You seem to be describing the is versus ought dilemma in the sense that people need to get to their own place on their own and we try to appreciate people for how they are rather than how we might think that they should be.



Is it necessary?



There is likely some truth to the everyone has a price, and I doubt that it is a bad thing... but surely there are some things that some people will refuse to do, even if they are tortured to death, but even some of those people will sometimes "give in" to the demands.  I feel like I am getting astray here.


Fair enough.. but still does not mean that you say all the right things or that you do not have regrets or that you cannot learn along the way.. even if you might have chosen the words were "best" at the particular moment that you were communicating them.


Sometimes we make the right decision.. frequently we are not pushed to the limits to have to really test our resolve, and many times it is not relevant regarding how extreme that we might go.. at the same time, there is likely some ways to structure your actions, behaviors and your life in such a way that you avoid certain dilemmas or even having to make extreme choices, and that may well not be a bad thing.  There is likely some value in not living on the extreme but attempting to go down a path that is sufficiently challenging and individualized but not engaged in daily ongoing drama.



There are a lot of people in the world and they make various choices, and some people have more options than others.. and surely, there is a difference with starting points and starting out resources, too.


I find a lot of value to meet people in person.. though you are correct that the dynamics are different.. so it is not always easy to figure out a balance.

Actually, there are a lot of levels in terms of getting to know people, and maybe even what the expectations of a relationship might be whether business, personal or some combination... and people will treat these matters in different ways in terms of screening and/or setting expectations.. and that can happen on both the business level and on the personal level .. even though it might feel a bit strange when they overlap in various ways.. which is almost inevitable if dealing with people and a variety of relationships.



That is not a good thing.  It seems more practical to have both achievable goals and aspirational goals.. and sure they can change along the way too.. but let's say that when you are 14 years old you start to look into various possible career paths and you end up changing at 18, 22 and 26, but all along you are making progress and perhaps having some set backs too, and as you go some goals are met, and some choices will affect whether there is an ability to change paths later down the road.


Sure.. we are affected by our experiences, and sometimes we learn from them too, and I am not denying that relationships and/or experiences can be cyperspace only or have physical meeting involved or both.


Nothing wrong with that hypothetical, but if I want to negotiate down a bit more, then would you be willing to take $50 to stop?    


No problema.. as long as you are not pumping shitcoins or shilling some other bullshit.    

I surely have not been excited about our ranging in the past week-ish... and maybe if the BTC price can survive prior to the close of the weekly candle (which is about 6 hours from this post), then there might be a break out around that time...

hahahahaha  I don't have my hopes up.. even though sometimes we do see BTC price moves  that come at the end of a weekly candle.  Up or down?  who knows?  50/50?  49/51?  51/49?  I have my leanings.. but I have not worked out the exact numbers, so why say anything further at this point?



I agree mostly.  Bear markets are ONLY fun after they are over, and maybe 1-2 years later.

Then we can reasonably proclaim (perhaps from a somewhat fictional point of view) how much fun that bear market "was".. .way back in the good ole days.

Bitcoin does not need to get to ATH for Saylor to be profitable from BTC and/or to even had made a good investment decision by putting money into bitcoin.

Of course, there are direct price considerations in which there may well be goals/preferences that bitcoin holds its value better than the dollar.. and that seems to have really great likelihood - almost like a no brainer.. so if the dollar ends up devaluing 10% per year, then he should at least want Bitcoin to appreciate by that much (as well to include whatever costs that he had incurred to service various bitcoin-related debts that he incurred by accumulating and holding BTC)..  

Another thing is that if his average cost per BTC is $30k.. then that may well be the measuring starting point in terms of figuring out where he would prefer BTC to be in order to be profitable (or even break-even profitable)..   Perhaps $60k by August 2027?  which would be 7 years from the time that he started buying BTC.   I think that there are pretty decent odds that BTC prices will be $60k or greater by August 2027, and of course, you have the right to believe that the odds are not that great and/or you believe that it is not a good bet..  There are a lot of people (including but not limited to no coiners) who either believe that or they feel really uncertain about bitcoin, and a large majority of them have hardly any clue about what bitcoin is and/or how bitcoin is differentiable from other assets and currencies.  

So, it seems that knowing bitcoin's value proposition and also being able to act upon such value proposition is a good thing for Saylor/MSTR and any of the other BTC HODLers and accumulators out there in the world... still a small part of the population.. Oh and by the way, in recent times some of the real real real true BTC believers got reckt as fuck in recent times and that is not because of their belief, but instead their choice to bet like degenerate gamblers - and sure Saylor/MSTR has been truly aggressive in his BTC accumulation strategies, but his level of aggressiveness is not even close to the level of gambling that many of the folks currently getting reckt (and actually some of those getting reckt currently are likely innocent bystanders who just did not realize the amount of risk that they were taking with some of the products that they bough because they were trying to receive yield on their bitcoin.. which truly should not be necessary with an investment like bitcoin. at least not with large portions of your BTC stash)...

The nature of any asymmetric bet to the upside is that the potential is likely to go way beyond the minimum break even price points (such as going beyond $60k in August 2027).  Of course, using leverage changes some of the calculations, too.. in terms of weighing downside versus upside risks and calculating the various expected values based on expected BTC price performance.


Saylor has already unambiguously proclaimed that his investment timeline for bitcoin is longterm, and several of his bitcoin related debts are structured 4-7 years from the time that they started, so some of those could start coming due in 3-5 years... but still there is no sign that he is even thinking about the matter in 1-2 year time horizons as you Tomohisa seem to consider some kind of relevant calculation that he is not even framing the matter in that kind of way.. which seems to be that you are trying to place some kind of different framework upon the supposed dilemmas that exist for Saylor/MSTR.

And, why is what Saylor/MSTR doing NOT some variation of DCA?  Go ahead explain.  Do you think that since he is using leverage, then that is not DCA?  Do you think that DCA has to come in some kind of specific increment or a some kind of expected amount?

I agree that there may well be something going on beyond DCA, such as buying on dips and lump sum investing, but there is also ongoing regularity to the process (and there is no selling or fucking around with selling), so I have troubles understanding how what Saylor/MSTR has been doing in the past 2 years is very much different from DCA and cannot be referred to DCA in a kind of short-hand descriptive overview of what is mostly happening?

FTFY

I agree with you as amended above - even though I added a bit to the statement

Bitcoin does not need to make all time high for both Bukele and El Salvador to profit from bitcoin, and likely both Bukele and El Salvador continues to profit because of their having had gotten involved in bitcoin, even if you are trying to spin the situation as if it were perilous merely based on bitcoin's currently low price.

It seems to me that you might need to read this thread a bit better in terms of actually attempting to understand what Saylor is doing and including understanding what I had posted in terms of my own situation.

You make it sound as if Saylor is about to have some kind of an  emergency... which is not the case. Saylor has already indicated that he has holds enough bitcoin that are unencumbered to cover his various positions down into the $3ks (just like DU18 mentioned), and even if BTC goes into the $3ks that would not mean that he is going to get liquidated because he has other things that he could do. including that the company has other assets beside bitcoin.. he is not in any kind of a panic situation - as you seem to be implying.

Regarding his disclosure to the public (since he is running a public company), it seems that he has bent over backwards to disclose and to over-disclose and even give shareholders notice regarding changes in the company's choices to take bitcoin onto its reserves in August 2020.  Sure minority shareholders can sue, but  they are likely going to have a lot of difficulties coming anywhere close to have a case that will not get dismissed under summary judgement or some other cursory dismissal because there is no evidence that Saylor did anything wrong, even if you and some members are proclaiming that he is being reckless blah blah blah.. but he already said that was what he was going to do.. he does not have further obligations, and if they are going to get anywhere they are going to need to show more evidence than the fact that the BTC price has been coming down and whining about it... whining does not win those kinds of cases, you have to show pretty damned reckless or deceitful conduct more than the baloney superficial whining that you and some other forum members have been postulating to be sufficiently adequate in order to not get laughed out of the court,... even if they could find an attorney to file such a lame and likely baseless (absent way better evidence of wrongdoing) claim in the first place..

Buying whatever the BTC price does seem to still serve as a kind of DCA strategy.

Some had erroneously been suggesting that Saylor buys the dip or tries to buy the dip, and your linked-graph seems to disprove those kinds of assertions regarding what Saylor/MSTR has been doing with his ongoing and somewhat irregularly timed BTC buys (which I would argue can be characterized as a kind of DCA)... DCA could also be characterized as a specific time interval and a specific amount, but I doubt that either of those are really prerequisites for characterizing ongoing buys (even if irregular in amount and time interval) to still serve as a kind of ongoing DCAing strategy. 

When I got into bitcoin, I used to characterize my DCA as a font loading DCA strategy.. and so I never really established exactly what I was going to do, even though I tried to stay on a weekly allowance, I would frequently deviate from my allowance limitations either in terms of time or in terms of amount, but I sill considered what I was doing as ongoing DCA.. because there was a kind of consistency in the beginning to continue to try to accumulate BTC.. Some might even call that lump sum investing, even though the practice is ongoing, but then after a stack is accumulated, there still can be feelings of not having enough (until you do start to feel as if you have enough at some later point - which will differ between individuals and likely even differ with institutions in regards to their particulars - including having ongoing incoming cashflow and trying to figure out where to put such ongoing incoming cashflow.

It seems to me that the phenomena of buying less as the BTC price goes down exists in a lot of goods/assets.  It seems to be some kind of variation of the wealth-effect.. in which people buy more as a good/asset goes up and less as it goes down.

And, surely I doubt that the "wealth-effect" is merely psychological, because the HODLer does actually have more money as the price goes up.. and does actually have less money as the price goes down.

I did the something similar in bitcoin in 2014/2015 as the BTC price went down through 2014, I kept buying on the way down, but not only did I run out of money, at some point, I started to run out of confidence too regarding how long any bounce is going to take (or if it will even happen)... a gruelling effect (mentally and financially as the price is going down).  

One thing is to just HODL without selling on the way down (so that is an accomplishment - so long as the price goes back up at some point soon enough before you die or get reckt), and then another thing is to take that whole practice to another level in terms of buying on the way down - even if the amount bought is less - when no bounce comes, there is an ever pestering sound "why did you buy now?", and "why not wait for lower prices?" and "do you think that there is going to be a bounce, crazy?".  

One redeeming aspect for anyone having ongoing and incoming cashflow (which seems to be the case with El Salvador - coming also from BTC-related activities in the country) is that the ongoing buying (even at low prices) ends up serving as a kind of reluctant and worrisome form of DCA (that can also be characterized as buying on dip.. but buying on dip with less enthusiasm as compared with buying on dips when the BTC price is higher.. and regular UPpity bounces).  If the incoming cashflow dries up, that's another question (would likely cause more reluctance to continue to buy).

Edited to fix some wording and make some ideas more clear

How do you do  accomplish your suggested changes with Op owner (Lauda) gone?  Do you petition theymos to assign this thread a new owner (which is surely possible, but would theymos do it?)?  Or maybe the thread needs to be locked and a new thread created?

Yes.. I agree.

You are foolish and/or you have foolish tendencies.


Not appreciated.  Been there; done that.


Have I ever proclaimed to be a bastion of the flow of new and effervescent ideas?


That's strange.  Why would I want to discourage ideas - unless they happen to be detached from reality in the sense of lacking in logic and/or facts to reach bad conclusions?

I am sure your theories are fine in that regard though, right?  Why wouldn't they be?  They are coming from uie-pooie, who surely would theoretically be amongst the top 100 smartest people in the room (and if top 100 fails, then surely top 200, no?), no matter which room we were to choose (or happen to be in), no?


Seems to me that there is something fundamentally wrong (or off) with using gold as a comparison when we are talking about an emergent asset class versus a 2,000 year old asset class..

these kinds of posts do not reflect well upon you.




You don't have any loans or leverage in your calculations?  

Some of the miners who got fucked or are about to get fucked are the ones who played their finances really BIG in terms of the amount of leverage that they were using to buy new equipment, hold rather than sell bitcoin and maybe expanding their operations faster than they should have reasonably expected to have been able to do.. which in some sense relied upon BTC prices either staying flat (no loer than $30ks) or going up.. and surely were not sufficiently prepared for BTC price to go down.. maybe even some of them starting to suffer pretty severely once BT prices got below $25k or so.


Well we have macroeconomic conditions, true.. but we also have a lot of risky and highly leveraged players contributing to some of the cascading downity pressures in recent times (even more so as of May-ish), no?  

In other words, it is not just macroeconomic conditions that put us in our current place of ongoing downity pressures.  Some other folk believe that we are just in a normal cycle.. I have my doubts, but the normal cycle theory is not without some possible validity.. including that the trend is your friend, and once momentum is going down, the bearwhales are going to push it down as far as they can and for as long as they can including but not limited to playing whatever dirty tricks that they are able to pull out of their hats (if they wear hats like "we" do?).


Not expecting.

Waiting for.

 


The best plan is to NOT have a plan.

Is that the Biodom way?

or did you steal that plan from someone else?

#justasking.



I don't disagree with you, but I doubt it was preordained or anythng like that.  You must have been reading Torque's playbook to come up with that idea.    

Stop reading the playbooks of other members.  !!!!

 



I cannot disagree with you about that.  I am considering some additional changes to my own asset/cash reorganizing efforts.. that includes (or will be mostly focused on) non-bitcoin assets, too.  It may take me a couple of weeks for me to work it out, and I might disclose some aspects of it later, because even though it does not immediately involve bitcoin, it is likely to have some down the road effects on bitcoin due to changes in some of my cashflow thjat would run into the future and then have a kind of cumulative effect.



Gosh.. you (Biodom) have pretty narrow preference areas in the world.. or at least you are arguably selective.. so ultimately nothing wrong with that, even though I thought that the world was a wee bit moar bigger than the "possible" second passport areas that you are suggesting to be  potentially suitable for you.. but for sure each of us has our preferences and inclinations too.

Riiiiggghhht


yeah... rrriiigggghhhtt


More or less that is how buying on the dip and/or DCA is supposed to be done. 

About a day and a half ago, I wrote out a pretty detailed responsive post on the topic of Saylor's most recent buy that was a bit critical of Saylor in regards to his having had not really been buying on the dips (lack of price sensitivity), but largely agreeing with his ability to exercise discretion and work out these matters for himself (and his company), if anyone is interested to read what I wrote. 

I am not even trying to imply that Saylor is not smart.. but sometimes BTC price movements can end up putting some of us in very similar/comparable situations and it is a matter of quantity of money even though we might end up in similar places in terms of percentages.  Interesting for sure, and so difficult to know while we are going through these matters regarding how long the negative parts will last or how far DOWNity it will go.

Can humble the best and the BIGGEST of players, and surely we are also finding out how some pretty damned BIG ASS players (not referring to Saylor) have been really humbled when they were being sneaky about NOT having the BTC that they claimed that they had.. Playing with customer funds and also misleading customers in  terms of the strength of how their BTC was "earning yield" through implicitly could business practices (for sure there is no evidence to even implicate Saylor in playing those kinds of extreme (and likely illegal/fraud) games).


I am suffering a lot of doubts about this possibility.


I have a lot of doubts about this timeline too...

but the more I think about it is truly we have to see the bottom first.. and then we have to recover.. so yeah.. part 1 and part 2... Hardly could presume less than 6 months.. even a April 2019 scenario took 5 months to reverse and then 3 months to raise.. and we ONLY got about a 3.5x raise from the jump off (I mean up) base.. .. so 8 months minimum to reach $50k seems reasonable... at the same time, I get the sense (from the last time that I checked with him) that King Daddy does not like limits and does not like being reasonable, either.

I don't understand every single point that you made, but it seems to me that you make a lot of good points in terms of the various ways to attempt to assess the value of a company, and sometimes certain indicators (or ways of looking at the company's valuation) can be misleading in terms of whether the shares go up or down in their market price and whether the assets held by the company are valued fairly valued and/or understood and also considering whether they have cashflows and if the cashflows have been affecting by the changes in the market (or current market conditions).

Not everyone is going to assess a company in similar ways, and surely some of the investors will be right and others will be wrong in their assessment. Surely Microstrategy does hold a very unique position in the bitcoin space and even in comparison to a lot of other similar companies, and for sure it is not unreasonable tfor some folks to consider Microstrategy to be a way of investing in bitcoin (or shorting  bitcoin) when they might NOT be able to buy bitcoin directly.. It does seem like it would be a bit redundant if someone were to own bitcoin and also to own MSTR, but there are people who likely do that, too.

This last $10 million appears to have been bought by MSTR extra cashflow, and I am not really sure if MSTR is holding back some of their cash reserves for further dips in the BTC price because there still does remain quite a bit of uncertainty regarding if the BTC price bottom is in or close to being in., so even MSTR and their bitcoin staff (beyond Saylor) might surely assess the BTC market differently from a layperson (or a bitcoin OG), too... but I am not sure if MSTR would be more likely to be correct in their assessment, or not.  They surely are not dummies when it comes to bitcoin or even their continuing to be able to generate decent cashflow/profits from their software business either.

I gotta admit.  I like this part.

 

Tempting me to break Opsec, for sure.


You guys are sick.

That's why empowering is getting invited to the party, and you two are NOT.

Fun.. .

yeah right..


"WE"  do not hope for lower.






Don't you know nuttin?













Yet?



Now this guy Wexlike...

He's a great example of what is "fun."**


**not the dropping babies part.

We win by creating an impression in which things are working in bitcoin.. yes, the royal "we" or whatever.. doesn't matter to me., and the details do not matter either.,

We do not need to know the details because we win no matter what as long as the blocks come out and on average the blocks are coming out - about every 10 minutes ... every two weeks the difficulty adjusts in order to shoot for such 10 minutes per block on average time target goal too.

Winner winner chicken dinner.


Technically.....   D_W says


Fuck technically!!!

Yeah.. maybe it matters for a miner.. or for someone in a hurry transacting a $1 million transaction.. but most people only need to know that bitcoin workie workie works.. and it continues to work... and workie workie, too

When is the next block?  
Approximately 10 minutes.. give or take..

if the next block ends up being 2 minutes or 20 minutes, and even skewed towards two minutes, I (or is it we?) give few shits, I am still going to answer in the same way..  10 minutes dude (no not that dude).. general dude.

If I were betting on when the next block is going to come. I might give some shits.. but I am not, and I am not going to bet, either.. my only bet is that bitcoin works, continues to work and it has been working for more than 13.5 years.  tick tock.. tick tock tick tock.. bitcoin still works, and next block.. amazing!!!!   when's it coming?  I don't know.. but maybe in 10 minutes-ish.  

I am not setting expectations too high, either when I say.. the next block is coming in more or less about approximately 10 minutes.. and if 10 minutes runs again and again and there still is no block, and the person waiting for the block says to me:  "hey dude (no not that dude) I thought that you said the next block will be in 10 minutes..  when is the next block going to come?"   , I will say that the next block should be here in about 10 minutes.

It's a great answer.. when in doubt, just say 10 minutes.. tick tock necxt  block.. been working for 13.5 years and more and I don't expect it to stop.. that's why I have money in it.. I feel good about that... .. .. more or less 10 minutes comes the next block.. it works, and it is amazing.. you should thinking about getting some in case it catches on...


You seem to be proving my point.  Underpromise and over deliver.. another great bitcoin feature.



and while they are waiting.. we just keep saying that the block should arrive in 10 minutes.  I hpe that you did not bet on this.  Sucks to be you if you bet on it.


Have fun with all that.  I am just going to continue with the party line. whether it is correct or not.. doesn't matter to me, even though it may well matter to a miner or someone who is working (or betting) in regards to the relevance of those kinds of details.


For sure, he frequently gets caught in really dumb answers.. an/or lame descriptions about what bitcoin is including the seemingly forced "what I designed" it to do. blah blah blah.... including the pursuit of copy right and intellectual property matters..


I'm thinking that a good name for it would be a "mining death spiral."

You heard it here first.  

#justsaying


Hey.. either that is not fair, or you were "reading my mind"... by saying to ur lil selfie:  "what would jjg think, if he were faced with such a question?"

 


No.



WOW!!!!


BBBBBbbbbaaaaaammmmmmmbbbbbb!!!!

That's how it works?

No wonder you have tendencies to find "bargains" in so many unique places.  

Who would-a-thunk?

Both you and I likely realize that none of these relationship matters are completely absolute - because it is the case that the longer that we are around can contribute towards us being more or less comfortable with other members - maybe certain members more than others.

There are also statements that are made in response to other statements - so if I call you "a big fucking whiner,"  there is likely a context, and some relationship might be healable through times, and other relations might continue to harbor reservations and/or resentments.

We do not need to get into any exact names, but if you  or I were provided with a private and confidential survey in regards to various comforts that we have with a list of 20 members, and we were told to rate on a scale of 1-10 in regards, to various levels of trustworthiness, or sharing of confidentialities, or whether we would pay them money, have them hold money (like a loan), give them certain responsibilities , then each member should receive  a different result with some higher on the scale than others in certain categories.. and also some members we might feel tht we do not have enough information to rank them in certain categories, but if we had a written interview or a telephonic interview or a video interview or an in person interview, or if we had them work for us for 90 days (historically an acceptable employment probationary period) , then we might be able to arrive at better determinations regarding our trust/confidence levels in regards to that person trustworthiness, reliability and/or whether we might want to enter into a relationship and what kinds or is it it just an arms-length relationship rather than more intimate.

Regarding  missing a 1/1 million opportunity, sure it happens, but we still have to screen matters, and sometimes we also have to cut our losses and not take any further chances because rightly or wrongly we may well find our time and energies is not being used well... does not mean we are correct, but we have to make choices that are not always easy.. and realize that sometimes we cannot go back on our choices..


I know, also, that sometimes people do things differently from what they say that they would do when there is actual concrete offer on the table rather than exploring a hypothetical that may well never be presented.. .yet we are likely more prepared to think through the matter if we had thought about the possibilities of various offers that could be made prior to the offer actually being made, so we are in a much better place if we have prepared in order to be ready, willing and able to follow through when opportunities are presented.  In that regard, if opportunities are presented, but we have not sufficiently planned/nor prepared, then we might ONLY have one or two of the three (ready, willing and able), which is the same as not having had prepared to be able to take advantage of such opportunities when they are presented.


I don't really disagree with you, but I still consider the idea of "never say never".. .and also sometimes I might even be hesitant to think about "never", but worse to say "never" and then not really mean never.. . .but really mean "almost never."... which practically could have the same results... some kinds of conduct seem to be BIGGER deal-breakers than others... sometimes first impressions are wrong, too... such as "oh, you are not as bad a guy/gal as I had initially thought."

I know Warren Buffet, and you are no Warren Buffet.  



Well that sucks.  


You mean there is still a chance?  One of my friends asked that same question, once (in a movie).


I did not realize that I was trying to win.

I do prefer to win in regards to the creation of the parameters of my own interactions and how or if I choose to respond to ideas presented in these thread posts including but not limited to exercising my own discretion and independent judgment in respect to what I consider to be relevant, interesting or important considerations.

I still like my rendition, even though D_W established that "technically" my framing is not accurate.  I still like it.. because it is fun.. tick tock next block.

How did Craig frame the matter?


I am waiting for the BTC price to go below $1,000.. just like back in the good ole days.. but this time will be different for yours truly.  This time, I will buy mining equipment and also BTC (at the same time), too.  I am going to start mining even though I have no fucking clues.. but it will be profitable if I wait and I will learn, too.  I'm a fast learner if I put my mind to it, especially for sub $1k BTC prices,.  Cannot go wrong with that... It's only about a 95% drop from here, and historically speaking BTC has had 95% price drops before, and this time is special too.. Look at the macro circumstances, there are  alot of problems in the world, and bitcoin tends to drop more than everything else, at least in the short term, so $1k is almost guaranteed.. inevitable..

Cut looses your gooses, people!!!!.


Good, and you?

I am going to buy miners and BTC once we reach sub $1k..

There's no misinterpretation. I responded, and my response speaks for itself..


I don't know.  Each of us chooses how to interact in the world, and sometimes we might feel that there is a need to change some of our own self-imposed limitations - and other times we might feel that we need to place limitations.

I had an interaction with a relative of mine the other day, and  I was telling that relative about several interactions that I had with someone that I had perceived as a beggar and even someone who I considered to NOT be respectful of boundaries.  I said that the beggar had asked me for x, y z, a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h and j, and I gave a and e, but I regretted giving anything because that beggar had done several things to create such a bad situation, and I did not feel that it was my responsibility to be paying attention to so many asks of such person.  I said that the continuous begging was wearing me out, and I was largely just ignoring the asks (the latest of which had been sent to me by text messages from the beggar), and I was about ready to explode at some point.. The beggar had been engaging in conduct that I felt was forcing me into a position to be mean to the beggar, and I had actually already exploded one time previously, and I said that I feel that the beggar should not be asking me for so many thing.  

My relative was considering contacting the beggar and giving some things that I refused to acknowledge, and I told the relative to do whatever.. I am not doing anything.  So it is quite true that reasonable people come to differing conclusions in regards to how to treat situations, and I do not claim to have all the answers or even to know about some of the ways that I might need to change some of my ways of interacting.. or even how I might consider certain characteristics that I consider to be important.


Sure there are differences between what might trigger boundaries on the interwebs versus boundaries in person, and I had made some interactions with folks in regards to various virtual assistant work, and it is not always easy to figure out which duties might be farmed out and show much trust to give with some personal information.  I know that some virtual assistance relationships have had meeting in person components, but surely there are some that only involve phone calls and video interactions and do not go as far as having actual physical meetings/interviews.  

One time, I had an in-person personal assistant working on attempting to set up parameters for finding and hiring a virtual assistant (and getting that assistant remotely), but I could not get my in-person assistant to do certain things.. so it was like a BIG waste of time to go through that process - even though I have some of the notes related to some of the efforts that we were making in going through the process.


I asked you a question (or raised some issues), and you answered and clarified.  There seems to be hardly any reason to take any of my reading or even my attempt to frame the matter as if it is personal, which seems to be your default route... and even if there were some reasonable ways to take it personally, why get worked up about it and escalate?..  You do what you want.. and sure maybe the taking matters personally will start to subside, but I have my doubts..and maybe when you take matters personal then it triggers folks to make personal digg statements, too?

By the way, there have been a few times in which I had taken some statements on the interwebs personally, and surely sometimes such statements are personal.. but still reacting to such statements in emotional ways is not usually a good approach (I am not talking about how it looks, but I am talking about actually losing composure).. and I would be careful to interpret a few cuss words here and there as if the person has lost composure..

I know that there are some members who really have personal issues with me, and sometimes they will harbor those resentments for a long time, even for years, and then come out with a bunch of anger posts... hahahaha it is kind of funny how some folks can hate certain peeps on the interwebs so much.


Yeah, we might have been talking past each other a wee bit, and I have spent some time grappling with some of my own considerations about how to set up such a fund, and I was thinking about starting a thread on the topic - or alternatively to post in my already existing thread.. but it might well be a topic that would be better suited for its own thread.

I was initially considering setting up the thread with a hypothesis of having a fund that would be initially seeded with 100 BTC, so the ideas would relate to my ideas about how much can be used from the funds on a regular basis to support the administration of the funds and also the sending out of funds to target projects.  Of course there might be some flexibility in the amount of funds that would be in the seed round and if the fund might be able to able to receive additional funds from private sources or .. but the original assumption is that the fund is established by a private donor or a closed group that already grants full plenary authority to the fund administrator whether hypothetically that administrator would be me or whether it could (or should) be contracted out.  

My initial thoughts about any extra funds that would be accepted would involve NDAs and even legal disclaimers and granting full discretion to the fund administrator regarding the distribution of donations, so of course, when we get into those kinds of possible receipt of outside funds, it is probably better to establish a track record and a set of clear distribution standards, criteria (and practices) first, as we already referred to some of these ideas.  I have been thinking about variations of this for more than 2 years, so it is not like I have really gotten into the nitty gritty details of working towards carrying it out.


Well, let me change the numbers a wee bit, and if a fund were to have 100 BTC as it's initially starting out principle, so how much it can spend per month may well depend on the valuation of the 100 BTC, and I had surely been considering using the 200-week moving average as the valuation of the funds, which surely is problematic currently because BTC's spot price is currently under the 200-week moving average.
 yet it is possible that the fund could withdraw into cash a year in advance, and/or even have withdrawal parameters on a quarterly basis that are measured in terms of how far above or below the spot price is from the 200-week moving average.  It is possible that if the BTC price is below the 200-week moving average then the fund is not allowed to cash out any BTC into dollars during that time.  

Of course, it is quite possible and even likely that some of the contracts would stipulate that if payments are in BTC (and some (and maybe all) would be required to be in BTC), then there might be ways to still pay out in BTC when the spot price is under the 200-week moving average with an understanding that the valuation of how much is paid is based on the 200-week moving average, and the fund is not allowed to pay based on dollar valuations that are lower than the 200-week  moving average.  Accordingly the recipient gets the same amount of BTC as if the BTC price were at the 200-week moving average, but it results in a lower dollar value based on spot price because the fund is not allowed to go below the 200-week moving average when calculating how much to pay to target recipients (fund administrators and any administrative assistants, too).


Fair enough.


I think that the fund can be comfortable with the developer,  so there might be some uncertainties regarding how comfortable the fund might feel about funding developers who fit that definition.  I thought that square had one developer who was ONLY a pseudonym.. and surely it helps if precedent is set or some kind of comfortable contract language (or lack of contract) that might be comfortable for the fund... and maybe the fund might not be comfortable having all of its developer funds to be distributed in that kind of way, and might even impose a restriction on itself in terms of funding 50% of all developer funds to be able to be used within such category... probably some legal consultation would be beneficial depending how the fund is set up and in which state or country it has a license or whatever set up it might have. and there might be some se t ups(arrangements) that fall into special categories in terms of the funding that the fund chooses to distribute within its budget)


For sure there are reasons to have those kinds of set ups and even to figure out ways to fund those kinds of set ups, and surely some of the discussions of the details of how to set them up might be less valuable to carryout in a public thread or even through private messages but  instead through more secure communication channels that hopefully are sufficiently comfortable (and secure) for everyone including funding sources and funded persons/pseudonyms... surely not easy.. and surely some of the relationships are made at conferences or private introductions and surely some pseudonyms don't want to be met, but they still need to be comfortable enough for the funding sources to feel it is a good ideas to fund in such an arrangement.

I am glad that you are here to save us and to let us know that "bitcoin is fine."

Thanks for that.  You are so



helpful.


 





Where would we be without uie-pooie? 


It's a rhetorical question no need to actually answer it.