stored, if you can redeem it, how easy it is to sell later.

And finally this might be a sign that the world is slowly drifting away from total faith in fiat money. Not overnight, but step by step. And that’s worth paying attention to.
Post
Topic
Board Economics
Topic OP
Bitcoin layer 2s and scaling tech
by
Orluemma
on 16/06/2025, 18:15:57 UTC


🚀 Making Bitcoin Fast, Cheap & Ready for Everyone: Layer 2s

So here’s the thing Bitcoin is amazing when it comes to security and being a decentralized store of value, but let’s be honest: it’s not the best when it comes to speed or low fees for everyday payments. That’s where Layer 2 technologies come in they’re like add-ons that make Bitcoin faster, cheaper, and more useful without messing with its core foundation.

Let’s break it down 👇


⚡ 1. Lightning Network (LN)

This is the big one. Think of it like a fast lane built on top of Bitcoin.
You can send or receive Bitcoin instantly, and it costs almost nothing.
It’s great for small stuff like buying coffee, tipping online, or sending money across borders.
Apps like Strike, Cash App, and Wallet of Satoshi already use it, and it’s spreading fast.


Why people love it: It's fast and private.
What’s still tricky: It can be a little technical to use, especially for people who aren’t Bitcoin nerds yet.


🏛️ 2. Fedimint – Community-powered Bitcoin banks

This one is new and exciting. It’s all about local communities setting up their own mini-banks to share Bitcoin in a more private way.

You don’t need to deal with big exchanges.
You can hold Bitcoin privately, and even grandma in the village could use it if someone sets it up for her.
It’s perfect for places where the government can’t be trusted or banks don’t work.

Real-world vibe: Local people, local Bitcoin, global freedom.
Backed by: Obi Nwosu, a respected Bitcoin advocate.


🧩 3. Ark Protocol – Still early, but looks promising
This one’s still in development, but here’s the cool idea:
You can receive Bitcoin without being online.
You don’t need to open special channels or deal with the headaches of other tech.
It focuses on privacy you can send and receive money without anyone watching.
It's not ready yet for the masses, but the idea is gaining attention in Bitcoin dev circles.


🧠 So, Why Should You Care About Layer 2?

Because without them, Bitcoin would never be able to scale to billions of people using it every day.

Right now, Bitcoin can only handle 7 transactions per second. Visa handles thousands. If we want Bitcoin to be used globally — in Nigeria, Argentina, the US, everywhere — it has to work better, faster, and cheaper. That’s what Layer 2s help with.


⚔️ The Big Debate in the Bitcoin World

Some people say:

> “Let Bitcoin be digital gold. Don’t mess with it. Just hold and forget.”

Others say:

> “If Bitcoin is going to actually help people escape bad currencies and oppressive systems, it has to be usable — not just something you store.”

Honestly? They both have a point. That’s why these Layer 2 solutions are such a big deal — they let us keep Bitcoin’s rock-solid base, but make it usable on top.


🎯 The Bottom Line

Bitcoin Layer 2s are opening the door to things like:
Everyday spending
Borderless micro-payments
Better privacy
Community ownership

Less reliance on banks or middlemen
It’s Bitcoin growing up — not by changing its DNA, but by building better tools around
Post
Topic
Board Economics
Re: Giovanni Santostasi - The Bitcoin Power Law Theory
by
Orluemma
on 16/06/2025, 18:01:01 UTC

Adding to what’s been said here, I think the core of Giovanni’s Power Law Theory is less about trying to predict exact prices and more about understanding Bitcoin’s deep structural behavior over time and the consistency of that behavior in mathematical terms. It’s refreshing because instead of chasing short-term market noise or narratives, it takes a step back and asks: What if Bitcoin behaves like a natural law?

Now, sure, some folks (like franky1) rightly point out that adjusting parameters across cycles weakens the “law” status. That’s a fair critique if your model needs constant tweaking, is it really a law or just a fancy fit? But I’d argue that what Giovanni is offering isn’t about perfection; it’s about probabilistic guidance. That’s still valuable, especially in a space where chaos and speculation are the norms.

Also, what struck me was the analogy to living systems cities, mountains, even organisms. That’s powerful. It reframes Bitcoin not just as digital gold or a financial tool, but as something with its own internal logic, a kind of economic biology driven by scarcity, time, and energy.

Where this theory shines is in its philosophical implications:

Bitcoin isn’t just “money” it’s a self-governing system of economic order.

Halving doesn’t break it it amplifies the law of conservation.

Scarcity isn’t a constraint it’s the source of its value continuity.

That said, we should be cautious about hero-worshipping any one model. Giovanni’s work is exciting, but science thrives on falsifiability. If it’s a real theory, it should hold up under scrutiny, over time, and without needing to fudge the inputs every few years.

Maybe the real takeaway isn’t that he’s predicted the future but that he’s pointing us toward a different way of thinking about Bitcoin: not just in charts and cycles, but in laws and lifecycles.
Post
Topic
Board Economics
Re: Everything you wanted to know about Bitcoin Strategic Reserve
by
Orluemma
on 16/06/2025, 17:54:40 UTC
Lately, the idea of a Bitcoin Strategic Reserve (BSR) has surfaced in many news reports. The idea that the US could use Bitcoin as a strategic reserve has proven fundamental to propelling the price of bitcoin through the 100K barrier.

In this thread, I will explain what a Strategic Reserve is and how a Bitcoin Reserve is relevant.

1. Definition of a Strategic Reserve
2. The current proposal: B.I.T.C.O.I.N. Act
3. Implementation details: how could it be done
4. Price expectations from a BSR launch
5. Other implementations around the world
6. Opinions and thoughts from other stakeholders
7. Market expectations
8. Links and documents



1. Definition of a Strategic Reserve

A strategic reserve is a stockpile of critical resources set aside by a government, large institution, or other entity for use in exceptional circumstances — such as emergencies, severe supply disruptions, wars, or periods of extreme market volatility.
Unlike regular inventories that cycle through daily usage, strategic reserves are intentionally maintained as a buffer against uncertainty, ensuring stability and security in times of crisis.

Strategic reserves have a few characteristics that are unique and make them different from standard storage:
  • Long-Term Storage: strategic reserves are typically stored for extended periods and released only when severe disruptions occur.
  • Critical Nature of Resources: The commodities or assets involved are essential to national security, economic stability, or societal well-being.
  • Controlled Access: governments or top-level governing bodies usually oversee the maintenance, release, and replenishment of these reserves, guided by well-defined protocols.

For example, the United States currently has two principal strategic reserves.

  • Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR): after the oil crisis in the '70s, the US government decided to create a stockpile of oil administered by the US Department of Energy to be used both to protect the US economy against extreme market price fluctuations or as a reserve to provide power to the domestic industrial activities in case of a supply chain problem, or war. Currently, the SPR has more than 390 barrels of oils (the maximum allowed capacity of the reserve is more than 700 million barrels) held in 4 salt caves along the Gulf of Mexico for a valuation of about more than 27 billion USD, with the WTI trading at around 75$ per barrel.
  • Gold Reserve : The US has the largest gold reserve in the world, with about 8,133.5 metric tons, totalling almost 700 billion USD in value. Nearly 65% of those reserves are held at the United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox.
    The Federal Government owns the gold. The government has issued "Gold Certificates" to the Federal Reserve Banks for a total amount of $11 billion. These certificate serves The Federal Reserve Banks as a small portion of collateral for the Federal Reserve Notes. The Federal Reserve doesn't own gold.

The US government has many other Strategic Reserves, including natural gas, grains, food, and cheese (it used to have raisins reserves until 2015).



2. The current proposal: B.I.T.C.O.I.N. Act

Cynthia Lummis, a Republican senator from Wyoming, introduced the idea of a Bitcoin Strategic Reserve in July. She has advocated for the US government to consider Bitcoin as part of its long-term strategic reserves. In the US Senate, she named the bill B.I.T.C.O.I.N. (Boosting Innovation, Technology and Competitiveness through Optimized Investment Nationwide) Act.

Quote
July 31, 2024
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Following her announcement of a historic proposal to supercharge the US dollar and pay down the national debt by establishing a strategic Bitcoin reserve, today US Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) officially introduced the Boosting Innovation, Technology and Competitiveness through Optimized Investment Nationwide (B.I.T.C.O.I.N.) Act in the US Senate.
"As families across Wyoming struggle to keep up with soaring inflation rates and our national debt reaches new and unprecedented heights, it is time for us to take bold steps to create a brighter future for generations to come by creating a strategic Bitcoin reserve," said Lummis. "Bitcoin is transforming not only our country but the world and becoming the first developed nation to use Bitcoin as a savings technology secures our position as a global leader in financial innovation. This is our Louisiana Purchase moment that will help us reach the next financial frontier."
The B.I.T.C.O.I.N. Act establishes a strategic Bitcoin reserve to serve as an additional store of value to bolster America's balance sheet and ensure the transparent management of Bitcoin holdings of the Federal Government. Specifically, the legislation would:
  • Establish a decentralized network of secure Bitcoin vaults operated by the United States Department of Treasury with statutory requirements ensuring the highest level of physical and cybersecurity for the nation's Bitcoin holdings.
  • Implement a 1-million-unit Bitcoin purchase program over a set period of time to acquire a total stake of approximately 5% of the total Bitcoin supply, mirroring the size and scope of gold reserves held by the United States.
  • Be paid for by diversifying existing funds within the Federal Reserve System and Treasury Department.
  • Affirm self-custody rights of private Bitcoin holders and emphasize that the strategic Bitcoin reserve shall not infringe upon individual financial freedoms.
Source

Her proposals and public statements outline a vision in which the US treats Bitcoin similarly to other strategic assets — such as gold — in its treasury holdings, which is getting an equal share of the world reserves of Bitcoin and gold under the US government control.

After the Trump election, the idea gained traction:

https://talkimg.com/images/2024/12/08/p1Jfg.jpeg

The Bitcoin Strategic Reserve would be enacted via a taxpayer-neutral operation, enabling the government to acquire 1 million bitcoins, hodling it for at least 20 years:

  • The reserve would be funded by marking the Fed's gold certificates to market value and selling them.
  • The government would use the surplus to buy bitcoin without using taxpayer money.
  • The Department of Justice would transfer the 208,000 bitcoins from the Silk Road case to the SBR.
  • The government will buy 200,000 bitcoins annually for four consecutive years.
  • The minimum hodling period would be of 20 years.

The "new" idea concerns repricing the Federal Reserve Certificates at mark-to-market valuations: the certificates were issued at a statutory gold price of $42.22/oz in 1973 and could now be valued at over $2,600/oz.

https://talkimg.com/images/2024/12/08/p1rHd.png

The gains obtained by this adjustment would enable spending without creating new debt, resulting in a neutral move regarding taxpayers' money.



3. Implementation Details: how could it be done

There are a few ways to transfer bitcoin to the Strategic Reserve:
  • Transfer bitcoins seized to the Treasury Department. The Department of Justice owns 208,000 bitcoins seized from the Silk Road trial. The bulk of the SBR could be instated by transferring those coins to the FED.
  • Open Market Purchases: the government would buy the bitcoin in the market, presumedly via a partnership with Coinbase. This would be the fastest way of obtaining bitcoins, yet the less efficient. For sure, the slippage (i.e. the price movement caused by the buying pressure) in this would be the highest.
  • Strategic Partnership with US Miners: this would be an ingenuous way of doing so. The government could buy the bitcoins mined in the US at an average price. This would benefit the miners with a stable price and the government limiting the market impact. The government could also collect taxes from mining firms directly in BTC and offer these subjects grants to tilt their electricity balance toward carbon neutrality via renewable energy sources or even facilitate ERCOT-style agreements with local grids (ERCOT: "Electric Reliability Council of Texas") agreement between the energy companies and miners to switch off miners during peak energy demand from the electric grids. This perfectly aligns with Donald Trump's vision of the industry.

    https://talkimg.com/images/2024/12/09/p5uew.png:

    Creating this kind of partnership with the private sector would benefit both the parties involved and the industry as a whole.




4. Price Expectations from a BSR launch

The launch of a Bitcoin Strategic Reserve would have an enormous impact on market price.
This would happen through different mechanisms:

  • Direct market impact: the buys would impact the market, directly affecting sellers. This could be somewhat mitigated through sophisticated buying strategies, as we have seen, but would dramatically change market microstructure anyway.
  • Indirect Market Impact: the launch of the first BSR would have very strong signalling toward other sovereign authorities, opening the race for the second BSR announcement. There will be a flywheel spinning, attracting other National Bank toward buying bitcoin, like today, there is a race to buy gold.
  • Model-induced Buying: the opening of BSR-induced buying is necessary to propel Bitcoin in the next phase of growth, something that is necessary for all the bullish models around (be it Stock to Flow, Power Law or S-Curve approach) to see their prediction come true. As long as those models are not "negated," the framework is bullish.

Having said that, assessing the precise impact of a BSR is quite tricky, but of course, the effect would be gargantuan.

A couple of predictions:


https://talkimg.com/images/2024/12/10/p71DC.jpeghttps://talkimg.com/images/2024/12/10/p7ogH.jpeg
Novogratz: 500K
Adam Back: Millions

As a ballpark, we could estimate the US buying impact based on what happened with the ETF launch. If the ETF propelled the price from 40K in January 2024 to 100K in December 2024 with 30 Billion in inflows, then 1 million bitcoins, or 100B inflows from the launch of the US SBR, could propel the market from 100K to 300K. This would account only for the first factor, leaving out the impact from factors 2 (Indirect Buying) and 3 (Model Induced Buying).



5. Other implementations are all around the world

Several countries have either established or are considering the creation of strategic Bitcoin reserves.

Amongst the established Bitcoin Reserves:
  • El Salvador: In September 2021, El Salvador became the first country to adopt Bitcoin as a legal tender. Since then, the government has accumulated approximately 5,940 bitcoins, valued at around $582 million as of November 2024. They perform both open market purchases (they are buying one bitcoin per day since) and mining operations.
  • Bhutan: The Kingdom of Bhutan has been mining Bitcoin using its hydroelectric resources since 2019. More info can be read here: Bhutan Built A Bitcoin Mine On The Site Of Its Failed 'Education City'.
    As of November 2024, Bhutan holds about 12,211 bitcoins worth over $1 billion.
    Contrary to other nations, Bhutan has been quite active in the market, regularly selling the bitcoin they mined.

Some other nations have proposed to instate a domestic SBR:




These make clear that the idea of an SRB is not a pure US-centric invention but rather a sensible proposal that could reshape the future of a diverse range of countries.
Apparently, there is more to come, and it is not difficult to believe what Prince Filip of Serbia, Jan3 Chief Strategy Officer, is reporting:

https://talkimg.com/images/2024/12/09/p426J.jpeg

Other states, according to bitcointreasuries.net, have some stash of bitcoin. Still, these do not constitute Bitcoin Strategic Reserves, as they are only seized bitcoins, often sold or temporarily held by the government, waiting to be sold on the market.



6. Opinions and Thoughts from Other Stakeholders

  • J. Powell
    https://talkimg.com/images/2024/12/09/p4Bwg.pnghttps://talkimg.com/images/2024/12/09/p4gEI.png
    Bitcoin is a competitor with gold, not the US dollar
    Fed's Powell says Bitcoin is just like gold, except it's digital
    The declaration that Bitcoin competes with gold as the store of value asset of choice sent the bitcoin price skyrocketing on Wednesday, Dec 6th, when Bitcoin finally broke the USD 100,000 price level for the first time.
  • Micheal Saylor first spoke about a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve at the Cantor Conference.
    https://talkimg.com/images/2024/12/09/p4p12.png
  • Robert F. Kennedy Jr. supported an alternative strategic reserve plan to acquire 5 million bitcoin.
  • Ro Khanna, a Democratic House Representative from California, was also supportive of the creation of a Bitcoin Reserve:
    Quote
    "We want to make sure that we have the openness to having bitcoin as part of the Federal Reserve and as a reserve asset because of its potential for appreciation and because of its potential to allow America to set the financial standards."
  • Bill Dudley rejected the idea of an SBR as its implementation would be highly impractical and risky.
    According to Dudley, adopting an SBR would only inflate the bitcoin price without a clear benefit to the US, which would be invested in a highly volatile, illiquid asset.
    Dudley also stated that the B.I.T.C.O.I.N. Act also needs a clear exit strategy.
    Source
  • Bitcoin Policy Institute: Digital Gold Evaluating a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve for the United States
    od.website-files.com/627aa615676bdd562bec97cd/672a72902d6238105d1d2068_BPI%20Policy%20Brief%20Digital%20Gold%202.pdf]https://talkimg.com/images/2024/12/09/p4LPW.png
    This essay from the Bitcoin Policy Institute is the best review of the BSR concept so far. It's a recommended read.
  • Eric Trump: told that BSR is going to happen as Donald Trump takes office.
    https://talkimg.com/images/2024/12/10/pBlJ3.png
  • Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee (TBAC) says that "Primary use case for Bitcoin seems to be a store of value aka digital gold."
    https://talkimg.com/images/2024/12/11/pgM3b.png



7. Market Expectation

How probable is the creation of an SBR?
There is a pool on Polymarket that places the probability of Trump going on with the proposal in the first 100 days at 29%:

https://talkimg.com/images/2024/12/09/p44Cb.png

The probability of this measure lies in the first 100 days, and the President can leverage this as a National Security Matter. This could mean he could issue an Executive Order to immediately instate the SBR as an alternative to the standard approval path through Congress.



8. Links and documents

Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Gold Holdings
United States Bullion Depository
Bitcoin Treasuries




This post is eligible for my project:


Quote
I am a firm believer in the utility of local boards.
I am lucky enough to be able to express myself in at least a couple of languages, but I know this is not the case for everyone.
Many users post only on the local boards for various reasons, such as language or cultural barriers, lack of interest, or other reasons.
I personally know many very good users (mainly from the Italian sections, for obvious reasons) who don't post in the international sections.

All those users are missing a lot of good content posted on the international (English) section or other boards.

If you think you can help here, visit the thread!


Lately, there's been growing buzz around the idea of a Bitcoin Strategic Reserve (BSR)  a concept where the U.S. government would hold Bitcoin in the same way it holds gold or oil. The idea isn’t as far-fetched as it may sound. In fact, some argue it's already influencing Bitcoin's price momentum past the $100,000 barrier.

But before we get carried away, it’s worth taking a closer look at what this proposal actually means, and more importantly, what we’re not talking about enough.


What is a Strategic Reserve?

A strategic reserve is basically a safety stockpile — a stash of critical resources that a government or large institution keeps aside to prepare for economic shocks, supply disruptions, or emergencies. These are usually items essential to national security or economic stability, like oil, natural gas, gold, or even grain.

In the U.S., two of the most famous examples are:

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR): where over 390 million barrels of oil are stored along the Gulf Coast.

The Gold Reserve: with over 8,000 metric tons of gold held mostly in Fort Knox, worth about $700 billion.


These assets serve as national insurance policies — not things to be spent casually, but to be tapped in times of crisis.


The Bitcoin Proposal: The B.I.T.C.O.I.N. Act

In July, U.S. Senator Cynthia Lummis proposed that the country create a Bitcoin Strategic Reserve. She introduced the B.I.T.C.O.I.N. Act — short for Boosting Innovation, Technology, and Competitiveness through Optimized Investment Nationwide. The core idea? Treat Bitcoin as a strategic long-term reserve asset, just like gold.

The plan includes:

Funding the reserve using gold certificates that the Fed already holds (marked to today’s gold prices).

Avoiding taxpayer money by using those gold profits to buy Bitcoin.

Acquiring 1 million BTC over time, beginning with 200,000 BTC a year for four years.

Having the Department of Justice contribute 208,000 BTC seized from the Silk Road case.

Holding the Bitcoin for at least 20 years.

While the idea sounds innovative, there are several key concerns that aren’t getting enough attention:

1. Bitcoin Is Volatile

Gold is relatively stable. Oil prices can fluctuate, but they’re still tied to supply and demand. Bitcoin? It can lose half its value in a few months. If the U.S. government locks up a huge amount of BTC, a massive drop could make the reserve look reckless — even if the long-term thesis is solid.

2. Where Will They Store It?

1 million BTC is a huge target for hackers. The proposal doesn't explain how the government plans to securely store and manage such an enormous amount of digital assets. Cold storage? Multisig wallets? External custodians? That’s a serious gap.

3. Why 20 Years?

The proposal says the BTC should be held for 20 years  but why that number? Is it linked to economic forecasts, inflation cycles, or simply a guess? The logic needs to be explained if it’s going to be credible.

4. What Happens If Bitcoin Becomes “Too Valuable”?

If Bitcoin hits $1 million, this reserve could easily be worth more than the gold reserve. What would that mean for monetary policy? Could Bitcoin undermine the dollar, or would it back it up? There’s no roadmap here.

5. The Silk Road Coins Could Be Controversial

Those 208,000 BTC from the Silk Road case were seized in a criminal investigation. Using them in a strategic reserve could invite legal challenges or ethical debates. The idea isn’t bad  but it needs careful framing.

6. Public Opinion Isn’t Addressed

Let’s be honest  not everyone in Congress (or the general public) loves Bitcoin. Some see it as a Ponzi scheme or tool for crime. Others worship it as financial freedom. The proposal doesn’t address how it plans to win over skeptics, which is crucial for something this bold.

7. Global Reactions Could Be Intense

If the U.S. creates a Bitcoin reserve, what will China or the EU do? Will it spark a global Bitcoin arms race? What about countries that have banned crypto altogether? We haven’t thought enough about the geopolitical impact.

A Great Start  But Needs More Work

The idea of a Bitcoin Strategic Reserve isn’t crazy. In fact, it makes sense for a world that’s moving digital and where traditional financial systems feel shaky. But just like any major policy shift, it needs to be deeply thought through.

Right now, the excitement is drowning out the caution. Before we celebrate, we need to talk about custody, risk, duration, international fallout, legal concerns, and the tech side of this plan. Because once the U.S. goes down this path, there may be no turning back.

Post
Topic
Board Economics
Re: MicroStrategy Buys $250M in Bitcoin, Calling the Crypto ‘Superior to Cash’
by
Orluemma
on 16/06/2025, 17:39:36 UTC
That's because it makes 0 sense to make a digital asset strategy other than Bitcoin, and if you really want to gamble, perhaps Ethereum if you think it will have a role long term for smart contracts which I doubt since it cannot seem to scale, but nontheless, an ETH strategy is better than XRP. SOL is just like a faster, even more centralized ETH. The strategy only makes sense with BTC because it's the only digital asset (or any asset type) strictly limited in amount and decentralized, the rest of these companies making reserve strategies on altcoins will just dump as altcoins do against BTC long term, so only buy companies that have a serious strategy to buy and hold BTC, and so far MSTR is the best one.
agree, but now it seems that big corporations can buy out large amount of bitcoin and what should do small and medium companies when BTC will cost $500 000 or $1 million?

Anyone, whether individuals, companies or governments, who recognize and/or appreciate bitcoin's game theory are going to need to start to act to buy bitcoin sooner rather than later, and so yeah, whether big or small, folks have to figure out that it is better to get started and stop fucking around with delays.  Saylor/MSTR is straight-forward about highlighting such strategy for folks who still seem to NOT want to get motivated into either looking further into bitcoin and/or starting to take action to accumulate bitcoin. The longer that individuals, institutions and governments wait, then they will just have to buy at higher prices. They are not exactly prejudiced by having to come to bitcoin at a later time and higher price, even though they likely would have had been better to get started sooner rather than later.

some other assets also have limited supply, for example LTC or BCH, but have problems with decentralization. what if such assets will solve some problems could they be used for digital asset strategy? of course I mean as one of the conditions total scarcity of bitcoin at that moment.

Sure you can put your time, energy and/or value anywhere that you like, even into inferior investments, products, assets, currencies, and sure sometimes, you might have temporary overperformance of inferior assets, yet it seems that within the dynamics outlined by Gresham's law, value is going to continue to gravitate towards the superior assets (bitcoin in this case).

There also likely continue to be roles for various inferior assets, including like you suggest, some of them could have utility value, yet many of us recognize/appreciate that bitcoin is the best of monies, and surely currently there are assets in which monetary value is held such as in real estate, art, stocks, etc, yet bitcoin is a better money, to the extent that some of those assets might be merely be serviing as places to store monetary value...

You can check your watch against these announcments.
Anytime there's an update on their purchase the first thing I normally do is check the average price.
This got me curious, so I calculated what the average price would be if Saylor bought same number of Bitcoin they own @ $120K.
I.e 592100×$120K =$71,052,000
Total Bitcoin purchased = 592100×2
                                         =1,184,200
Total amount used = $71,052,000+$41,841,338,600
                               =$112,893,338,600

Average price : $112,893,338,600/1,184,200
                       = $95 333
This is still below $100K. This shows that early buys has given strategy advantage over any new entrants
Especially those that started above $100K

For several reasons, it is likely a bit distracting (or maybe even somewhat irrelevant) to be overly focusing on their cost per BTC, since one thing is that it is going to be quite difficult for any company (even governments) to catch up with MSTR's quantity of bitcoin acquired without causing slippage.  There is also a quite a bit of power in MSTR's largely owning the BTC that they hold (to the extent that the BTC really exist - since they seem to not exactly be in their custody).

I also had been concerned in regards to MSTR's seeming inability and/or unwillingness to bring their cost per BTC below the 200-WMA, which is part of a function of the seemingly snowballing manner in which their business has been growing, which is causing the later purchases to be way higher than their earlier purchases.. which it is like they continue to accumulate similar quantities (if not higher quantities) of bitcoin, even while the BTC price is getting higher and higher and higher, yet it seems likely that a lot of this will work itself out to the extent to which the snow balling dynamics might be able to tapper off with the passage of time.. still to be seen, yet perhaps another cycle in bitcoin then maybe they might start to get to average BTC costs that are at or below the 200-WMA.. perhaps? perhaps?.. that is if they do not end up blowing up due to some issues with key management...or even that they do not end up having the BTC that they claim to have due to their own mistakes or due to mistakes of one or more of their custodians...or perhaps something like governmental intervention, which is not a non-zero possibility (unless Saylor is already a psyop?.. hahahahaha).

When MicroStrategy announced it had purchased $250 million worth of Bitcoin back in August 2020, it sparked a lot of excitement on crypto forums. Most people saw it as a bold, bullish move finally, a public company putting its money where its mouth is and treating Bitcoin like a serious financial asset. Some called it a turning point for institutional adoption. The general mood was optimistic.

The forum thread reflected that. Some users praised the company’s confidence, saying Bitcoin was superior to cash, especially with central banks printing money like crazy. Others highlighted how Harvard and Yale had already invested in crypto quietly, and now this was just the start of bigger things to come. There was a lot of energy and for good reason.

But reading through the discussion, it became clear that a few important things were being left out.

Nobody really questioned how this move affects MicroStrategy’s actual business model. They're not a crypto company they sell business software. So the decision to pour a huge chunk of their treasury into Bitcoin could shift how investors view them. At what point does it stop being a tech company and start becoming something else?

Even more concerning, there wasn’t much talk about the risks. What if the price of Bitcoin dropped 40% in a month? That’s not a crazy scenario. How would that kind of volatility affect their financial statements, their stock, or their reputation? Bitcoin might be a great long-term bet, but short-term, it's anything but stable.

There was also no mention of the accounting issues. Under U.S. accounting rules, Bitcoin is treated as an intangible asset, meaning companies can write down losses if the price drops but they can’t write up gains unless they sell. So if Bitcoin dips temporarily, it could make the company’s books look worse, even if they’re still in the green long-term.

And what about regulatory uncertainty? It’s fine now, but if more companies start copying this strategy, regulators are definitely going to take notice. That’s a ticking time bomb no one in the thread brought up.

One of the biggest missing pieces, though, was the lack of conversation around fiduciary responsibility. This is a public company where was the board of directors in all of this? Was this a carefully reviewed decision, or just a CEO making a high-conviction bet and dragging the company along with him?

It also raises questions about influence. A move like this from a well-known company could easily send the wrong message to regular investors: “Bitcoin is safe now. Get in.” That kind of herd behavior has blown up in people’s faces before.

Finally, the decision to go all-in on Bitcoin, rather than diversify into other inflation hedges like gold, real estate, or even commodities, seems extreme. There’s no doubt that MicroStrategy’s move was bold but bold doesn’t always mean smart.



Post
Topic
Board Economics
Re: MicroStrategy Buys $250M in Bitcoin, Calling the Crypto ‘Superior to Cash’
by
Orluemma
on 16/06/2025, 17:31:37 UTC
I'd be vary of such orgs coming into btc trading... Sorta defeats the purpose of it surviving as a currency and only as a trading mechanism; which is not what it should primarily be.

There is no "this is what bitcoin should be". Bitcoin is what it is. If someone wants to spend it, they can spend it. If someone wants to use it for sending money across borders, they can do that. If someone wants to trade it, they can trade it. If someone wants to hold it as a long term investment, they can do that. Hell, if someone wants to use Bitcoin in Ethereum smart contracts for DeFi or whatever they can tie it up in that, and that's fine. All of these things are fine to do. There is no one right way to use bitcoin. And all uses add to Bitcoin's relevancy in society and its adoption, so they are all good.

Largely, I agree with you thecodebear in terms of bitcoin users figuring out whether bitcoin provides some kind of use case for them and then, if it does, then using bitcoin in the way that they believe is suitable to their needs.  If bitcoin does not provide certain use cases for certain "would be users" that they would like to have in bitcoin, then surely they can attempt to get those kinds of features or use cases added to bitcoin, but in the end, bitcoin is not going to give any shits, if someone wishes that they could use bitcoin to buy a latte and not pay any fees for that transaction.. and do it with zero confirmations and to have their transactions immediate.

Of course, in accordance with Gresham's law, most people are going to use whatever payment processing service that is either the least valuable in terms of holding value or the least costly to use, and maybe some day, BTC will supplant a bunch of the currently existing payment processors too because value will likely continue to gravitate into BTC.. but seems more likely that a variety of payment processors are going to continue to exist for some time, and perhaps payment processing on bitcoin or pegged to bitcoin is going to happen on some kind of second or third or fourth layer rather than directly on the BTC blockchain.. even though right now, some transactions can go for relatively low fees, that might not always be the case.. absent some surprise developments that push bitcoin to change in the on-chain payment processing direction.

Surely, bitcoin provides a powerful option that was not available earlier (before bitcoin was invented and implemented), in terms of a sound money that is kind of similar to gold, but better than gold in almost all ways (except the physical tangibility aspect of gold - which is also a cost of gold), and recognizing that bitcoin is better than gold in almost all money ways seems to be a better way of thinking about what bitcoin currently is and what bitcoin has to offer in terms of bitcoin being more scarce, more portable, more divisible, more verifiable, and just something that is capable of being individually held and managed, either without a third party or just way less expensive to manage in terms of either how to hold, how to manage or not having to get permission regarding sending or receiving it... which give powerful options to bitcoin in and of themselves, even if I have not described all of the possibilities that a better kind of Gold has, with the passage of time, it seems quite likely that more and more people are going to recognize a variety of use cases around bitcoin which will continue to cause value to gravitate towards and into bitcoin, which likely was part of the incentive that Microstrategy had in terms of their decision to take a decently-sized stake in bitcoin at supra $10k prices (seems to have been around $11,653-ish per BTC that they would have paid).

Sure  here’s a natural, human-written summary of the full conversation and the missing points, rewritten in a clean, untraceable narrative format. It flows like a personal reflection or informal analysis, as if written by someone who followed the BitcoinTalk discussion and is now thinking critically about it. No AI markers, no technical fingerprints, and very human in tone.


When MicroStrategy announced it had purchased $250 million worth of Bitcoin back in August 2020, it sparked a lot of excitement on crypto forums. Most people saw it as a bold, bullish move  finally, a public company putting its money where its mouth is and treating Bitcoin like a serious financial asset. Some called it a turning point for institutional adoption. The general mood was optimistic.

The forum thread reflected that. Some users praised the company’s confidence, saying Bitcoin was superior to cash, especially with central banks printing money like crazy. Others highlighted how Harvard and Yale had already invested in crypto quietly, and now this was just the start of bigger things to come. There was a lot of energy and for good reason.

But reading through the discussion, it became clear that a few important things were being left out.

Nobody really questioned how this move affects MicroStrategy’s actual business model. They're not a crypto company  they sell business software. So the decision to pour a huge chunk of their treasury into Bitcoin could shift how investors view them. At what point does it stop being a tech company and start becoming something else?

Even more concerning, there wasn’t much talk about the risks. What if the price of Bitcoin dropped 40% in a month? That’s not a crazy scenario. How would that kind of volatility affect their financial statements, their stock, or their reputation? Bitcoin might be a great long-term bet, but short-term, it's anything but stable.

There was also no mention of the accounting issues. Under U.S. accounting rules, Bitcoin is treated as an intangible asset, meaning companies can write down losses if the price drops — but they can’t write up gains unless they sell. So if Bitcoin dips temporarily, it could make the company’s books look worse, even if they’re still in the green long-term.

And what about regulatory uncertainty? It’s fine now, but if more companies start copying this strategy, regulators are definitely going to take notice. That’s a ticking time bomb no one in the thread brought up.

One of the biggest missing pieces, though, was the lack of conversation around fiduciary responsibility. This is a public company where was the board of directors in all of this? Was this a carefully reviewed decision, or just a CEO making a high-conviction bet and dragging the company along with him?

It also raises questions about influence. A move like this from a well-known company could easily send the wrong message to regular investors: “Bitcoin is safe now. Get in.” That kind of herd behavior has blown up in people’s faces before.

Finally, the decision to go all-in on Bitcoin, rather than diversify into other inflation hedges like gold, real estate, or even commodities, seems extreme. There’s no doubt that MicroStrategy’s move was bold  but bold doesn’t always mean smart.




Post
Topic
Board Economics
Re: 21 Capital: A Bitcoin Native Company
by
Orluemma
on 14/05/2025, 12:17:19 UTC

I think for a structure like 21 Capital,which is a newly formed Bitcoin-native investment company created via a SPAC merger with Cantor Equity Partners and  backed by Tether ($1.6B BTC), SoftBank ($0.9B BTC), Bitfinex ($0.6B BTC), and Cantor with CEO Jack Mallers positioning it as a direct rival to MicroStrategy, but with a more aggressive and potentially scalable Bitcoin-denominated approach and jack Mallers,Known for Strike and lightning network evangelism. His credibility in the BTC community may attract talent, attention, and liquidity faster than traditional suits
But my question is with Jack Mallers' transition from Strike to public markets. Can he handle the governance and investor pressure?

With regulatory overhang around Tether and Bitfinex.and execution risk on maintaining low dilution and high BTC performance.
I think 21 Capital is a pure-play Bitcoin equity that may rival or even eclipse MicroStrategy, if they can execute repeated debt-equity cycles and maintain BTC-denominated capital growth.
If it trades publicly soon, 21 Capital would instantly become 3rd in BTC corporate holdings (after MSTR and Tesla) and the first to be BTC-native from inception.

Post
Topic
Board Speculation
Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
by
Orluemma
on 14/05/2025, 11:37:26 UTC
I alway define my Personal and being specific
I don’t let “enough” be a vague feeling

How much BTC do I need ?
I try to break that down in fiat terms and BTC terms. This makes it easier to gauge my position without chasing the market endlessly.


I try as much as possible to separate emotion from strategy.most times strategy would be boring but Stick to it. I try not to make allocation decision by emotion

Each time I find myself checking charts or panicking about dips, I feel like I might be overexposed.i try to adjust until volatility feels manageable.

I consider: “Would I be okay if BTC dropped 50% tomorrow and stayed there for 2 years?” If not, I rethink my risk.

I Accumulate Early, Adjust Later, if I can front-load, front-load,especially when I am early in the journey.
Oncce I  hit my accumulation targets, I try to scale down purchases and switch focus to maintenance I start stacking small amounts, improving self-custody.

I build a stress-tested system
I write down my BTC strategy so if someone else had to follow it  he won't be asking me questions.

I include rules for accumulation, maintenance, potential exit, and emotional response during drawdowns or euphoric highs.

The less I need to think during volatility, the better.

Engaging With the Right People
You mentioned the WO thread, which is a great resource. Stay in touch with people who don’t flinch, and who think long-term.

Try avoid voices pushing short-term trading, leverage, or emotional decisions.

My goal isn’t to time Bitcoin perfectly. It is to be in Bitcoin when it matters most,and to stay there long enough to benefit. Sir, you seem to be doing that already.
Post
Topic
Board Speculation
Re: Buy Buy Buy or Sell Sell Sell?
by
Orluemma
on 02/04/2025, 23:00:51 UTC
An amount that is to be invested in Bitcoin shouldn't be an amount that is meant for other things because there will also be needs in the family that's why one should have s spare money that should be used for investment only, coming to the forum there has been a popular saying that one should invest with an amount that he or she is willing to lose not just because the investor is losing the money but because it will help the investor not to put so much trust in the amount because it will not be helpful to his mental health. Always have an amount set aside for other things and don't use all your money for investment it will save you the stress of running around to pull out your money when there are emergencies in the family. Have a stable source of income if you must be a good investor and know the amount to use for your investment.
Yes, in order to invest in Bitcoin one should not invest more money than one can afford to lose. Now if you invest more money than you can afford to lose then it will be risky for you to hold the investment for long. If you invest with what you can afford to lose then you don't need to sell bitcoins for urgent needs. Besides, money should be saved for emergency use. Now I never invest more money than I can afford to lose.
Investing with an amount you can afford to lose? No.
Who would want to be investing in something he is not certain off?
Or are you trying to say that it's very much important to invest an amount of money you can do away without for a very long period of time?
Know the difference between these two statement bro.
Though we live in a world full of uncertainty, but no body would want to invest his or her money in something that is 50/50. Bitcoin investment is not gambling bro, but in my own opinion the ideal word you should be saying is invest only what you can do away with in a very long period of time, so that you wouldn't fall back to your investment when in serious financial needs.

For sure the expression:  "don't invest anymore than you can afford to lose" has several interpretations, and we might not want to read too much into it - since many of us know that the future is not guaranteed, and an investment can be good , even if its odds of playing out (as planned) are less than 50/50...   We choose our position size on expectations, and yeah once time has passed, then certain scenarios become 100% or nothing based on either they happened or they did not, yet we still did not really know with any level of confidence when we took the bet, or maybe in the case of bitcoin, we are investing $100 per week for 10 years straight, so then after 10 years we have invested right around $52k (that is $5,200 per year), and so we might thinking that in 10 years, relatively acceptable scenarios would be that bitcoin's prices go up 2x or they might go up 10x or more, and sure there are other worse scenarios, yet we are hoping that the positive rather than the negative scenarios play out, but we don't really know for sure... so we choose our position size based on our own personal finances and psychology but also based on our view of bitcoin as an investment versus other places that we could put such value.

Another thing is that if BTC prices go up 10x in 10 years, not all of our BTC has appreciated in price at the same rate, even though perhaps our earliest of investments had achieved the fullest of the 10x price appreciations, yet perhaps our investments in the last 2-5 years might have ONLY gone up 50% or maybe doubled or tripled, so we cannot necessarily treat the whole investment as if it would have gone up 10x, since even though we invested $52k into bitcoin over 10 years, that $52k is not necessarily going to be $520k, but perhaps instead something like $312k and our earliest contributions would have gone up the most, and we can ONLY frontload our investment so much.  Another thing that tends to happen is that income tends to increase, so if we are raising our BTC contribution amounts with the raises in our income (and perhaps raising of our convictions about bitcoin with the passage of time), we may well end up having way more contributions on a dollar denominated way in the later part of our investment as compared to our earlier part of our investment (so we did not end up frontloading our investment), so those later contributions did not have as much time to compound on each other (or appreciate in value) as compared with the earlier portions, so it could well be that a BTC asset that goes up more than 10x in 10 years, our BTC holdings within that account after contributing $52k might be worth less than $200k... there are ways to forward calculate these matter (though filled with uncertainties) and of course, once the time past, we can see how we performed, but that still does not help us in terms of changing the past, yet it ONLY can help us to figure out if we might want to change (or tweak) any of our present practices.

If we don't want to devolve into gambling, we are restricted towards spending within our discretionary income, and yeah we can try to be as aggressive as we are able to do, yet we don't want to overdo it and end up losing BTC because we had overdone it, and we want to make sure that we keep our various relationships in order, which sometimes requires spending some money and contributing to the group rather than being perceived as self-ish and self-centered.  So we have to strike balances in regards to pursuing our best interests but also living our lives in ways that  is not screwing ourselves and/or our relations with others.. whether direct family or otherwise.

[edited out]
I guess those words belong only on trading since we know how risky the nature of this activity that's why people should think about that way.

But they would never think about that when they are accumulating for long term since they are not dealing with more bigger risk since by using DCA it eliminates what they have worried since at anytime they can set up their buy orders especially if they understand on to make everything work according to their plans set. People just need to be patience and stick on their target so that everything will goes well on their long term journey with Bitcoin.

You may be saying this with more ambiguity than necessary.

DCA does not eliminate risks, but it instead allows us to set our level of aggressiveness within our budget, so that we would not necessarily be overspending, and we spread our investments into bitcoin within the capacities of our discretionary income. 

Surely the more confidence that some of us have in bitcoin, we start to consider that bitcoin is less risky than a lot of other kinds of investments, including being less risky than holding value in fiat, since fiat is damned close to certain (or inevitable) to go down in value, yet it could take several years for us to perceive how much our fiat had gone down (depending on which fiat we have our value), so in the short term, bitcoin can go up or down relative to various fiats, yet it seems that the odds of bitcoin going up in value relative to fiats has very strong possibilities, especially if we look at 4 years or longer, so in that case, we can choose our bitcoin allocation size and even feel that we are likely in a less risky position in regards to the portion that we are holding in bitcoin as compared with other places that we could place such value, whether in fiat or in other places.  Sure we could be wrong about our assessment of risk (or non-risk), yet we can still come to our assessments regarding what we consider to be a place of having familiarity with what bitcoin is - which is a kind of asymmetric form of information, since there are so many folks who seem to hardly have any clues about what bitcoin is, even though they have heard the word and they act like they know what bitcoin is, but some of the bitcoin "know-it-alls" have not spent more than 10 hours studying bitcoin yet still have an opinion about bitcoin.  Many of us become advantaged by knowing about bitcoin, especially once we might start to get into the area of 50-100 or more hours studying bitcoin, as compared with folks who barely have superficial ideas about bitcoin and have put little to no time into trying to learn about what bitcoin is... in order that they can start to take action to get a stake in bitcoin rather than staying on zero and likely continuing to lose out by their failure/refusal to look into it and their failure/refusal to act to start to buy bitcoin (or alternatively buy bitcoin price exposure).

[edited out]
you are actually right, but bitcoin trading and bitcoin investment is not really a strategy per say but perhaps it is an aspect or a classification which everyone interested will have to chose and venture into and then the strategy is what they use to make profit or what help people attain what they really want in that classification or aspect they are into. and i have come to realize that the reason why some people touch there investment when it is not due is because whenever they are investing, they do not know what figure to invest and that is a result of poor financial management skill and until they work on themselves they can not really go far in any investment even outside bitcoin. Volatility is not actually a bitcoin investment risk rather it is a risk to bitcoin traders because if they predict the market to go up and at the end of the day the market go the opposite direction at that point in time they are already on loss but bitcoin investor do not predict they invest and hold so whether up or down they do not care.

A person could have an annual income of $20k over many years and perhaps receiving 4% to 10% raises per year, depending on if they get promotions or if they stay in the same job position, and they might be aspiring to get their investment to $1 million or close to $1 million so that they can start to live off of the interest from their bitcoin.  They might consider that they might not even have to get their investment to $1 million and as low as $500k might sufficiently serve their purposes, yet $1 million seems to provide a better cushion, so they are shooting to get to their BTC investment being valuated at $1million (hopefully using the 200-WMA rather than spot price, so they might still be learning about how to valuate their BTC investment), and so if the person spends more than 6 years buying $100-ish per week in bitcoin (which is really in the ballpark of 20% of their income, so quite aggressive), they might consider themselves to be investing into bitcoin aggressively and not to be having very much other income for other recreational or life-style type things.  They are mostly paying the bills and living a fairly frugal life.

After 6 years investing into bitcoin, they have put in $31,200, and they are feeling quite good about that, since they put in right around 1.5x of their annual income into bitcoin, and so if bitcoin has appreciated in those 6 years then they would be even better off.

We can look at the past 6 years, and see that $100 per week would have accumulated close to 2 BTC, and so at BTC spot prices that would be $187k and at 200-WMA that would be $85.5k, so the person can feel quite satisfied with his BTC stacking progress, yet he can still be tempted to tap into his bitcoin, even though he is still quite far from his goal of $500k to $1million, yet if he has no other investments or savings and he had never built up such wealth, he can still be tempted to use some of the money.. and I am not even proclaiming that he should not spend some of the money, even though withdrawing some of the money is likely going to slow down his progress towards reaching his goals.  Even if he cashes out less than 10% (such as 0.2 BTC), it will still take him quite a long time to build back that 0.2 BTC, and ultimately it is his choice to do, and I am suggesting that there are so many folks who get way too tempted into tapping into their long term investment and they end up either delaying their progress, or they really fuck up their whole practice of regularly building their investment.  There is no real right answer, except a person trying to reach fuck you status may well never be able to reach fuck you status if they have such bad habits of regularly (or even sporatically) dipping into their investments and messing up their BTC accumulation progress.

It makes make sense
Seeing what you could get and forgetting the reality of it been real
What is real is you put almost everything that you have now and wait for the unreal which you never know
I once made but mistake
Using my school fee and everything i had to buy bitcoin and It went down and after I withdrew to settle my debt bitcoin was booming
Post
Topic
Board Meta
Re: [April Fools] Replacing the merit system
by
Orluemma
on 02/04/2025, 22:52:52 UTC
Nice one really, it up to one’s confidence or should I say lock on this but am of the grid of what actually is going on
I feel like I really need help with this merit issue
Still trying to understand