Ostensibly, this is correct. If you deposit 100 USD in a checking account, the 100% reserve requirement means the bank could not loan that money out. If it was in a time-deposit account, like a CD, it is possible that the bank would be able to loan that money out. However, Kraken isn't operating a bank with the purpose of making loans, so the 100% reserve requirements aren't a problem for them.

As for bitcoin deposits, it's unclear under the law if they would be allowed to loan that out since the law refers specifically to fiat. But my guess is it's a moot point because Kraken won't loan it even if they're allowed to because they don't want to be in the loan business. They want to operate a bank as a means to increase bridges between the crypto world and traditional banking.

It isn't just Africa though. You see bad economies and underdevelopment in a lot of countries that have autocratic and corrupt leadership. Usually, they go hand in hand. The governments are autocratic because the corrupt leaders are looting the countries resources for personal gain, and the autocratic nature of the country prevents political opposition that might make things free and fair and based on meritocracy.

The "estimated odds" are indeed just a rough indication of the expected winnings of the prize pool at that moment.  It's subject to change based on how much money is bet on each side after you bet.  However, earlier bets are weighted higher than bets that come after you as a way to incentivize earlier betting on a prop, and this plays a factor as well on the payouts.

If a ton of people all pile into the same side of the bet as you, it would dilute the payout for all.  The hope is that as the odds change, the increase in odds on the opposite side would incentivize people into that side of the bet to keep the payout in the ballpark of what you were shown.  However, the dilution is a possibility.  The weighting of the money that comes after you would be less than your bet, so that would have a bit of an offsetting effect, but if a whale came in and bet 10x your bet, you could see materially less on the payout than what was indicated by the calculator when you made your bet.

You've identified the key component.  An investment and an asset are not necessarily the same thing.  People can take all kinds of issue with what type of "investment" bitcoin is (the degree of risk, whether or not it should be stable, the types of returns that are reasonable vs. hyped), but it's not really debatable whether or not it's an "asset." And there's a distinction between an asset you might be interested in owning vs. a binary yes or no on the question itself. The fact remains that it's is commonly accepted as an instrument that a wide portion of the population understands to hold value, therefore it is an asset.

This is an incredibly unique position here with MicroStrategy. Frist though, MicroStrategy is not by any stretch a large company.  Market cap of $1.5 billion would place it solidly in the small cap space. As for the unique factors, MicroStrategy has 5 consecutive years of falling revenues, and a leader who has past trouble with the overstating results that lead to an SEC action against Saylor that nearly wiped the company out previously.  So I would say the company falls more in the troubled category than not for these specific reasons.  On top of this, Saylor controls the entire company from top to bottom. He has so much voting power that nobody can get on the board without his approval, so there is no effective oversight from the board of directors.  And all the other stockholders put together don't have enough voting power to challenge any of his decisions. So  total lack of oversight for all practical purposes that leaves Saylor completely immune to any consequences for his corporate actions.

So to summarize, a smallish and shrinking company with no corporate oversight run by someone with a problematic past.  This confluence of unique circumstances is why this is a one off and not a sign of a bunch of major corporations about to jump into investing in bitcoin.

Americans already don't save enough for retirement in general. Social security isn't designed for people to survive on alone, it's supposed to supplement your own savings and in the worst case, keep people out of abject poverty when they didn't save enough themselves. People depleting retirement savings before retirement for any reason will increase the number of people who are relying mainly or entirely on social security in the future. And the money taken out won't just be a dollar for dollar amount they're down in the future because they'll be missing out on compounded gains over time. 

Lol, the dumbest and most out of touch thing in this thread is the assertion that companies that don't invest in bitcoin are going to face lawsuits from shareholders of those companies.  So yeah, compared to how ridiculous you have to be to believe that, I'm an expert compared to you.  For everyone else, I'm just someone with a couple decades of experience in the industry and the slightest bit of common sense.



It doesn't matter how microstrategy bought all that bitcoin, all that matters is they bought all that bitcoin. The risk of owning bitcoin is not mitigated by how it was purchased.  If bitcoin drops 20%, as it is prone to do, and Saylor decides to exit the position, you'll see shareholder lawsuits. And what will not be a valid defense to breach of fiduciary duty is how the bitcoin was purchased.



Are you admitting it then?  Because then you need to reconcile the fact that you do think this is a boatload of risk with the tone of the rest of your post, which treats a bitcoin investment as automatic upside so much so that you think that companies that don't invest in bitcoin could be sued for not doing so.  Pick a lane dude.  You either think this is such a slam dunk no-risk investment that companies that don't invest in bitcoin could face shareholder lawsuits for not doing so, or you think there's a ton of risk here that you haven't previously admitted.


I've looked into this whole situation more and I'm even more convinced this is going to end poorly for microstrategy.  The guy running microstrategy is flailing as a leader.  The business's revenue has been falling for 5 straight years.  He was previously accused by the SEC of overstating company performance, a charge he settled without admitting or denying the charges, which decimated the company's stock.  As someone who works in this industry, nobody agrees to the settlements when they're innocent and the SEC only allows them to neither admit or deny the charges because the SEC isn't interested in prolonged court battles except in the most egregious of cases.  It's much quicker to let them pay a fine for their bad behavior and believe their promises that they learned their lesson.

On top of all this, all the lofty bullshit you're heaping on him about "investing for the next 100 years" or being a visionary is all hype and it's your baggage your lambo hopes and dreams you're putting on the situation.  Saylor himself says he's not a crypto diehard and he's not married to this investment.  If it turns bad, he's stated he's prepared to liquidate it "any day of the week, any hour of the day."

This is an incredibly stupid hill to die on.  But you're welcome to continue embarrassing yourself with your hyped up statements about how committed Miscrostrategy is to Bitcoin (they're not, by Saylor's own words) and how any companies not investing in Bitcoin are going to face shareholder lawsuits (they won't, for the same reason you can't sue a company with excess cash 20 years ago for not investing in Amazon).

All lockdown measures slow the spread of the virus.  That's not debatable, it's proven.  The virus cannot spread when infected people are not near uninfected people.  Anyone who has the virus got it by being close to someone who had the virus.  Citing 40,000 people dying despite lockdown ignores how many people would have died if not for the lockdown.  There isn't a data set in the world that shows that quarantine measures had no effect on the spread of the virus.

If you want to debate if the lockdown is worth it, that's a separate discussion, but there's no debating that lockdowns reduce the number of deaths from the virus.

Full reserve banking requires banks to keep 100% reserves for in-demand accounts, such as a checking or savings account.  These are generally accounts that could be withdrawn at any time ("on demand") and the bank would have to comply.  The 100% reserve generally does not apply to time deposits, such as CDs and other types of accounts where there are withdrawal restrictions, so this is one avenue where a bank could make loans under a full reserve banking system. 

Also, Wyoming law seems to specify 100% reserve for fiat currency.  Perhaps crypto is a loophole.

However, lines of credit do not appear to be what Kraken is interested in at all.  The real reason Kraken wants to do this is to serve as a bridge between the traditional banking system and cryptocurrency.

And how is it exactly that cryptocurrency creates employment for the unemployed? Because I haven't seen anything of the sort, and can't imagine how cryptocurrency actually anything because cryptocurrency doesn't employ anybody the same way a hammer doesn't employ anybody. It's just a tool, but you still need people who create businesses that need the tool in order to create jobs. Cryptocurrency itself is an unproductive asset, it doesn't actually do anything.

It's also a false premise to present this as a binary outcome where people either get the virus and die (1% mortality) or recover, and so the risk is only in that 1% mortality rate.  That's absolutely not the end of the risk.  We already have evidence the virus affects other parts of the body, and sometimes severely, and doctors and researchers continually say that it likely affects the body and organs in ways we still don't know and won't be evident for years.  The complications for those that "recover" can last a lifetime, and so to ignore all the non-death consequences of contracting the virus is one way anti-maskers and those who downplay the virus are being either disingenuous or downright stupid.

Sure, the "capitalism" that is developing and exporting the natural resources now, which is owned by western corporations, is the direct beneficiary of past imperialism.  It's just more palatable now because the resources aren't being taken by force and the work isn't being done through forced labor, but through voluntary jobs where the corporations hire local workers.  But the ownership of those resources come from a legacy of imperialism of the 1800s and 1900s, which is why they were in a position to own those resources today.

Calm down dude, I work with in the investment industry. There will not be any lawsuits for companies that refuse to take a stake in BTC, even thinking that shows how far outside the mainstream you are.  I'm into BTC, but I don't drink the Koolaid so hard that everything Bitcoin is automatically good and every reckless swing for the moon needs should be cheered without regard for real world consequences.  Refusing to recognize the company has taken a boatload of risk here and that it's not all automatic upside just because they bought BTC... man, that's extreme.  I'm far too sensible to be that extreme.  

I wasn't even responding to your post though, so no, I haven't had a chance to listen to the podcast you posted yet.  I do, however, appreciate the point you made about giving forewarning to investors and offering to buy any out before proceeding.

Herd immunity depends on the vast majority of the population being vaccinated, what Sweden did was not a herd immunity plan and what Sweden has now is not herd immunity.  Exposing a population to a virus and just telling people "those of us who survive will be better off" is an absolutely idiotic plan. Ridiculing what Sweden did and ridiculing herd immunity are not the same thing.

Or it could be the death knell for the company if bitcoin tanks and the "stability" they were looking for cuts their cash reserves in half.  And nobody holds cash for 100 years, so that's not even an appropriate comparison.  Nobody who is invested in the company is going to be alive for 100 years, so playing for 100 years from now doesn't benefit shareholders today. 

Again, if the company has more money than it knows what to do with, I'd want that cash back in dividends or stock buy backs.  I don't want the company gambling with my share of the profits in something that could pay off but could also blow up.  I can gamble myself if I'm inclined, that's not what I invest for.  I'm 100% out as an investor in any company that is this reckless.

My prediction is if bitcoin tanks again (which is almost a given that it will at some point) and the company is forced to mark down their holdings and reports a massive net loss, you'll see shareholder lawsuits for breach of fiduciary duty.

That’s not how money works and it’s why deflationary currency doesn’t work in the long run. Money is a representation of goods and services available for purchase in the economy. Money needs to scale to incorporate the change in economic activity in the economy. When you borrow capital to start a new business and make something that didn’t previously exist in the world, you’ve expanded the aggregate wealth of the economy. The money supply should expand to incorporate the new values you’ve added. That’s where the “new” money to pay back the loan comes from. With a deflationary currency, when the goods/services expand but the money supply doesn’t, that makes the unit of currency worth more since total aggregate wealth increased but the money supply stayed the same. That is, purchasing power of the currency has gone up. But this acts as friction against economic growth, because why spend now if the money will be worth more later. This causes a drop in economic activity and aggregate wealth to go down in the economy. It’s why a small amount of inflation is preferable to deflation, because it maximizes employment in the economy which is the best provider of societal stability.

This right here would be such a problem for me if I was a shareholder. If the company has more money than it knows what to do with, as a shareholder I want that money paid out in dividends or or stock buybacks. Things that immediately put value back in my hands. Not taking a huge gamble with a significant portion of assets by investing in a speculative and highly volatile asset. This is the opposite of what responsible stock stewardship looks like.

It's impossible to understate the role of imperialism in delaying the emergence of Africa in its own right as an economic power.  For hundreds of years, western powers looted the natural resources of the continent to build the wealth of their own nations and enslaved the populace both on the continent and while shipping millions of Africa's inhabitants off of it.  With that kind of systemic oppression and looting of resources, it's not hard to envision how much of a setback the western powers dealt Africa.

Cuz apparently you can't have "freedom" if you're not free to go out and infect people with communicable diseases! /s  We have the same problem in the United States.  People crying about how their freedoms are being infringed with mask mandates.  Meanwhile, those same people don't believe in the freedom of other people not to be infected by ignoramuses who deny that masks greatly reduce the spread of the virus.  The idea of total freedom is a fiction.  Your actions have consequences on others.  As it happens, the people who are crying about freedom are really crying about their lack of freedom to do what they want without consequences for their actions.  I don't have sympathy for them.  They're the reason things are as bad as they are.

That's ridiculous. You think the middle class is reaping all the benefits of bailouts?  The middle class owns comparatively very little of the assets that are being propped up by the Fed.  When the Fed props up the stock market, guess who gets the gains?  The rich.  The top 10% own 84% of the US stock market:
 https://money.com/stock-ownership-10-percent-richest/  To the extent the middle class gets anything at all, it's tangential to the looting going on by the wealthy.  The idea that the Fed is intending to bail out the middle class is pure fiction.  It's about the rich.  Always has been, and certainly still is.