If you're doing a portion of your paycheck as a way to dollar cost average in, that makes sense.  It's just like an investment account where you would have the same arrangement.  But I can't imagine anyone who actually needs their job income to live would take 100% in bitcoin.  The utility isn't high enough and the volatility risk is extremely high.

Zerohedge is an unreliable source of information.  They regularly overhype threats, deal in conspiracy theories, and have no accountability because all their articles are written under fake names.  It's a low quality information source and nobody who considers themselves educated should read it.

That's really irrelevant for all practical purposes because people don't hold cash for 100 years, so nobody suffers the inflation rate this chart shows.  Anyone with significant assets have their wealth in assets other than cash; equities, real estate, alternative investments, etc.  And the dollar will never suffer the type of volatility that bitcoin suffers on a daily basis, so how bitcoin is going to be a "safe haven" for inflation when it has greater price volatility than the USD by several hundred times is something that bitcoin maximalists never have an answer for.

Hyperinflation is very unlikely, people have been warning about it in the US since we left the gold standard and despite never being right they still warn about it.  But deflation is equally unlikely, if not more.  We just don't have a monetary policy where deflation is likely to occur.  You're not going to have wide-scale falling prices while the money supply is increasing.

As for bitcoin in a deflationary environment, it would suffer greatly.  All the recent price appreciation of bitcoin is based on the false premise that the dollar is doomed to fail or be inflated to meaninglessness.  If a period where the dollar is getting stronger (deflation), Bitcoin is not likely to have nearly the speculative appeal it has today.  It is only the relative economic prosperity of those buying bitcoin that allows it to increase in price.  We see this every time there is an economic shock, bitcoin falls much faster than other assets- gold, real estate, equities, etc.  Because at the end of the day, Bitcoin is only based on speculation, so when people are economically afraid, there is no appetite for that speculation anymore.

It's much less technical indicators than macro events.  The dip was corresponding with a crack down in China, so there was a lot of bitcoin that had to find buyers fast, hence the steep sell off.  When that supply waned bitcoin recovered.  You can look at technical indicators all you want, and maybe, maybe it can explain short term fluctuations on a small scale, but the overall price movement corresponds with macro events, not technical charting.

Are you a big gambler?  I have been using this site fairly heavily and consistently for about 4-5 years and still never reached 100k RP.  Just wondering where your RP comes from so quickly that you've reached the conversion threshold twice in a single year.

You've been very good at running the campaign, however I would like to constructively offer a few points about the delays in payment.

1.  A delay in payment is never to the benefit of the people owed money.  With any delay, there is a risk of not being paid what you're owed, and the longer the delay the greater the risk.  As the people who are owed money, it is always in our best interest to have our payment as soon as possible. 

2. The small rounding in payments that happens is not really a good justification for the delay.  That is, I don't consider getting a few hundred extra sats to really make up for having to wait 6 weeks or more for payment.  This is just an opinion, others may disagree and there's no right answer to an opinion, but I just want to float that I in particular would prefer prompt payments over a little extra dust.

3.  Given the very long delays, I would have figured that the weekly payments could be consolidated into a lump sum payment instead of making 6-7 separate transactions.  This greatly increases the expense to us since we have far more transaction inputs this way and will pay more in fees to move the bitcoin in the future because of it.  This is my biggest concern in all of this.  It's one thing if you're getting paid every week, then the transaction fees are what they are.  But we're not being paid every week, we're being paid about every 6-7 weeks and then getting 6-7 transactions instead of just 1.  If lump sum payments were made, that would partially justify the delay in payments, as it would benefit us since we would only have 1 input instead of 6-7 different inputs for the same amount of bitcoin.  But the way things are now, we're waiting for very long periods of time and then our payments are coming in a way that maximize our expenses and for no reason.  I ask that this policy be reconsidered, such that if we are expected to wait so long, our payments be consolidated into one transaction.

Again, you're doing a great job running the campaign and tracking all the information.  Payment has eventually always been received.  But this is not a guarantee it always will be, and so the longer between payments the more risk to all of us who are owed bitcoin.  And if we have to bear that risk, when payments are made they should be done in a way to minimize transaction inputs so we're not waiting for weeks and then transacting in the least efficient way possible.

A quick note about the delayed payments, again, they have always eventually been paid, but the delay is gradually getting longer between payments.  Below is a list of payments over the last year, along with the time between payments.

Payment Date      Days Since Last Payment Date
7/14/2020                            ---
8/12/2020                            29
9/12/2020                            31
10/9/2020                            27
11/6/2020                            28
11/11/2020                           5
12/18/2020                          37
2/4/2021                              48
3/16/2021                            40
4/29/2021                            44
6/14/2021                            46

*Current Days Unpaid            46

The current delay is in line with the recent periods as long as it comes now.  But you can see the trend is clearly getting longer between payments, as it used to be every 4 weeks and now we're at every 6-7 weeks.  And in light of the points I raised above, I ask whoever is in charge to consider some some changes to make things better for us users- either shortening the delay between payments or consolidating the payments if they are not made weekly.

Thanks.

A pension fund doesn't invest in or administer 401Ks.  Pension funds are a different type of retirement account where the employer is responsible for funding and investing the assets for the purpose of paying out of the pool when employees retire.  401Ks are individual retirement plans that only apply to a single person.

I have never trusted RIOT since it basically abandoned it's previous business venture to become a bitcoin company.  The company used to be known as Bioptix.  It's a huge red flag when a company does a complete 180 and starts a completely new business that had nothing to do with it's previous business.  I guess it has fairly stable operations now, but I've never gotten over the initial distrust.

October 1 is an incredibly aggressive timeline for a launch, I'm surprised they're announcing something so soon and I'll be even more surprised if they can actually pull it off. It's not the sort of thing you can just set up and launch successfully on a country-wide scale with so little time.

Well, the US has had a lot of interventions in Venezuela, just not always militarily.  The US continues to put sanctions on the country and also was recognized an opposition politician as the rightful leader of the country after the last election.  Both of these are interventions aimed to regime change, just not a military intervention.  The US has had repeated interventions in Cuba of the same nature, the sanctions are aimed at forcing Cuba to open up the government and become more democratic.  In that case, it's obviously not about oil because there is none.

You may be right about them not being as "rare" as the name might suggest.  I did some reading after your comment and it turns out the US has several significant deposits, but there's not currently a way to get them out of the ground in an ecologically acceptable way.  So while the US is waiting for a technological breakthrough to access them in a better way, we're reliant on China where we import 80% of the REE we need.  That's an obvious economic and national security threat, one which China has already threatened to use as leverage in trade negotiations.

What ever gave you the impression twitter was a free speech platform? The company built a communications platform, it gets to decide what can be said on it. It's under no obligation to host speech that violates its terms of service.

What makes you think that will happen?  Bitcoin was outlawed in China and did we see a bunch of underground exchanges open up, or did we see a mass exodus of bitcoin leaving China while people could still exchange it legally before the crackdown?  We saw the latter, so there's no reason to think that there's going to be a bunch of illegal exchanges popping up to try and get around the law when it becomes illegal to operate one.

If you're talking about Jack Dorsey, then just look at what he's done.  He's integrated bitcoin directly into the Cash App, which is one of the largest consumer and business cash transfer apps in the country, and it's expected to become much more of a hub to both consumers and small businesses.  He's also working on integrating bitcoin directly into Twitter, so imagine being able to send tips in bitcoin for certain tweets and stuff like that.  These are things that have real value.

I think the only way it's possible is if the board convened an emergency meeting for the purpose of removing him, but as Chairman, they couldn't do this without his knowledge.  Logistically I don't know how the order of events would come out first.  Could the board officially fire him before he officially removes board members?  I don't know which events could technically happen first, but I think it's extremely unlikely he would be removed in any event.  After all, he wasn't removed as CEO after fraudulently cooking the books, so I don't know how you could survive outright fraud but not being wrong about an investment where there was no ill intention.

You can be out for blood all you want, but that doesn't mean you can do anything about it, and in this case shareholders literally can't do anything about it.  Shareholders don't have enough voting power to elect anyone to the board of directors without Saylor's say, so there is literally no way for shareholders to check Saylor's power.  He simply controls too much voting power to ever not get who he wants on the board elected.  And as long as he's making the appropriate risk disclosures, shareholders will likely never win a lawsuit either so there's no way to check him from outside the company either.  MSTR is Saylor's show and investors are only along for the ride.  The best they can hope to do is pressure him to do something, but he'll never be under an obligation to follow it.


Yes, this is technically true. The CEO reports to the board of directors, who have the power to fire the CEO.  However, as a super majority shareholder, nobody can get elected to the board without Saylor's say. Is it possible that if bitcoin falls below $10k, board members will go rogue and seek to fire Saylor? That's possible, however as Chairman of the Board, Saylor has the power to remove board members so he'd likely be able to ward off an attack from the board preemptively. Technically, I suppose I would classify Saylor's involuntary removal as CEO as possible but extremely unlikely. It sure would be interesting to watch a fight like that play out to see if the hypothetical possibility could actually play out in reality.

Lol, tell me more what I don't know about Cuba.  My concentration in college was cold war foreign policy. You're the same guy that's always posting conspiracy theories, so I don't know why I'd expect you to have a rational view of Cuba.  Apparently in your world, just because the US could crush a military they should?  Russia is still a huge backer of Cuba.  Cuba's economy is tied more closely to Russia than any other nation because Russia is Cuba's largest creditor, so any military intervention by America today would be almost as much of a threat to Russian interests as it would have been during the Cold War.  Cuba is still Russia's foil in the western hemisphere exactly because it's the only place Russia can support a destabilizing presence near America, which America has been doing to Russia consistently since the end of WWII.  Thinking this is just about Cuba alone is myopic and misses the larger foreign policy implications, but I've gathered that grasping a rational larger picture isn't quite your thing, as evidenced by all the posts from you tinged with conspiracy blather.

That's why there's KYC for banks.  Transacting in large amounts of cash is an obvious sign of money laundering, and at least in the US, banks have to verify identities and also report large cash transactions to the government specifically to combat money laundering.  There are two ways this is done, through Currency Transaction Reports and Suspicious Activity Reports.  Fiat actually has a lot of regulations surrounding its use, so in analogizing crypto to fiat, you're implicitly agreeing that the same KYC efforts undertaken with cash should also apply to crypto.

"An asset needs to have a value that doesn't go down drastically in the long term to be used as a store of value."  If that's your criteria, there's no possibly way you can view bitcoin as a better store of value than the dollar.  The dollar depreciates very slowly and rather predictably.  Bitcoin depreciates very rapidly and without any predictability whatsoever.  There's no possible comparison between bitcoin and the USD in terms of what is a better store of value, it's unequivocally the USD.

Oil is on it's way out.  The resources the world will fight over in the future are rare earth metals needed to make high tech devices and especially military equipment.  There are very few locations where there are good deposits, and whoever controls those will have a strategic economic and military advantage.  We're on our way to solving for a world that uses much less oil, but there currently is no way around a lack of REMs.