|
One certainly can hope that this is the bottom so that the people who bought in above this point will feel less pain sooner, but there are no guarantees. I guess we'll know in a year or two.
The article also talks about compass mining getting cut off in Maine.
|
|
|
|
That may change after today.  They like to hype the negative. |
|
|
|
I do believe that the name of the topic is misleading in a sense that it states as a fact the opinion of one person. More than likely there are similarly high-profile investment people who would disagree strongly with this prediction one way or the other. I personally don´t disagree with the idea stated in the article, although I am unsure about the Bitcoin as a complement to gold angle
People have difficulty following the post instructions for the press section. Adding [] , no web site information etc. Perhaps it is a reading issue. "Bitcoin (BTC) Will Explode by Over 700%, According to CEO of $80,000,000,000 Asset Manager: Report" is the full title. |
|
|
|
MicroStrategy holds crap ton of spot bitcoin on their balance sheets; they could just add more and more collateral so they wouldn't get liquidated. Unless we nuke far far below the $21k threshold, the risks for liquidation are virtually nonexistent.
Precisely. There is a lot of FUD out there by people who want the price to drop either to buy lower or because they are short it. It is easy to cherry pick statements and neglect the context to spread it. |
|
|
|
@Lucius. I am not comparing Michael Saylor to Do Kwon. Also, it would be unfair to call Do Kwon a real scammer. He never had the intention to steal Luna investors' money, I reckon. He was only very naive.
You must be joking or not realizing what actually happened - that hypocritical narcissistic bastard should end up behind bars for a long time and be banned for life from doing anything related to finance and cryptocurrencies. The idea of his stable coin being backed up with something volatile like Bitcoin was doomed from the start - is this some kind of nuclear physics or people are really too stupid to understand what happened? The damage caused by the one you say is not a real scammer is about $80 billion, and to say that none of it ended up in his pockets is completely naive. However, I was looking at their investment schemes and there might be an argument that what Michael Saylor is doing might also put Microstrategy in an unpredictable situation, similar to Luna, if both equities and the cryptospace markets continue to dump.
Saylor isn't even close to Kwon's category, because unlike him he has far more experience, knows what he's doing and doesn't sell fake stories to naive investors. Of course, anyone who invests in Bitcoin takes a certain risk, but Saylor with his business strategy is not even close to doing such damage to the crypto market. You might be correct, however, before everything and in my own opinion he did not have any plans on scamming Terra Luna's investors when he began the project. There was a sincere effort to create a decentralized, algorithmic stablecoin by Do Kwon and his team. I am not certain, maybe I am giving him too much benefit because I was closely following UST's development, the partnerships and their attempt to join the Curve wars and create the most liquid stablecoin pool in Curve. I don't know if it was intentional, but unless there is a peg and something behind it to support the peg, it makes an algorithmic stable coin extremely difficult to achieve long term. Eventually someone will attack the peg. Look at what happened with, for example, Argentina and the US dollar peg. Eventually it collapsed because they didn't have the reserve. It is as if the people creating stable coins think there is some magic that will allow them to remain stable without anything backing them up. The lessons have been learned before, it isn't surprising that the were ignored by Kwon, but it is surprising (perhaps it shouldn't be!) that so many people bought into the algorithmic mumbo jumbo. There has to be some way to ensure the peg between fiat and stable coin remains. It can hold for a while, perhaps a long while, but eventually if there are stresses it can easily fail. Even with Argentina which had the backing of an entire country's economy it isn't enough without solid free-market economic policy behind it. |
|
|
|
However, seeing Wiki as a pretty "hungry" organization - they do put big banners begging for money now and then - I think that's a losing move on their side. Although they've received "only" 130k worth of crypto as donations, it's much better than nothing.
Wikipedia often puts up banners that I think amount to begging. As such, I think it would make sense to have as broad of payment options as possible. The rationale behind the decision really does not matter IMO -- they are making it incrementally more difficult for people to donate, which is a negative for Wikipedia. " technology that are inherently predatory,”
What a bunch of nonsense. I suspect the real reason is more likely: they have a far-left bias on many articles and fascists/totalitarians etc can't survive when people are free for long. When there is free discourse and a monetary instrument that can't be as easily censored as bank accounts (see e.g. Canada) they, and their masters, lose. A technology that allows people to is decentralized and censorship resistant is unacceptable. Unfortunatley, the far-left has a strong hold on many institutions. The sure do. Totalitarians and authoritarians want power and are willing to do whatever it takes to get it and keep it. |
|
|
|
When I purchased early on, the price for a btc was $11,000 . a few months ago, I can recall the price level
was $63,000 . I just knew that it was going to hit the $100,000 mark...Now as of today its $30,180
What is going on??? Also, can anyone predetermine if the btc will reach the $100,000 and is the btc
worth the investment...An educated guess, is acceptable!
No one knows. Since 2010 the trend has been way up. If you believe in a non-fiat currency that you can use to protect yourself from authoritarians around the world, is difficult to censor, is p2p, and is non inflationary, then bitcoin is a good idea. If you believe that other people will understand the benefits of bitcoin, then bitcoin is a good idea. Everyone who has held longer than a year or so has done well. Will that continue? No one can say. |
|
|
|
From what I understand, states run by Democrats are more inclined to be non-friendly on Bitcoin in particular and cryptocurrency in general. Contrasts that with states under the influence of politicians in the Republican side and you can see that they are more open to cryptocurrency like Texas and Florida. In fact, am not going to be surprised if soon these Democratic areas will be banning Bitcoin and crypto altogether including the mining of them.
To have free speech one must be able to publicize it and that needs money. The US Founders understood this. Hence the same people who want to shut down speech because it is "hate speech" or "violence" want to shut down money. If they can shut down money, they can have some success on shutting up their political opponents. When, per the fascists, silence is violence and speech is violence what can one do? |
|
|
|
NeutoricFish nailed on why the decision is both understandable and inconsequential. If Wikipedia accepting crypto didn't make such a huge impact (their donations of crypto insignificant to them), then them also no longer accepting crypto isn't something to cry about. Same as when Microsoft used to and then no longer accepted Bitcoin. If no one was using it in the first place, no one will cry about it now.
And yeah, I've never donated to them. Not that I don't think they're useful or worth donating, and I don't dismiss the possibility I will one day donate to them. Just the way they've asked hasn't rubbed well with me. If they've really needed the financial support as often and as direly as they appear to say, they've shot themselves in the foot by cutting off crypto.
Derisking? Probably. Bad move for business.
I have to agree it is inconsequential to bitcoin. I just believe another reason is that a decentralized approach no longer comports with their current politics which is why the editorial oversight is now quite centralized and very skewed away from a liberty, decentralized approach. Instead it skewed towards a concentrated authoritarian view. |
|
|
|
I think the articles are blowing the statement out of proportion. Yes, it is in the Coinbase SEC filings etc, but it is somewhat obvious that if you don't control the private keys, the bitcoin are not your's. You are just a creditor. That has been known all along and is nothing new. It is just like if you have assets at a US Bank - although purportedly not at a Swiss bank. To me it sounds like FUD spread by people who want people to be scared and panic. Informing investors of the risks is a lot of CYA, the reporting on it is FUD. |
|
|
|
It's not really good reason since they don't endorse specific country when they accept certain fiat. And it's rather ironic when Wikipedia promote similar ideology (free and open knowledge).
I didn't say it's the best reason, I said I can't argue. It's the same as they would have said "because we no longer want that".  And for the rest... there used to be a saying: "do what the priest says, not what de does". I would say that that was their stated goal, but it has been captured and is now peddling a highly skewed, non-independent, biased and non-objective form of "open knowledge."
This is easily a feature of centralization and a result of getting far too popular. Agreed. The centralization and capture of wikipedia is problematic. They are dissatisfied with the large consumption of electricity that is spent on bitcoin and ethereum mining, so they made such a statement. Let's wait and see what happens when ethereum mining ends. So they claim, but that is naivete, ignorance, or a conscious goal. Without PoW, security becomes an issue which may be their goal. |
|
|
|
The dollar cannot live forever. One day it will end. But I don't think bitcoin will take its place. I think that bitcoin will have its development as a cryptocurrency, but separate from the dollar.
Indeed. The US would simply replace their current "bucks" with a new form of buck. And knowing the West's penchant for implacable corporate greed, I'd imagine they'd end up being Starbucks or something equally ridiculous. I mean, they pop up everywhere else, so they might as well be on the damn money as well.  I don't think the US would replace the dollar - I suspect much of that was tongue in cheek anyway, butll that is needed is to inflate the value away. Yes, that would be painful for the US, but also the world given the reserve status. A few years of the current 16-17% (using the old inflation metric from the 1980s) and the United States' national debt will be much more manageable. Shoot, even 4 years and the national debt has lost half its value. |
|
|
|
* Wiki doesn't want to look like they would be endorsing cryptocurrencies, which actually I cannot argue
It's not really good reason since they don't endorse specific country when they accept certain fiat. And it's rather ironic when Wikipedia promote similar ideology (free and open knowledge). I would say that that was their stated goal, but it has been captured and is now peddling a highly skewed, non-independent, biased and non-objective form of "open knowledge." |
|
|
|
" technology that are inherently predatory,”
What a bunch of nonsense. I suspect the real reason is more likely: they have a far-left bias on many articles and fascists/totalitarians etc can't survive when people are free for long. When there is free discourse and a monetary instrument that can't be as easily censored as bank accounts (see e.g. Canada) they, and their masters, lose. A technology that allows people to is decentralized and censorship resistant is unacceptable. |
|
|
|
@PrimeNumber7. Agreed, Apple is doing good to support the users.. However, as Apple as being this walled garden, it can also be argued that the market demand for everything related to the cryptospace has caused them not to have a choice. Users will buy Android devices if they do not accomodate the users of this new market.
I'd like Apple to support it now, but I think this is going to be a longer game with Apple. Eventually they will support it, and hopefully do it well. With the security features in the iPhone (secure enclave etc) it is a good platform to secure private keys. (Although not key on device encrypted iCloud backups due to their caving the the FBI et al. so one would want iCloud backups to be turned off.) Like the mp3 adoption, they didn't support it immediately, it took time, but it can be argued that the iPod and follow ons like the iPhone did it nicely. Let's hope a similar scenario happens with crypto. |
|
|
|
|
So it looks like May 10th will be when he takes office and then I presume nothing would happen instantly. So this is a longer term item in the arsenal that will continue to take bitcoin's fiat price higher. As has been true since 2009, nothing happens instantly with bitcoin, but it sure happens a lot faster than some other things have been accepted and used over time.
|
|
|
|
He puts his money where is mouth is though for freedom instead of, say, Soros, Bezos, Buffett who invest for control. e.g. Bufffett arguing for higher taxes while doing everything he can to minimize his. He could easily pay extra. Or not set up a foundation to avoid all estate taxes. He is a hypocrite and certainly no friend of liberty. Dude with a networth of 9 billion is firing shots at other billionaires like he is some Karl Marx or Lenin. He's just mad that he isn't a #1 billionaire.
Is no one here finding it sus that lesser millionaires and billionaires are hopping onto the Bitcoin train and become freedom advocated? As I see it, they only care about their enrichment, just like Buffet or Dimon, and Bitcoin is just a tool for that.
It can be positive to have these rich people involved, because they can influence the lawmaker, but it can also be negative - they could try to change Bitcoin for the worse, the SegWit2x attack was one such attempt.
|
|
|
|
You have to love Peter Thiel today: 1. Warren Buffett is a "sociopathic grandpa from Omaha" 2. On ESG: "The finance gerontocracy that runs the country through whatever silly virtue signaling slash hate factory term like ESG they have, versus what I would call, what we have to think of as a revolutionary youth movement." 3. Blackrock/Fink/Jamie Dimon are part of the "gerontocracy" aligned against bitcoin, and consequently freedom and liberty for regular people around the world. He is right - the elites around the world don't want people to be free from their control, they want power and money and are willing to enslave the world to get it. Just look at who Buffett and his fellow American Oligarchs -like Bezos, Buffett, Dimon etc- support in the US. see e.g. https://fortune.com/2022/04/07/peter-thiel-bitcoin-warren-buffett-jamie-dimon-larry-fink/ |
|
|
|
I guess someone's pretty happy getting out of a prison as a millionaire  If it was me, I would have probably sold that BTC looong time ago for a few thousand bucks. There were a lot of people who did that (sold for a few thousand dollars). Likewise there were a lot of people who heard about bitcoin and then did nothing from 2010/2011/2012/2013 through ? ? ? ?. Similarly there were certainly some people who didn't sell and have just kept holding. I doubt they were in prison, lol. They were just patient. Who knows whether this person sold or just moved it to a different wallet/computer etc. It is the ant and the grasshopper story: planning ahead vs instant gratification. Being the ant is difficult. I would also add that I am sure there were plenty of people who moved coins during the bitcoin cash fork (fall 2017?) so that they could get the BCH coins and sell them so plenty of "old" addresses were moved then. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
