Bitcoin Forum

I read a piece of very interesting news on Bloomberg:


Wow!
It is now common for CB’s to have equities on their portfolios, Bank of Japan (BOJ) is a leader in this, but apparently, now it’s so common, even more, when people literally are throwing money at you, and you have to put it somewhere (this is basically what’s happening in Switzerland.

But wait, if SNB is long equity, and now some equity is long Bitcoin, well, then SNB is (indirectly long Bitcoin).

So I headed to finte.io, a website that conveniently groups 13F filings to the sec.


Boom!
 Swiss National Bank - 13F Filing - 2020-12-31 (https://fintel.io/i13f/swiss-national-bank/2020-12-31-0)

All the holding, nicely sorted.

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/16/blob0e610c47931331ba.jpeg

Looking for MicroStrategy and Tesla, we can discover how many shares they own.
For MicroStrategy, we know exactly how many bitcoins they have, how many outstanding shares, so it’s trivial to compute how many bitcoins they have.
For TSLA figures are a little bit muddier, but we can guesstimate a ballpark guess: 1.5 billion bitcoin bought at the average price of the tentative time they bought, multiplied for the outstanding stocks.

Result of my back of the envelope calculations

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/16/blobdcb5eae83a4860b0.png
Link to spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10gg3nU90j5u6ZdV0MuQyUzozRCha5h2CSnhKwVDde_A/edit)

SNB owns 245 BTC!

This is something that definitely has to be taken into account when someone will decide to “ban bitcoin”, or something like this.

The central bank owns shares in 2,490 companies, including Apple, Amazon and even GameStop,...

So, bankers speculate (but more like gambling) in stocks too and said Bitcoin is monkey business.


with those 245 BTC, how many Laszlo Hanyecz Pizza's share that SNB will get?  ;D

I can say we are almost safe now because they won't ban themself.

Et tu, Brute?  ;D ;D
Common, have mercy, when I read the title and see you're the topic creator I thought they were buying bitcoins themselves not owning shares in a company that holds coins, I was getting ready to jump around and check if the prices haven't already reached $100k.
They also have shares in Honeywell, that doesn't mean they have a few Minuteman ICBMs in their safe  ;D

Bad, bad fillippone :D


That ship has sailed, nobody will ban Bitcoin, at least not countries that matter in the global economy.
There will be morons every now and there with stupid ideas like what's happening in Nigeria or India, but an all-out ban? I'm more concerned about an asteroid hitting the Earth than this.

I am a verified human, and I can be wrong at times.

I admit that when I wrote the thread title, I was tempted to be a little bit ambiguous about this story. So I decided to keep a catchy headline, but to be very precise in the text.
So, I thank you for your critic and I slightly edited the title to make 100% sure nobody understand something different than reality.

And, I get what you are saying wit the Honeywell comparison, but sorry, it is not the same thing. Honeywell might have some ICBM on their account, maybe because some client is expected to take delivery or whatever reasons, but these are not in direct disposal of the shareholders, as those goods are THE Enterprise activity. As I didn't state that SNB owns a few thousands iPhones as they are AAPL shareholders.
But bitcoin in Treasury account is in the full disposal of the shareholders, via the CFO, who can freely decide about those assets.
So I think this is a little bit different.

That is how the bankers make money, they split the money that is deposited in their banks to investing, trading and lending AFAIK, the reason for that is that they need to make the money circulate and make more profit from that money, they technically are a investment managers that get so much money from investments and have the cents considered as their clients dividends.

Do companies like TSLA and MSRT take approvals from all shareholders before they bid on deals like buying bitcoins, or do they depend on CEO policies?
245 Bitcoin is not a big sum, they can sell it if there is any problem and I don't think they will pressure to pass legislation on this aspect.
The positive point is that the centralization of many banking sectors will make it unfeasible to ban Bitcoin, but we will see tightening of laws to ensure that governments guarantee taxes.

Eh, doesn't matter it was a wave of good news happening lately so I genuinely thought they bought it, I'm not sure if they can even do so directly but the enthusiasm got the better of me too.
With the Honeywell comparison, it was a lame tentative of trying to make a joke, you've said something about others not daring to ban bitcoin, nuclear weapons are deterrent but it was too hard at that hour yesterday to put it nicely into words, and besides, nukes are not that funny so I left it like that, too much work for nothing.


I don't know about MSRT but when it comes to TSLA I guess the meetings go like this:
Elon: I've dreamed of this yesterday..
The rest: Such idea! Wow factor! Much approval!

SNB doesn't own any bitcoin.  If they did, this would be worth taking into consideration, but the concept that you somehow own bitcoin through the transitive property of having minority stakes in companies that own bitcoin is logically faulty, to say the least.  Not your keys, not your bitcoin.

Great news. And this is just news about those who themselves confess to investing in bitcoins. I am sure that there are still many billionaires who do not advertise their investments in cryptocurrencies. If banks are already officially announcing investments in cryptocurrency, then this is a strong sign that we will soon see an even greater rise in the price of bitcoin and the demand for it.

Since owning bitcoin is still not legal on so many places, they can’t come out easily but I also believe that they really own Bitcoin but I’m not sure with the amount. Our central bank are very supportive on cryptocurrency and it good that other central bank are also doing the same thing and not just supporting bitcoin but also holding bitcoin. Though Its hard to know the real agreement between these companies and maybe SNB is just collecting some Bitcoin for the fees and services they offered?

Chistine felt the right thing was to make a statement to counter my Tweet:

ECB president Christine Lagarde says it's 'very unlikely' that central banks will hold bitcoin in the near future (https://www.businessinsider.com/christine-lagarde-central-banks-unlikely-to-hold-bitcoin-soon-2021-2?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+businessinsider+%28Business+Insider%29&r=US&IR=T)


Summary:

Of course she's referencing to direct investment, but as we saw, they already own indirectly some Bitcoin, I wouldn't be so sure about the future.

Central banks will probably get involved in the game only when Bitcoin is positioned so that it cannot be avoided, or perhaps better to say at a time when it will become clear to everyone that it is very stupid to continue to ignore something in which everyone invests. I am not at all surprised by what Lagarde is saying at the moment, because any other statement could be interpreted as giving legitimacy to something that central banks are trying to avoid.

---

I would never completely rule out such a development, because India or Nigeria are not countries that have a global impact like the one that the US or the UK have. I've already commented on what I think about it, so I won't repeat myself - but all eyes are on the US when it comes to Bitcoin.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5315581.msg56306393#msg56306393

Yes, I'd read about that, but I'd missed your later post:


Yes, Chrissie, you could even ban European banks from holding btc by decree. You could base your ruling on volatility, induced instability on sovereign (Euro) currency, drug trafficking, child porn or Proudhon warnings.
All Swiss banks would have to comply immediately. Right?

Uh wait...  ::)

Did ECB president Christine Lagarde said just recently that is is very unlikely any central banks will hold bitcoin in the near future... was she wrong or she is not reading the news :)
Banks are done, busted and they are probably living their last days in current economical system and I am sure that some of them will try to buy and manipulate Bitcoin.
My theory is that central banks will just make their own coins, just like Amazon is now hiring developers to make them their own Amazon coin wtf... why don't just accept Bitcoin like Tesla did :)

I guess it does make sense that they do end up putting money into other stuff, because somehow they need to make that money into even more money to be a viable business, sure central banks are not "business" in the same sense but constantly losing money is not an option neither, which is why I think it is crucially important for them to use that. Buying stocks of huge gigantic companies are a great way to do it, it is unlikely that these companies would bankrupt, which means they are investing at the right place.

Yes I do agree that if a central bank invests into a company that invests into bitcoin that means even if indirectly, that central bank invested into bitcoin as well. This opens up a lot of possibilities, even if central banks do not buy bitcoin straight up, they could potentially buy from places like grayscale so they could own bitcoin without actually owning any bitcoin.

I'm not sure the bankers see ownership of a stock like MSTR as buying bitcoin outright.  The fact that MSTR has a lot of bitcoin is just one aspect of their business.  I'd think that banks look at stocks as businesses (as most investors do) and not care so much what kind of cash reserve they have, although I'd expect them to think of MSTR and the others as being more risky because of their btc holdings.

Interesting info, OP.  Bitcoin has definitely become way more mainstream than it was in its early days (and even more so since I started getting interested in it, which was relatively late).  It started with mainstream news coverage, and now we've got these big corporations preferring to own bitcoin instead of USD or any other fiat currency.  Pretty cool.

Finally, I got very interesting news and was happy that there is a bank that is very friendly with the presence of Bitcoin, I don't know what kind of idea, what is clear is that the decision from Bank SWISS is very correct. and this will be a rethink for some central banks like in Nigeria, Bangladesh etc. let them think again, because they have rejected and are hostile to the existence of bitcoin. I am very happy with the decision of the Swiss bank to officially own bitcoin, at the same time it has supported bitcoin development in a better direction.


hopefully Banks in other countries start taking into account bitcoin, especially in the country where I live.

Certainly Central Banks will start fiddling with CBDC, Central Bank Digital Currencies, some useless experiment that someone compares with Bitcoin because of the world digital, as if the EUR or the USD weren’t digital enough.

The real reason why CB are doing this is not to make the system more efficient, or fight the illegal economy. No, the only reason is power: they want to excercice their power on you, while screening how you spend your digital cash (that we learnt is not actually cash, because traceable).

Wow, this is one of the outstanding and amazing news of the week.

i use to think that CB use to keep their money in USD and gold reserves. Is this one an unconventional practice for SNB to have his reserves in equity of companies such as GameStop.

There is an Israeli professor of economics that wrote one time that Speculation or arbitrage is a form of entrepreneurship. Well, the goal of SNB is to make money, as such it has to be entrepreneur in strategy.

---

What a line of good thinking that spur reflection. Come to think about it, fiat money has existed in digital format for a long time, when there is a need to print money, i feel what need to be done is to add digital numbers to the amount of money supply (MS). So, i see that there would be very slim difference between CBDC and the current currency. The only difference may be the technology supporting the two and what the people use it for.

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

The difference from the user point of view would be very small, but the implication for the banking system would be massive: issuing big a CBDC the central banks would entirely skip the “private” banking sector, being able to fully achieve the deleterious policy of negative interest rates that wasn’t able to make effective during the last years (with a negative interest rate savings are seriously hindered and consumption is invenctivised.

In a country where central bank is investing in Bitcoin, that means that it is fully legit and there will be no excuses later. That’s really good, and it’s going to give all the investors in that country the confidence that Bitcoin is a good investment and they would love to invest in it.

This is really a very good news. And plus the Tesla, just saw the news yesterday, I was happy about it, though I also felt some way, but that is not something I would be discussing here. It’s all good that they are recognizing Bitcoin and the early investors who have had patience and kept pushing it has finally got their rewards.

In a world where financial firms, corporate treasury and even banks have positio in cryptocurrency, I think it is inevitable some Central Banks get directly long in bitcoin. At least to fully understand the finer details of it.

The Swiss central bank is generally famous for such experiments, if I am not mistaken, they were the ones who relatively recently completely abandoned the gold reserve. And by the way, it seems that we are not talking about direct ownership, but only about indirect things from which such loud conclusions are made. I was much more interested in their ownership of shares of such a risky asset as GameStop.

They are not directly holding Bitcoin. On the other hand, they own Tesla stock. So it can't be interpreted as an endorsement for Bitcoin. And more importantly, they were owning the stock even before Tesla made it's investment in Bitcoin. Personally I would say that central banks should accumulate assets such as gold and Bitcoin, since they offer some sort of protection against inflation.

Then the title is misleading as it is if they do not own bitcoin. Central banks accumulating cryptocurrency is a dangerous gambit to play, this people control the economy and if they are presented with something that can help their stranglehold on the economy and the people get tighter, then they will likely grab that thing whatever it takes. This asset accumulation will be good for the people if everyone were to put money in the bank so as to combat inflation.

While all of us are allowed a bit of a flight of fancy at times, the topic is still misleading. They don't own Bitcoin directly or indirectly. This is quite creative though.
As far as central banks actually owning Bitcoin, that would probably be one of those hyperbitcoinization moments. I doubt that will EVER happen. Bitcoin will continue to go through the upheavals and so would its supporters. For example, when it gets banned in one of our countries, the flight of capital within the internal market would be spectacular. The usage then would be limited to people actually using BTC for small, anonymous P2P payments. Natural learning cycles for the community. And these need to happen throughout the world so it eventually reaches everyone.

In the coming decade, the ability to use BTC should ideally be as ubiquitous as using a mobile phone to stay in touch and manage your business. The common thing being that the richest CEO and the most downtrodden farmer make similar use of the mobile phone. That is what BTC should ideally be. Not part of corporate coffers or Swiss banks.

This is all very well, of course, but you forget that to ban BTC (and, in principle, cryptocurrencies), you do not need to come up with any complicated reasons. It is enough for states and other powerful people that cryptocurrencies cannot be controlled and there is very good transparency. These two things are quite enough if someone has a final and unquenchable desire to close the cryptocurrency market and other reasons will not play such a strong role as these two.

Never is a long time.

Furthermore, holding 1% to 10% of central bank reserves in bitcoin is not going to kill them (for whichever particular central bank that might decide to go down that road - and they already know how to do hold alternative assets with something like gold), and may well happen long before never - maybe even this year - possible within the upcoming 6 months (which is also long before never)?   :D :D :D :D

By the way amishmanish, even though I did not quote your whole post for commenting, I will note that unless I am misreading you, your tone comes off in a bit of a defeatist kind of way - as if you are just making up shit to paint more bearish views of the status of bitcoin, when you might not even be realizing the significance of what is going on around us in terms of avalanching BTC adoption by BIG ass players that is likely to cause increasing contagion towards other BIG ASS players, whether they like it or not.  So you can talk all the nonsense that you like about things that are "never" going to happen, and there have already been a lot of things happening in the past year that many of us thought were way further off into the future or some others thought that those things would "never happen," but they did.. Go figure?... can be quit disadvantageous to have your head in the sand regarding these matters, and hopefully, you are adequately prepared for UPpity, in spite of your seemingly exaggerated negative talk that seems to fly in the face of actual ongoing happenings in the bitcoin space.

Some of the Bitcoin users have a habit of publishing misleading information, which in the end makes them laughing stock before others. Central banks won't purchase any Bitcoin, because it is a threat to their authority and dominance. If fiat assets are replaced with decentralized assets such as Bitcoin, then what is the point in having a central bank? BTW, do we need central banks to accept cryptocurrency? IMO, we don't need them.

You're right . That is why I doubt it'll ever happen. Wouldn't say never. My opinion is that central banks holding Bitcoin would require them to have to leaps of faith. Risk their own credibility as they print infinite amounts. Second, to acknowledge that a capped, digital good over which they have no control can be accepted as money/ currency. Central banks holding it would mean none of the alternative nomenclatures about Bitcoin being SoV or a commodity wouldn't be needed. Those are huge leaps of faith for the central banks and the men their to take.

It'd be pretty revolutionary if this happens and I couldn't be happier..

I don't understand how I come across as defeatist if i say that the ability to use BTC should be as ubiquitous as the mobile phone. I don't know what part of the globe you're from, but I have seen first hand the empowerment that mobile phones have brought to everyone from a marginally paid salesman at a small store to the small farmer managing his cropping cycles and harvesting deals. Basically the flow of information has resulted in people having more control over allocation of their resources and getting the best return on their meager investments.

When you say "Big ass investments" and "Big ass corporations", I imagine those who probably hold 100s/ 1000s of BTCs from the early years and are salivating over the prospect of becoming mullti-millionaires/ billionaires and being accepted so throughout the world with removal of all regulatory bottlenecks. Good for them but there has to be a way for Bitcoin's transparency to trickle down in ways that it challenges the status quo of financial power in the world. If things stay exactly the same in terms of its usage and distribution, i think it will be just assimilated as another banker tool.

Also, you should maybe read some of my other posts before calling me a defeatist.. :-\ I believe we are on the same side but maybe have different expectations as far as the impact of bitcoin is concerned.

Seems to me that you are thinking way too small, but no problema.. we can agree to disagree.



I am not saying these kinds of things based on hopium of myself or any other longer term BTC investor who is likely to make out like a bandit, and many of us have already done quite well, even if a more flat adoption curve were to play out.. including considerable corrections that still end up leaving us in 20x to 2000x profits, depending on starting points.

No need to be fearful of all the money that the earlier adopters are going to make or the fact that there might not have been population wide adoption of bitcoin, its a BIG fucking SO WHAT no coiner talking point that is likely to work itself out sufficiently well - including that BTC remains quite fair in its distribution and ability of folks to get it, and sure there are informational disparities but difficult to really figure out ways to more fairly distribute, unless you are an altcoin pumpener trying to think "creatively" about some pie in the sky bullshit that is not going to happen.


From my perspective, you seem overly worried about this distribution question for some reason.


Speculate all that you like, which seems that you don't quite understand the power of being able to hold your own keys - even though NOT everyone is going to hold their own keys during these transitory times of moving from our status quo traditional systems into bitcoin empowered systems that do empower individuals to hold their own keys.


Why?  I am responding to the ideas in your post, and there is no need to take my comments personally.  Whether you are an actual defeatist in terms of your other ideas and ways of the world, why would it matter to my various responses?  I am responding to ideas that were made (to the extent that I understood them properly) in a public thread and not about you in any kind of personal way.


Fair enough.  I would consider myself on appreciating the upside possibilities of bitcoin, but I am not banking of those having to have to happen.  I am already way the hell ahead of any place that I had expected to be in life, and I have bitcoin management systems that attempt to prepare me psychologically and financially for very conservative moves in bitcoin, so a lot of the excess BTC price moves over the years has been largely icing on the cake.

So, for example, when I got into bitcoin in late 2013, I had considered that I might lose all of what I had invested into bitcoin over those first few years, but my initial thoughts was that I had hoped to be able to get at least a 6% per annum price return in my bitcoin investment, and sure, it took a few years just to get to that 6% per annum average because BTC price went from $1,163 when I started down to $200-ish in late 2014 and pretty much stayed in the mid-$200s for most of 2015 before even moving up to be able to surpass $500 in late May 2016.. so surely there were uncertain times in regards to being able to sustain 6% per year, but I had continued to mostly buy during that time with money available (considering that I had already invested quite a bit in 2014), and then things started looking much better getting into late 2016 and thereafter, and of course, my strategy had remained quite conservative through all of that time - and of course, I have 100s of post in which I talk about my various strategies that largely focus on accumulate and hodl even though sure I do shave off small amounts of profits when the BTC price goes up and use that money to buy back btc.. (consider it as a kind of insurance/hedge)...   

In essence, part of my point here is that BTC's ongoing upwards price moves that seem quite likely to continue are way more bullish than any of what I had hoped for and I don't even give much shits on a personal level because my BTC management system does not try to play around with the market... and I am doing quite well, even if BTC prices make a 80% drop from here (which seems quite unlikely but surely within the realm of possibilities).  Looking at the 208-week moving average (as a pretty decent - extreme bottom indicator), it is currently at about $8,900 and it appears to be moving up around $150 per week these days.

I will have to assume you have more experience of hodling and seeing the actions of early adopters to be sure of this. Its cool if this happens. Already folks like Jack announce development grants etc for bitcoin based development.

I would love to have some backing on this and your understanding on what you call fair distribution.

I suppose you did mean that.

My "pie" in the sky is to be around and be able to understand when people figure out what is possible with bitcoin before the corporates do. And yes Ser, I don't yet think all Alt-coins are shit-coins. ;)

LOL OK. You are popular JJG. Some of us lesser mortals sometimes assume that people know us too. Totally off-track.

Thanks for sharing that experience. These bullish indicators may seem all too obvious to people like me who only came onboard around 2017. Your post makes me realize that for those of you who stuck through the earlier phase when it was so much easier to diss on Bitcoin and call it a scam, there has to be a solid understanding that a lot of us still miss. Personally, I buy BTC when I have money to put into it. So even though its not going to be a ride to the moon, I am lucky enough to be earlier than most. I still think that its not invincible. There is a lot to be done for Bitcoin to establish itself. By that I don't mean that some other coin will replace it. Just that Bitcoin itself has a lot to figure out.

I doubt that I am sure of anything.  I was largely rebutting your point about central banks "never" including bitcoin on their balance sheets.  So, in that regard, I don't need to be sure about much of anything, except that your earlier statement seemed to be way too absolutist in terms of what you thought was going to happen, especially also including the various other things going on in the bitcoin space, including the already considerable amount of BTC adoption that seems to be taking place by bigger and BIGGER players.. individuals, companies and even financial institutions (sometimes not sure if there is a difference between companies and financial institutions anymore but whatever).


I fucking don't care whether it happens of not, except you said that it was never going to happen.. and I think that the odds are quite a bit greater than "never".


Sure.. those kinds of ongoing investments causes bitcoin to be more and more widely known and of course there are likely to be actually perceived material developments that take place when funds and efforts continue to be directed at bitcoin in various ways.. and Jack Dorsey is just one of many...


I don't feel like backing anymore than I already have.  I made some overall descriptions of what I believe to be the case, and if you do not believe it and you have other ideas of some better ways of distributing more fairly blah blah blah, then whatever, you are free to come to your own conclusions.. still sounds like what shitcoiners or no coiners try to do in criticizing bitcoin and striving come up with other more fair distribution mechanisms or put some burdens on bitcoiners to justify why bitcoin is sufficiently fairly distributed.. whatever.. there is a decent amount of data out there for you to research into the distribution matters if you believe it is such a BIG deal.  Of course, we are not going to know distribution with any kind of accuracy beyond inferences because bitcoin remains pseudo-anonymous.. so the information is not going to be completely complete.. and it is not even going to be good enough for some people, so there remains logic and inferences in the conclusions that anyone might come to in regards to these kinds of analysis and/or comparative analysis.


I am not sure about your point?  We have had years in which people could buy into bitcoin at relatively low prices, but of course, only small percentages of the world's population had known about BTC, and even if people know about bitcoin there is a lot of misinformation out there.  So the various dynamics have been out there, and surely people who have access to information and are able to sort information and misinformation are going to be in better positions to acquire bitcoin.  Also people with disposable income are going to be in better positions to acquire bitcoin (or make any investments for that matter).

Do you have some proposal about more fair distribution, which seems to be part of what you are trying to criticize bitcoin for and to suggest that I have some kind of burden to show that bitcoin is sufficiently fairly distributed because I had made such statements?



Your description of your own thinking does seem to be like "pie in the sky;" I agree, because once the cat is out of the bag (which seems to be the case in recent times), smaller and regular folks are going to have more difficulties acquiring BTC at reasonably low prices, unless they figure out what the fuck is happening much more quickly.

So, yes, based on some of the recent happenings, it does appear that corporates and other BIG institutional players are going to end up pumping BTC's price way up.. and sure, right now, as I type, it is probably still quite early in terms of regular peeps acquiring BTC, but regular peeps might not appreciate the fact that it is still sufficiently early, until BTC prices are in the supra $150k price arena.. and whatever, at that point, they missed opportunities to buy at much lower prices, but there is no reason to doubt that bitcoin is going to continue to be a good investment for a long ass time into the future, even if some peeps have to buy in at $150k or $500k rather than having had bought earlier at much lower prices, including today's prices.


Sorry for your loss.    :P :P

 :D :D :D :D  (seriously)


No problem.  Fair enough.  Sometimes, any of us might use really strong language or even call the other a retard, and most of time, my personal intent continues to be to attack the ideas of the person rather than the person, even though sometimes my chosen language might be a bit ambiguous in terms of interpretation.


Sure, sometimes it can be helpful to throw in some personal experiences in order to attempt to clarify perspectives, and surely, I understand that there are a variety of approaches to BTC, and I tend to share my personal experiences quite frequently in terms of both advocating a kind of long term BTC investment mindset, but also attempting to show a kind of way that such a longer term investment approach can be put into practice in connection with BTC.


Through the years, there has always been both negative and positive information in bitcoin, and there are so many of us longer-term investors (and maybe can even include yourself into this) that continue to be dumbfounded and amazed how the news related to BTC ends up playing out even more bullish than we had expected.  Sure, there is a range of expectations in terms of what could happen with bitcoin that go from completely negative to neutral to positive, but in the whole scheme of things, and on the spectrum, seems that the overall BTC fundamentals have continued to play out quite well - despite some set backs along the way, gaining of traction of some misinformation (and FUD) and even seeming difficult times along the way (such as overcoming of challenges such as the hardforks of the mid-to-late 2017s).

The passage of time has been providing more and more BTC adoption that kind of snowballs into reinforcing earlier theories that then materialize in price performance... which might be another way of saying that BTC has Lindy effects that are proven with the passage of time.



Each of us can only do what we can do in terms of cashflow or other financial resources that might be available to us including whether we could employ debt reasonably and prudently, and considering what kinds of strategies might be available for us to reasonably and prudently employ.

I understand that there are all kinds of people out there who might not have much if any cashflow or other resources that can be turned into ways to acquire bitcoin, so they might feel that they are getting left behind by others buying up bitcoin and pushing up the prices... but still you gotta do what you can, and I have largely been recommending a three pronged approach with includes 1) buying right way, 2) dollar cost averaging and 3) buying on dips.  Of course, the whole idea of money management is way more complicated than just spewing out a few conceptual frameworks, so any particular individual needs to consider his/her individual factors such as cashflow, other investments, view of bitcoin as compared to other investments, timeline, risk tolerance and time, skills and abilities to research, plan and employ various strategies that would likely include allocating, reallocating and possibly even trading.

By the way, I also do not recommend trading as a way to attempt to accumulate more bitcoin, I recommend those first three that I mentioned.. which is largely ongoing buying until reaching a kind of target level of BTC accumulation, which could take 10 to 20 years.  Hey, there are people who invest all of their lives and even 40 years or more and they might not end up getting rich or getting to a status in which they can live fairly comfortably off of their investments, so if bitcoin can cut that time in half and provide some actual assurances of being able to live off of it, then you end up being way the hell ahead of so many people in the world who have to work until their death or who end up having a lot of financial struggles and stresses in their older years.


Get rich quick seems to be a stupid-ass perspective, even if bitcoin might end up causing some people to get rich way the fuck quicker than they would have if they had not come across bitcoin.  I think that you are really early to already have systems for acquiring bitcoin set up and having had been able to be in the space for three years or more.  So, even if you might continue to have some dumb-ass ideas about shitcoins having value in terms of your long term investment approach, you still should be able to work out some various systems that allow you to prosper quite stupendously from the mere fact of knowing about bitcoin and being able to have it in your investment portfolio. 


By the way, don't get me wrong about shitcoins.  I do hold a few, but they are much less than 1% of my total investment portfolio, and I can accept that some reasonable people might want to put up to 10% of the value of their bitcoin investment into various shitcoins.... but I really do not believe that more should be put into shitcoins, even though I know many people "know better than me" and they are going to take much higher chances with a variety of shitcoins.  I recall in 2017, there were people with 80% in shitcoins and 20% in bitcoin and talking the various shitcoin talking points including calling bitcoin grandpa coin blah blah blah... Of course, there were also a decent number of those "know it alls" who did not have any in bitcoin, even though they knew about bitcoin.

Currently, there do not seem to be as many of those overly allocated shitcoiners who fail/refuse to invest any in bitcoin, but still from my perspective there are likely a lot who are way too allocated into shitcoins both financially and mentally.. but whatever, do what you like.
 
Of course, any investor needs to consider both upside and downside possibilities, and even if "going to zero" seems to have become lower and lower on the spectrum of likely outcomes, it still is a non-zero possibility, at least in my way of thinking about the whole matter.
 

That seems to be another one of those sets of extreme assertions, amishmanish.  Bitcoin is already established, especially if you compare it to some kind of piece of shit like ethereum that is still trying to figure out what it is going to be including a bunch of bullshit propaganda trying to proclaim that it actually functions in any kind of meaningful way except providing various vehicles for scams... sure there are networking effects in scams and providing "get rich quick" mechanisms for people, but still, compared to bitcoin, bitcoin is already established rather than theoretical.

Bitcoin could end up ossifying right where it is at, and it would still provide a whole hell of a lot of utility just for what it already is.  Of course, there seem to be some likely changes in the code in the future such as taproot and Schnorr and perhaps some other changes, and they would increase functionality of something that already works.  And, sure there are other systems being built upon bitcoin and getting pegged to bitcoin, but that is going to happen with any system.  With the passage of time, more things are going to be built upon it, which is what seems to be ongoingly happening with bitcoin..... and way more things being built than I can keep track of ... but I can still witness some of the building that is taking place by looking around and hearing from other people who are involved in such building or know about such building that is ongoingly taking place in respect to bitcoin.. and sure even some of the shitcoin building could end up getting absorbed into bitcoin or pegged to bitcoin in the future, perhaps.

Feel like I wrote a bit much.   :'( :'( :'(  Thanks for reading if you made it to the end.   ;) ;)    :P :P

Christine Lagarde will first say “no”, then “maybe” and at the end - “yes!” 

She is a professional financier and understands perfectly well that Bitcoin is the ideal global reserve currency. 

Bitcoin is a deflationary digital asset.  Bitcoin has a transparent blockchain.  This circumstance creates ideal conditions for the audit of bank reserves.  In the future, Bitcoin will become the main part of the gold and foreign exchange reserves of all countries. 

In my opinion, Christine Lagarde is well aware of this.

It's something that other countries' central banks need to be aware of as well.

This is what institutional investment brings to the table. Other holdings companies, governments, and central banks may find themselves directly tied with vested interest in BTC through their equities (or even certain levels of exposure through bonds).

This makes it much harder for regulators to restrict access. If they do, then they are essentially shooting *themselves* in the foot because of the proxy investments they made through Microstrat, TSLA, etc. Of course, 250 BTC is a tiny drop in the ocean for a portfolio as large as the central bank's holdings as of current, but with more companies owning BTC as a cash equivalent and with a soaring BTC bull market, the significance of these proprietary holdings will only increase over time.

LOL Yeah i did make it to the end. Thanks for taking the time and I do agree.

The slight difference is about my assertion, as you rightly say, extreme; that Bitcoin has a lot to figure out. After reading your posts, I think i am just worrying unnecessarily. Bitcoin by nature is a technology that cannot be banned or stopped. Other concerns about the future of fee-market and block subsidy are just way into the future and already being solved, as we speak. 

I don't compare it to Ethereum or any of the Alt-coins. They all exist only because Bitcoin does. The "crypto-economy" exists only because BTC provides the foundational tenet that cryptographic consensus is valuable. I do think that the concept of decentralized governance and smart-contract enabled by Ethereum has value. Bitcoin has plans for something similar and we have to wait to see the full impact of those changes.

Ok.  we can hug it out... nohomo...


There would be a whole hell of a lot of trade offs to try to stop bitcoin now or to ban it, but it still could be attempted, so I am not sure how desperate status quo systems might get, or if they believe that there could be a chance to ban or stop bitcoin.. and surely there would need to be a lot of jurisdictional cooperation between rivals which also makes the banning and stopping quite challenging in terms of the state of bitcoin and in terms of some of the BIGGER players recently coming into bitcoin in various degrees.
 


Might NOT be completely solved, but surely there is a lot of wait and see regarding how the various dynamics play out before being able to conclude that something is broken or that some various adjustments might not be able to be made to make sure that incentives continue as the block rewards continue to become increasingly smaller.
 


Some of that might be absorbed into bitcoin, but some of it might continue to exist on ethereum or some rival projects that might end up taking ethereum's place or some combination - but yeah, we are still seeing how some of those various kinds of systems continue to have value and if so what role bitcoin might play in providing any of the underlying security for such systems.

WTF are you writing? Im own Tesla card because i have 1 tesla share? Its not working like this, man. Clickbait ant nohting more

Thank you for your articulated reasoning.
It indeed exactly works like this. A share is a fractional property right on everything the firm owns. Bitcoins included.

In general, it is not even necessary to compare bitcoin and smart contracts of ethereum and similar cryptocurrencies. An even more important mistake is to say that it is possible to build an economy on this. Some small part is necessary, but smart contracts in the form of cryptocurrencies are very overvalued things, because such things have existed for a long time and they will not be immediately crossed out by a competitor who offers such a thing, but on different principles.

If you can't control the bitcoin, it's not accurate to say you own a fraction of any bitcoins because you own shares of the company. Owning shares of a company doesn't give you a fractional right to everything the firm owns, this isn't even theoretically true let alone actually true.

An update on this.
After a full year, the total BTC indirectly held by SNB surged to 323 BTC, up from  245 one year ago.

https://i.ibb.co/tzm1nFB/59248059.jpg

SNB is hodling strong!

Hahahahaha

Thanks for the update fillippone.

I realize you are being a bit snarky with your use of the term "surge," but hey we know that even modest amounts of ongoing HODLing of BTC is likely going to pay off for several of the institutions that choose to include BTC in their balances. 

Also, it has really been a rollercoaster of a year, so there have been some likely challenges for any newbie HODLers to have to contemplate the level of their BTC conviction, if they happened to have entered into bitcoin any time in the past year. 

Of course, some longer term entrants like Saylor and MSTR have an additional 6 months or so that they have been into bitcoin, so that extra 6 months had the potential to bring quite a few extra benefits to those individuals/institutions that front-loaded their BTC investment to some extent.. but even with a 6 month head start, the ups and downs of the last year has the potential of shaking, even profitable folks/institutions out of their holdings if they are not convicted enough in terms of understanding why they are in bitcoin.... and I can imagine that with an institution, there can be divergences of opinions from various leaders within the institution that causes more potential friction (or support) than might be present with individuals.....

Oh, and by the way, these days, a move up from 245 BTC to 323 BTC would be quite difficult for individuals to achieve, but surely not too difficult a move for any major institutions.  Interesting times.  Interesting times.