There is always a correlation, because everything is interconnected and does not exist in an airless space, just this correlation takes different forms and dependencies. In any case, the current price of bitcoin is higher than what it was immediately before the pandemic, and it was the pandemic that played the role of a trigger that caused the growth of the exchange price of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. And if at first the price of bitcoin increased against the background of the catastrophic impact of the pandemic on the world economy in the form of a lockdown and bitcoin acted as an analogue of a protective asset for investors, then the price collapsed, among other things, due to some recovery of the world economy and a decrease in crisis phenomena.

If the certain company I am working with has the ability to pay me in cryptocurrency, I would still like it to be in fiat. Don't get me wrong, I know that bitcoin has already withstood the test of time, hence, I am confident in bitcoin's potential. However, being compensated in cryptocurrency form has its advantages and disadvantages. For example, your salary is $500 every 15 days and the bitcoin's price is at its peak value then, your company will buy 500 dollars worth of bitcoin in its high position - a lesser amount of bitcoin for you. But if you'll opt to receive fiat instead, you can keep all the 500 dollars to yourself and wait for the dip of bitcoin's price. That way you can buy more bitcoin with the money you have at hand.

You see, there will be discrepancies in wages paid by the company based on the price of the coin you will pick as your compensation. You can either benefit from it or be at the losing end. It just depends on the status of the market - bearish or bullish. That is why I still prefer to be paid in physical money then I will be the one to determine how much and when should I invest it.

Cryptocurrency payment would definitely be one of the new trends in the future. Right now, there are already several countries and establishments that are accepting cryptocurrencies as payment for transactions. In no time, many brands and countries will adopt the movement too. It will be nicer because people will have more choices and options to pick from.

I agree.

But what I would be interested to know especially from more knowledgeable people like you is if you think this will be implemented and if it will indeed greatly limit the privacy and ability to transact for users who have their funds in hardware or paper wallets and don't want to identify themselves.

Interestingly China went with another route, which I do not know if it is an amazing move for them or not, and Saudi Arabia went with another. Those are three very wealthy nations, and I can name some other of course but that is not important I want to point out these three. USA went with oil, they want oil, they want to control oil production and how it moves, that is why Oil is pegged to USD everywhere in the world, and that is a good way to dominate, they have some amazing companies that make billions of dollars yearly from overseas as well.

Secondly we have China, which is buying land and houses in other nations, which is a reasonable investment, when you have tens of billions of dollars then you can buy lands everywhere in the world, and big lands as well, or huge apartments in big cities. Saudi Arabia on the other hand buys stocks of other nations companies, they own so much of big companies that we are not even realizing the whole world is basically working for Saudis at this point. No idea which one is better.

Nah. I am not really a fan of stocks. Crypto is honest. Stock market is a casino. I'd rather buy more crypto with my crypto gains and have even more potential gains. But that's just me. Stock are in a bubble anyway and crypto is hanging just fine. It is also fairly easy to avoid taxes with crypto. That's not the case when you invest in stocks and I am not really a fan of paying taxes.

You can read this thread and find out.

They have 92k BTC and they have authorization to buy BTC with another $500 million (whether they have bought yet or not is still not clear)

They ONLY buy and hold bitcoin, so fuck off with your asking about cryptocurrencies, they do not buy shitcoins... hahahaha.. nothing personal against you, fulcare.   



Michael Saylor (and thus MSTR) is a newbie to bitcoin, so again you might want to study this thread in regards to the situation, and surely he is an interesting case in terms how quickly he studied the matter, how BIG he went in from the start in August 2020.., how much publicity he has been getting, some of his ongoing doubling down in terms of his buying of bitcoin and how much he seems to be ready, willing and able to share his strategies including giving free seminars on the topic of how to buy BTC (and put BTC on the treasury balance sheets) for BIGGER players.



Of course, "early adopter" is a relative term, so how the hell is anyone going to know for sure except with the passage of time in regards to how matters turn out.

Of course, the theory is that we remain in relative early stages, and so MSTR seems to be of this mindset in terms of considering how advantaged that they could become to attempt to front run BTC investing and in that regard to have a lot of advantages over other players who are either too slow to act or too non committed in terms of recognizing BTC's current value proposition.


They might be correct, and they might not.  Surely, many regular bitcoiners believe that they are both right and quite smart to be attacking the matter quite aggressively in such a short period of time.  With the passage of time, we will see how well their aggressive approach works out for them.



Seems that they are probably right, so then anyone studying the situation, whether an individual or an institution has to decide if the behaviors of MSTR is going to affect their own thinking about the matter.  If MSTR is trying to buy all the bitcoins, then there might be some considerations about whether to emulate or just step back and let them buy them all or take some moderated stance to accumulate a sufficient amount of BTC in order to feel comfortable with the possibility that they could be right  - or on the other hand, be prepared in case they might not be correct...

I would imagine that quite a large number of regular forum members have been preparing for BTC prices to go up for some time, so the behavior of MSTR is not totally shocking, even if it seems to be way more aggressive than even the most bullish of bullish members here.... Many times regular peeps do not have cashflows that are great like MSTR nor are they in a position to either leverage a company or to gain publicity for such leverage, so in that sense the behavior of MSTR ends up fitting in a special category that might not be the same as what longer term forum members had been capable of doing, but there likely are a decent number of longer term forum members who feel adequately prepared psychologically and financially for MSTR's seeming ongoingly aggressive approach to BTC.


You are speaking gobble-dee-gook like some kind of butt hurt no coiner who doesn't know shit but wants to spout out some kind of out of touch theory.

I will admit that the behavior of Microstrategies fits into a kind of difficult to believe category, but if we are attempting to categorize the behavior and talk about the BTC price effects that it may have, we should be attempting to stick with reality rather than just making up shit that makes hardly any sense.

Another matter is that it seems to be difficult to know whether MSTR bitcoin buying is having much if any affect on short term BTC price.  Of course, any entity that continues to buy is going to put ongoing pressures on the buy price, but if others do not follow or if the selling (or even the use of financial instruments to short) are stronger than the buying pressures, then of course the BTC price will continue to go down, even if Saylor et al might be buying BTC in lump sums and even 10s of millions of dollars worth regularly on a monthly or so basis.

I would not proclaim to know whether $30,066 is our actual bottom for this particular correction or if there might be more room for more downity.  Looks like we are getting another test of buy support, and sure it is possible that MSTR has already bought.. but really difficult to know, especially if they have not yet announced.  At some point, I would consider that Saylor/MSTR would want to be a bit more strategic about their buys in terms of buying on dips - because at some point they must appreciate that they are HODLing a sufficient amount of BTC to prepare for UP... so in some senses they can help the whole ecosystem and themselves to be buying on dips, too... rather than just buying at whatever the BTC price happens to be at the time - which is what is recommended for a smaller HODLer who is still establishing base BTC accumulation levels - and so it should be logically apparent that even having had accumulated 92k coins or even perhaps over 100k coins by now, MSTR has accumulated a pretty decent base of coins relative to other assets that they might hold or even some cash that they may continue to have available besides the cash that they have borrowed, equity that they have reserved or other cash that might be coming in based on ongoing sales (that are likely to be continuing).

The national currency of any state, in principle, does not need competition. To thrive, it needs competent management of the country's economy, which also includes monetary policy. If the country is strong economically, then its national currency will easily compete with other currencies of states.
Cryptocurrency, of course, needs good and healthy competition to accelerate its development. This will stimulate her improvement.

While it is true that all currencies are competing among each other at the same time the competition is cosmetic among fiat currencies, after all do you really think that if instead of the US dollar being used as the currency of the world we used the Euro things will change? Of course not, everything will be the same, however bitcoin has for the first time in at least 50 years brought a legitimate contender, a form of money that is based on different principles than fiat.

I mean it's a pretty safe bet as long as they have cash flow to pay the interest. I think the interest rate was set at 6.xx%. And bitcoin on average goes up by 100+% a year the past 5 years, and considering it just dropped 50% it's a great time to do this sort of thing. Apparently there was like $1.5 billion trying to buy in, but Saylor limited it to $500 million in order to be able to handle the interest payments.

I do note that the last time they raised money for buying Bitcoin there was literally no interest paid out on it. I think Saylor is probably getting close to the end of his Bitcoin buying sprees if they went from paying no interest to paying 6+% on this one. They've got the $1 billion equity sale over time that they filed for which they plan to use partially for Bitcoin buying as well. I wouldn't be surprised if some of that equity sale will be used to have an emergency fund of cash to cover interest payments so they don't have to sell any of their Bitcoin and let their balance sheet just keep ballooning. I'm guessing that'll be the last of their big bitcoin accumulation buys, though I'm sure they'll keep DCAing $10-$15 million at a time.

Scalability issue is being solved via side chains like liquid as I see it. It is not perfect but it seems to work.

As you said, in the future NSADAQ and other major markets will probably operate on Ethereum or something similar. However, I stilll would buy crypto instead of stocks because stocks look like dead weight. They are matured long ago. Crypto is still in its infancy which means the room for growth is far bigger.

The companies that are sceptical of crypto are changing their minds slowly. Look, even Tesla/Elon has backpedaled from their latest decision and decided to accept bitcoin for their products again.

When this gains momentum, the others will have no other choice but to follow.

TBH, money has everything to do with happiness is you're all the way into living life your way (or living life king sized). The other way around, money has nothing to do with happiness if you have the will to remain and feel satisfied no matter what happens. It's the person with responsibilities who would be worried about money to give a good lifestyle to his/her family but if someone's alone and don't get money (kind of pocket money) even from home (a student maybe) but he's satisfied with everything and can adjust according to times, then he can manage everything and his mood won't be affected by this.

There is a popular opinion in the locale that "A man who has money doesn't easily get angry or offended, lol". This statement goes the other way as well, that "A man who doesn't have money is easily offended by everything and everyone".

I have put this statement on analysis a lot in mind, trying to watch my mood and correlate my happiness with the amount of money I have each time. Everytime it seems like i have overspent and almost becoming broke, there is a feeling of irritation and sadness that comes with it. Also when i get some credit alerts, there is an associated joy.

I know it is not proper to tie your happiness to finance, but i did some research into the subject and found a study that was conducted with the result that happiness increases with the amount of money one makes up until a point  where there is no greater degree of happiness from making money, but unhappiness if ones income drops beneath that range.

(See study here - https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/20/how-much-money-you-need-to-be-happy-according-to-wealth-experts.html)


What is your opinion on the subject of "money & happiness"?

Crude oil certainly does have a large influence on economic activity, there is no doubt about that.

But that influence is shrinking substantially as EV's become more and more popular and realistic as a form of transport by the day. This can be clearly seen by the EV SPAC boom earlier last year and the huge runup TSLA has had.

No single asset is "most important", period. They all have their boom and bust phases.

It is not about point of view, it is about how they really are, you can be rich and you can be poor also, they are the ones who chose their path in the future, if you are a hardworking and skilled person then for sure you can be rich, but for those people who dont have skill and lazy then for sure, they dont have good future unless they will lucky enough to win the lottery. The status in life is a choice to do something to make you rich.

America has become a superpower.  only China can make America restless.  If the Middle East (Arabic) countries no longer cooperate with America in terms of crude oil, America's power could be weakened.  but if there was another super power country, would it be friendlier?  No one knows.  but I don't think that will ever happen.  anyone who has a contract with America then it is very difficult for them to escape.  America must want it.

I always love crypto and its definitely better than stocks .I did trade on stocks ,forex but i made huge loss there .At last i have found crypto and starting to get profit here .the rules and regulation could be a fact here but nothing with the crypto .However its an open platform and i investor are getting involved here more and more .So that i am always with crypto and hopefully it will set my future .

When a crisis arrives, central banks usually say that they will do whatever it takes to solve it, which usually means ridiculous amounts of money being printed a large amount of debt being bought. The traditional banking system "multiplies" the effect as a result of the fiduciary system (you can lend more than you have).

With the new digital central currencies such as yuan, euro, dollar,... anyone could potentially hold an account on a central bank skipping the intermediaries. I think that this will have a negative effect on the ability to cope with further crisis by monetary policies. The risk should not be ignored.

These old shitbags generalize all of cryptos as gamble and not as new invention for investation. The common reason why they call crypto as gamble because there is no underlying aset. But when they invest in forex, they never called it as gamble too. Sometimes I doubt why they think like that, they are just jealous with the achievement of this new tech.