Search content
Sort by
Showing 19 of 19 results by RoseAPT
Re: If FDIC provided insurance up to 2.0 BTC, that would be more bullish than SBR
⭐ Merited by vapourminer (1)
If government distributed all their bitcoins to us, and took all the money rich have, and gave it to us, and if medicine never cost a dime, and if free food dropped down from the skies that would be a great world.
However, we live in a real world and sometimes we need to know how much we can safely assume could be done. Preferring bitcoin to be insured like that is a big ask, considering the volatility of it, we are talking about a huge deal here that would ruin a governments accounts and treasury so there is no way that any sane nation would do something like this, specially when they know it wouldn't bring them that much vote to help offset the people who will hate losing money because of this since it would cost a lot.
However, we live in a real world and sometimes we need to know how much we can safely assume could be done. Preferring bitcoin to be insured like that is a big ask, considering the volatility of it, we are talking about a huge deal here that would ruin a governments accounts and treasury so there is no way that any sane nation would do something like this, specially when they know it wouldn't bring them that much vote to help offset the people who will hate losing money because of this since it would cost a lot.
FDIC doesn't insure the value of the USD. FDIC merely provides protection in the case of a bank failure. The USD, as denominated in BTC terms, is equally volatile. Or USD denominated in SPY. Or USD denominated in Gold. To various extents obviously.
So I don't see your point in the volatility of BTC, one BTC = one BTC. One USD = One USD. Trading pairs between USD and BTC vs other assets go up/down all the time.
In a situation where the FDIC or another federal program insures BTC deposits, obviously the bank would need to have reserve requirements. Perhaps that requirement is 90% or something extremely high. Or it's 100%.
Doesn't really matter bc it's the backing of the US government that matters most in a situation where the reserve requirements are high.
If FDIC provided insurance up to 2.0 BTC, that would be more bullish than SBR
⭐ Merited by vapourminer (1)
I don’t understand why people keep wanting a SBR. We don’t need that. Especially if a future president or Congress can dump it at anytime in the future.
However, if banks can now hold crypto more easily, and FDIC can insure up to 2.0 BTC regardless of fiat value, I think we skyrocket and kill cycles forever. It brings stability into the market and trust.
BTC will now be backed by the federal government without them ever spending a dime on BTC.
There are trade offs, as you are no longer in self custody. But the FDIC insurance is as high level of trust as you can get besides cold storage. Better than an ETF, better than MSTR etc
Many people do not want the burden of self custody and ultimately I think this is one of the best, budget neutral ways that the government can send BTC to the moon
However, if banks can now hold crypto more easily, and FDIC can insure up to 2.0 BTC regardless of fiat value, I think we skyrocket and kill cycles forever. It brings stability into the market and trust.
BTC will now be backed by the federal government without them ever spending a dime on BTC.
There are trade offs, as you are no longer in self custody. But the FDIC insurance is as high level of trust as you can get besides cold storage. Better than an ETF, better than MSTR etc
Many people do not want the burden of self custody and ultimately I think this is one of the best, budget neutral ways that the government can send BTC to the moon
Re: If Trump did not get involved in bitcoin, it would have been better
many of my well educated friends from Ivy leagues and Cal/Stanford, who also work in tech, will no longer touch BTC bc they think it means they are supporting Trump. I do not know if this is a goos sample size, but I do have a decent network in SF Bay Area, NYC, and LA and there aren't many left leaning people I know that have anything positive to say about crypto.
to them, $Trump = $BTC = $FARTCOIN
it's all the same to them. and the Trump and Melania meme coins really tempered expectations from both the left and the right imo.
the administration can't be taken seriously
to them, $Trump = $BTC = $FARTCOIN
it's all the same to them. and the Trump and Melania meme coins really tempered expectations from both the left and the right imo.
the administration can't be taken seriously
the answer I don't commonly see on here is one that is probably the best in this situation, which is:
BlockRock
Holding IBIT is way safer than handing over your keys to any individual in your life
BlockRock
Holding IBIT is way safer than handing over your keys to any individual in your life
It's an interesting question, and you’re definitely tapping into some complex dynamics between Bitcoin’s true supply and the synthetic representations of it.
The concern you're raising — about synthetic shares of BTC flooding the market — is valid. While Bitcoin itself is limited to 21 million coins, derivative products like ETFs, futures, and options could potentially create the illusion of more BTC in circulation than there actually is. In a way, this could mimic the kind of “synthetic” asset scenario you mentioned with GME.
So, while there’s a risk that synthetic BTC could flood the market, it all boils down to how much regulation is in place and how decentralized the custody and trading of BTC remain. The system might evolve toward more institutional control, but whether that becomes problematic for Bitcoin’s value and security is something that will play out over time.
As for how this compares to GME, it’s definitely an interesting parallel. The key difference is that Bitcoin has a finite supply baked into the code, whereas the financial products built on top of Bitcoin (like ETFs) can be manipulated, much like stocks. It’s something to watch closely as Bitcoin continues to gain institutional traction.
What are your thoughts on how that might play out? Do you think Bitcoin will retain its decentralized nature, or is it heading toward a more traditional financial system?
The concern you're raising — about synthetic shares of BTC flooding the market — is valid. While Bitcoin itself is limited to 21 million coins, derivative products like ETFs, futures, and options could potentially create the illusion of more BTC in circulation than there actually is. In a way, this could mimic the kind of “synthetic” asset scenario you mentioned with GME.
So, while there’s a risk that synthetic BTC could flood the market, it all boils down to how much regulation is in place and how decentralized the custody and trading of BTC remain. The system might evolve toward more institutional control, but whether that becomes problematic for Bitcoin’s value and security is something that will play out over time.
As for how this compares to GME, it’s definitely an interesting parallel. The key difference is that Bitcoin has a finite supply baked into the code, whereas the financial products built on top of Bitcoin (like ETFs) can be manipulated, much like stocks. It’s something to watch closely as Bitcoin continues to gain institutional traction.
What are your thoughts on how that might play out? Do you think Bitcoin will retain its decentralized nature, or is it heading toward a more traditional financial system?
It's a very interesting scenario. Of course, the underlying asset (BTC) will continue to be decentralized. But if it continues to be "wrapped" in tradfi products, the "decentralized" integrity gets diluted in these products...especially if synthetic shares of BTC continue to get traded in large volumes and only get settled onto the blockchain periodically.
I don't think this is the perfect analogy, but it might be similar to the problem that ETH has been experience with its L2 counterparts eating away from ETH's gas fees and revenues. There may be a scenario where large tradfi institutions are making tons of fees from volume trades of BTC derivatives that never hit the blockchain, and they simply use BTC as a settlement layer occasionally for 10Q/10K filings. That's alot of time between audits to do some price manipulation.
Again, I'm not an experienced equities trader either and I won't pretend to even understand how Market Makers and clearing houses manipulate stocks using synthetic shares and naked short selling....but whatever they are doing to equities (and particularly what they did to GME) might be used in BTC in the long run.
And this is where I think the concept of limited supply of BTC might be irrelevant when it will be part of the tradfi system. Unless people actually self custody their BTC, just like people DRS-ing their stock (which literally no one does except hardcore GME investors), this might allow tradfi to essentially create an infinite number of BTC derivatives essentially making BTC an "infinite supply" commodity
[Suspicious link removed]j.com/finance/currencies/the-trump-family-advances-its-all-out-crypto-blitz-this-time-with-bitcoin-mining-86a1e8d9?mod=finance_lead_story
Could be Bullish, could be Bearish, who knows? Long term BTC will always be bullish. But this constant "blitz" with Trump's name being associated with crypto and BTC may be a huge headwind for those that oppose him imo, which is probably over than half of the world population.
Could be Bullish, could be Bearish, who knows? Long term BTC will always be bullish. But this constant "blitz" with Trump's name being associated with crypto and BTC may be a huge headwind for those that oppose him imo, which is probably over than half of the world population.
I have been debating this topic all wkend. I've been studying more about $GME using fundamentals and its meme worthiness.
Fundamentals are obviously not great: EPS is only positive due to the interest from the cash reserves. EBITDA is basically near $0 for the FY and really only positive during Q4, which offsets Q1-Q3 losses.
Meme worthiness: not sure how to value this using any reasonable metric. But it should be viewed as an intangible asset of some sorts. Obviously FASB will never allow this to be ever recorded as such on the Balance Sheet, but this isn't nothing. GME has a huge retail following, led my RK or DFV.
BTC/MSTR bulls: There are BTC purists who will support $GME and some $MSTR fans who will support GME too. Not all obviously, as some may think it takes away liquidity from pumping MSTR or BTC, but I think there will be a net positive to $GME's following from these groups
Bitcoin adoption: Bottom line. GME used to be a joke, probably was still a joke as of last week, but I think this BTC move changes everything. Some may be cynical and say BTC's association from the likes of $GME, Michael Saylor, North Korea, Trump are all headwinds. I disagree. It was only 4-5 years ago where morons widely associated BTC with only criminals. Some still do.
So the fact that BTC is being adopted by major public companies (albeit failing) like MSTR, MetaPlanet, and GME is an upgrade versus criminals. We already have BlackRock and many other reputable institutions supporting BTC and the broader industry.
So while $GME used to be a joke, the fact that they are acquiring BTC, in my opinion, legitimizes BTC as a store of value and I think is a good transitionary step from BTC bring a "criminal currency" to actual liquid gold adopted by the masses.
Do I think $GME is a good investment? Possibly.
We saw what happened to MSTR and Metaplanet. They got in much earlier though so I don't know if GME will see asymmetric returns relative to idiosyncratic risks associated with its fundamental business. But if I had to bet on it, I think $GME brings more positive attention to $BTC and to crypto...which I think is a net positive.
Fundamentals are obviously not great: EPS is only positive due to the interest from the cash reserves. EBITDA is basically near $0 for the FY and really only positive during Q4, which offsets Q1-Q3 losses.
Meme worthiness: not sure how to value this using any reasonable metric. But it should be viewed as an intangible asset of some sorts. Obviously FASB will never allow this to be ever recorded as such on the Balance Sheet, but this isn't nothing. GME has a huge retail following, led my RK or DFV.
BTC/MSTR bulls: There are BTC purists who will support $GME and some $MSTR fans who will support GME too. Not all obviously, as some may think it takes away liquidity from pumping MSTR or BTC, but I think there will be a net positive to $GME's following from these groups
Bitcoin adoption: Bottom line. GME used to be a joke, probably was still a joke as of last week, but I think this BTC move changes everything. Some may be cynical and say BTC's association from the likes of $GME, Michael Saylor, North Korea, Trump are all headwinds. I disagree. It was only 4-5 years ago where morons widely associated BTC with only criminals. Some still do.
So the fact that BTC is being adopted by major public companies (albeit failing) like MSTR, MetaPlanet, and GME is an upgrade versus criminals. We already have BlackRock and many other reputable institutions supporting BTC and the broader industry.
So while $GME used to be a joke, the fact that they are acquiring BTC, in my opinion, legitimizes BTC as a store of value and I think is a good transitionary step from BTC bring a "criminal currency" to actual liquid gold adopted by the masses.
Do I think $GME is a good investment? Possibly.
We saw what happened to MSTR and Metaplanet. They got in much earlier though so I don't know if GME will see asymmetric returns relative to idiosyncratic risks associated with its fundamental business. But if I had to bet on it, I think $GME brings more positive attention to $BTC and to crypto...which I think is a net positive.
Sorry for clickbaity title, obviously there will only be 21M BTC.
But with more banks, institutions, and CEXs trying to custody the BTC and creating ETFs, options, and perhaps other derivatives in the future, how can we be sure there won't be an "infinite" supply of these synthetic "shares" of BTC?
I have a feeling the mass adopters will ultimately trust big banks to custody their BTC for them especially if some yield bearing instruments become popular. I fear the banks may engage in shady behavior to manipulate prices further.
Thoughts?
I only became aware of what synthetic shares are by studying how GME investors have explained how the stock markets actually work. This is all related to BTC in the sense that I'm trying to see how to play $GME as it transitions to MSTR 2.0, but the synthetic shares for GME is interesting....wondering if this is possible for BTC and IBIT etc.
But with more banks, institutions, and CEXs trying to custody the BTC and creating ETFs, options, and perhaps other derivatives in the future, how can we be sure there won't be an "infinite" supply of these synthetic "shares" of BTC?
I have a feeling the mass adopters will ultimately trust big banks to custody their BTC for them especially if some yield bearing instruments become popular. I fear the banks may engage in shady behavior to manipulate prices further.
Thoughts?
I only became aware of what synthetic shares are by studying how GME investors have explained how the stock markets actually work. This is all related to BTC in the sense that I'm trying to see how to play $GME as it transitions to MSTR 2.0, but the synthetic shares for GME is interesting....wondering if this is possible for BTC and IBIT etc.
I wouldn't be surprised if we git close to $1M this year. I dont expect it to, but I wouldn't be surprised. my baseline expectation is around $200-250k. Where I differ from most is in believing that we won't see any major pullbacks of more than 25% for Bitcoin unless they're in line with equivalent drops in gold or the S&P 500. In other words, if gold or the S&P fall 30%, Bitcoin might follow suit—but only in such scenarios.
Re: Has anyone ever studied how Bitcoin could dramatically drop?
no offense to anyone here, but people are so stupid for thinking that 4 year cycles will continue on forever. BTC is still in its infancy. I wouldn't even call it "Early adoption" stage. we're not even there yet.
Bitcoin itself was designed in the way each new halving should less effect. So "forever" is a too big/strong word. Nobody sane expects that.
However, we've had the 4 year cycles until now and to the point they were pretty accurate (not perfectly, but not bad either). And this makes us believe that it'll go the same... until it won't.
And we've already heard the "this time is different" play also 4 years ago. So... imho you didn't say anything new nor convincing and I don't expect people (me included) say too soon anything about expecting to see the cycle broken.
Of course, I have no crystal globe and I can be wrong too. How about you?
the difference is that the president of the United States now supports BTC. this is different from 4 years ago, objectively. I dont really care to debate this since I'll just buy more if I'm wrong and it does dip. so its win win for me
Re: Has anyone ever studied how Bitcoin could dramatically drop?
no offense to anyone here, but people are so stupid for thinking that 4 year cycles will continue on forever. BTC is still in its infancy. I wouldn't even call it "Early adoption" stage. we're not even there yet.
once BTC has the backing of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA for the first time, this will ignite an arms race to acquire as many BTC as possible as quickly as possible. BTC halving will no longer have a material impact to price since obviously most coins are already mined. prices will be dictated purely by supply and demand. and in the short term (2025), we will see some wild swings with whales selling, other whales buying, but prices will normalize at a much higher level than it is today. we will see some volatility like all asset classes do, but it won't be +/- 10% daily swings, nor will it be +/- 50% annual swings. we will grow exponentially the next few years, and perhaps a small step function graph in halving years, but in-between, I see consistent and stable upwards movement
once BTC has the backing of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA for the first time, this will ignite an arms race to acquire as many BTC as possible as quickly as possible. BTC halving will no longer have a material impact to price since obviously most coins are already mined. prices will be dictated purely by supply and demand. and in the short term (2025), we will see some wild swings with whales selling, other whales buying, but prices will normalize at a much higher level than it is today. we will see some volatility like all asset classes do, but it won't be +/- 10% daily swings, nor will it be +/- 50% annual swings. we will grow exponentially the next few years, and perhaps a small step function graph in halving years, but in-between, I see consistent and stable upwards movement
Re: Washington Post: Trump to sign Day 1 executive order; host "crypto ball" on 1/17
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/16/technology/trump-bitcoin-stockpile.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
NYT now reporting that there is a chance of a btc reserve being signed into law via executive action on Day 1.
NYT now reporting that there is a chance of a btc reserve being signed into law via executive action on Day 1.
Re: Washington Post: Trump to sign Day 1 executive order; host "crypto ball" on 1/17
I see the same thing as @Don Pedro Dinero - it seems like you might’ve shared a different link, OP. I can’t scroll down either because it’s behind a subscription wall.
Anyway, if this is true, it’s a great sign that Trump is seriously considering not just Bitcoin but probably crypto in general. Well, he does have a project, so there’s a chance he might promote it too. Let’s see how this plays out.
Anyway, if this is true, it’s a great sign that Trump is seriously considering not just Bitcoin but probably crypto in general. Well, he does have a project, so there’s a chance he might promote it too. Let’s see how this plays out.
We will check the aftermath of the OP's post pretty soon, so nothing to worry about there.
And in any case - this year should be bullish for Bitcoin, even if some events won't happen the way we envision / speculate them to be, the overall trend and sentiment would still be there.
not sure where the confusion is. another guy posted above the screenshot of the article. here it is pasted:
Sacks and members of the Trump transition team have been working closely with crypto leaders to finalize a legislative strategy, and Trump is expected to issue executive orders on the first day of his presidency that may address issues including de-banking and the repeal of a controversial crypto accounting policy requiring banks holding digital assets to count them as liabilities on the bank's own balance sheet, according to a person involved with the conversations.
"The Trump team has made it very clear that this is a priority," the person added.
Article literally says Trump will sign pro-crypto executive orders on Day 1. the materiality of this impact will be based on the sentiment from the broader market, but this is clearly a good sign for the industry.
Re: I found a wallet.dat on the deep web with millions of bitcoins
Well, I hate to say, but I can see a scam brewing. This is now a common theme, somehow convince people that you have something valuable, but there is one small thing which is restricting you to use that treasure. Then hope that someone will come to you (through PM or telegram) and you can scam him. It is either that or simply a troll attempt. In any case, you need to be tagged. I will be giving negative feedback to you for such pathetic attempt. Run away chose some dumb forum to post this.
haha yea exactly this. what type of moron would brag on a public forum that they have access to $20B. if he had access he could easily move a small amount to a DEX, get monero, and cash out in BTC or stables into a new wallet
Washington Post: Trump to sign Day 1 executive order; host "crypto ball" on 1/17
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/13/andreessen-tech-industry-trump-administration-doge/
"The Trump team has made it very clear that this is a priority."
Not trying to turn this into a political conversation. I have (historically) been a Democrat. But this is positive news for BTC and I think one positive step towards great adoption. Not sure what he will do regarding the strategic reserve, but just having the UNITED STATES government finally support BTC brings a certain level of validation to Bitcoin.
I don't care how bullish we all were for the past decade. There was always a level of uncertainty regarding BTC. Much of that uncertainty will disappear in one week, and BTC just became THAT much less risky as a hedge against inflation, a store of value, and perhaps even as a currency.
"The Trump team has made it very clear that this is a priority."
Not trying to turn this into a political conversation. I have (historically) been a Democrat. But this is positive news for BTC and I think one positive step towards great adoption. Not sure what he will do regarding the strategic reserve, but just having the UNITED STATES government finally support BTC brings a certain level of validation to Bitcoin.
I don't care how bullish we all were for the past decade. There was always a level of uncertainty regarding BTC. Much of that uncertainty will disappear in one week, and BTC just became THAT much less risky as a hedge against inflation, a store of value, and perhaps even as a currency.
I may be overreacting, but Xi released some more soft “threats” about unification today. Might just be some more posturing as Trump enters office, but BTC hasn’t been tested in major wartime yet. Lots of things at play here, an isolated invasion of Taiwan will be brutal enough to the global economy, but I can see global conflict spiraling out of control if this happens.
Obviously, we still have conflict in Ukraine and Middle East. These conflicts may escalate if Iran and Russia knows the US is now preoccupied in Taiwan.
New coverage also from WSJ today raising awareness to the extreme violence going on in Africa too.
In any case, I see the chance of a Taiwan military conflict at at least 1-5% chance in the next 4 years. These are supposed to be the golden years of crypto. And while I’m not prioritizing my own net wealth over the suffering that may come from a major global conflict, I do want to prepare for the worst.
Perhaps a Taiwan conflict might stunt the growth of the crypto industry? Perhaps less of an appetite to fund a strategic reserve, perhaps people turning to Gold, perhaps people divesting from risk on assets?
Has anyone given this some thought?
Or is HODL still the recommended strategy here?
Obviously, we still have conflict in Ukraine and Middle East. These conflicts may escalate if Iran and Russia knows the US is now preoccupied in Taiwan.
New coverage also from WSJ today raising awareness to the extreme violence going on in Africa too.
In any case, I see the chance of a Taiwan military conflict at at least 1-5% chance in the next 4 years. These are supposed to be the golden years of crypto. And while I’m not prioritizing my own net wealth over the suffering that may come from a major global conflict, I do want to prepare for the worst.
Perhaps a Taiwan conflict might stunt the growth of the crypto industry? Perhaps less of an appetite to fund a strategic reserve, perhaps people turning to Gold, perhaps people divesting from risk on assets?
Has anyone given this some thought?
Or is HODL still the recommended strategy here?
Re: Microstrategy Aggressive Bitcoin Accumulation is a Bullish Sign for the Market
the fact that MSTR is willing buy BTC at the "top" proves their conviction in the long term viability of BTC. imo, I think the markets are overreacting and MSTR is currently oversold. they see the dilution as a bad thing (besides the convertible debt), but that's literally the only way MSTR can accumulate more BTC over time. so I don't get the bearish sentiment for MSTR.
MSTR investors should WANT Saylor to do an ATM anytime the mNAV premium is over 1 to increase BTC yield %
time will tell if MSTR and the MSTR bulls are right, but I think long term, MSTR is going to be just fine.
I'm not too sure of the short term TA indicators, but long term fundamentals for MSTR are sound. their strategy is legit, and any rational investor who is bullish on BTC should be bullish on MSTR.
of course, if you don't believe in BTC, then you should short or buy puts on MSTR no problem. but to hope MSTR fails if you are a BTC believe makes little sense to me.
one can make the argument that MSTR will be too centralized by trying to get 2% of the total supply, but it's a free market and if you don't like that, then buy more BTC and drive the price up so MSTR can't do it
in any case, BTC will be fine long term. MSTR will be fine long term
MSTR investors should WANT Saylor to do an ATM anytime the mNAV premium is over 1 to increase BTC yield %
time will tell if MSTR and the MSTR bulls are right, but I think long term, MSTR is going to be just fine.
I'm not too sure of the short term TA indicators, but long term fundamentals for MSTR are sound. their strategy is legit, and any rational investor who is bullish on BTC should be bullish on MSTR.
of course, if you don't believe in BTC, then you should short or buy puts on MSTR no problem. but to hope MSTR fails if you are a BTC believe makes little sense to me.
one can make the argument that MSTR will be too centralized by trying to get 2% of the total supply, but it's a free market and if you don't like that, then buy more BTC and drive the price up so MSTR can't do it
in any case, BTC will be fine long term. MSTR will be fine long term
https://www.coinglass.com/today
Based on the charts here, December so far is really bad.
2016: The Nov (+5%) to Dec (+30%) sequential acceleration was +25pts.
2020: The Nov (+42%) to Dec (+47%) sequential acceleration was +5pts.
2024: The Nov (+37%) to Dec (-1%) sequential deceleration is a whopping -38pts.
One can argue that perhaps it’s due to the strong YTD performance in 2024 (which I can’t compare easily to 2020 and 2016 on these charts, but I’m pretty sure that’s true).
However, with all that said, what are your thoughts for next week? Either for 12/31 or 1/3?
Based on the charts here, December so far is really bad.
2016: The Nov (+5%) to Dec (+30%) sequential acceleration was +25pts.
2020: The Nov (+42%) to Dec (+47%) sequential acceleration was +5pts.
2024: The Nov (+37%) to Dec (-1%) sequential deceleration is a whopping -38pts.
One can argue that perhaps it’s due to the strong YTD performance in 2024 (which I can’t compare easily to 2020 and 2016 on these charts, but I’m pretty sure that’s true).
However, with all that said, what are your thoughts for next week? Either for 12/31 or 1/3?