update (17th posted about results of end of day of 16th)
blackrock 16,361.64 btc
grayscale still 605,890 btc

many era's of different economic philosophies of genders have manifested.
generally since the civilised world of photography and television.. women wanted to be shiny things, guys wanted to own shiny things

harmful? (adjective: causing or likely to cause physical damage/injury)
no one is physically hitting anyone..

i did not invent "girl math" infact it was females that popularised it themselves.
and even they are not physically bruising each other over it

if you are in the mindset that topics should not be talked about if a gender is mentioned and then you avoid the content and context of the topics ECONOMIC philosophy, to just act offended by the very mention of a gender.. its time you wake up

you getting triggered by topics for simply mentioning gender is where you are part of a group inciting more gender division and causing arguments by trying to turn every conversation into a gender debate

its like the silly non binary "pronoun" trend that is meant to cause confrontation
here ill spell it out

when two people are talking directly to each other, both sides do not use he/she pronouns in conversation.. grammatically its not even part of the conversation.. in reality and grammatically direct 1-on-1 conversation uses "I" and "YOU"
(try it. have direct conversations with anyone, and count how many times you use the term he/she when talking to them about them.. you will find it very very difficult to even try to insert intentionally " he/she" into a direct conversation when describing them directly to them.)
the pronoun argument is a anti-social trend pretending to solve a problem that was not even part of the conversation

so when one person interrupts the conversation to grammar-nazi check the other person, controlling the other persons narrative by saying they should identify them as not he/she.. that person interrupting is just sheep speaking(mindless copying) a trend they heard on social media. to cause argument in a conversation where by the conversation never spoke the words he/she in the first place, but instead did say i/you..
so grammatically never needed correcting, and instead was just a silly interruption to cause confrontation where no confrontation was needed

when someone interrupts a conversation to then scream about some gender related emotions they have.. or how topic physically injures them because the other person is talking about a topic and not some trend they want to interrupt with.. it gets stupid

by having people get triggered by very mentions of gender where by conversations are being commanded to not talk about topics as a whole unless they met some social media trending grammatical policy.. just makes people avoid the topic completely.. dividing people from even communicating with each other

if you have a issue with people talking about women (good or bad) then thats on you
if you have a issue with people talking about men (good or bad) then thats on you

just the mention of a gender is not a reason to avoid a topic

$1500 is standard flight delay/error rebate..handled by the in-airport flight attendants/agents

the real compensation for the specific issue is a separate compensation plan that comes later, usually handled by the airlines insurers.

both genders suffer from "fake it till you make it" economic philosophy in recent generations

other economic trends like "dont work for the man, take a side hustle".
where minimum wage of $15 = $120 average day but social media promote "make $100 a day" meaning get paid less than minimum wage

there are too many bad economic lessons at play. yet instead of concentrating on the economics, some wanna turn it into a "gender" debate

its about the economics not insulting genders

very recently in the past the roles were reversed
guys would be YOLO'ing lambos and girls would be studying STEM to get good careers to invest in future

its not about insulting a particular gender. its about how ECONOMICS of social media education show different philosophies, perpetrated by their own genders sharing their gender philosophy between themselves using social media to cause economics to change per generation

those "flows" charts are fiat measured. i personally am more interested in how many BTC are lockedup
things like blackrock have no updates since the 12th (presuming they done no deals) so sit at 11439btc(from 227btc on launch)
things like grayscale have updates as of the 16th so sit at 605,890btc(from ~630k on launch)

doomad forgets to mention. these institutions with their sandboxes and subnetworks of middlemen only got them by sponsoring core devs to cludge the code and finance the spam just to make bitcoin annoying, just to promote that people should move over to their sandbox

doomad forgets to mention he adores the fee wars, he adores the congestion, he adores the cludge of code that allowed the locking of value to then play in sandboxes

doomad forgets to mention he adores trying to coax innocent people into using mixers to then tag them as suspicious when users then use bitcoin legitimate merchant services. which institutions then call out bitcoiners as suspicious and possibly criminals for using laundering services

doomads perception is if you dont like the sponsored roadmap, dont highlight the issues, dont call out the issues, dont request the issues get sorted, instead just admire bitcoin for what it is, shut up or go find another sandbox,network,payment system

he wants to pretend institutions have no influence by pretending people should go to sleep and not look for risks(be complacent), even though everything doomad adores is actually not helping bitcoins have open utility

as for his buzzword "censorship-resistance"
just a quick github search for "evict", "abandon", "reject", "purge", "disgard", "orphan" shows that bitcoin has rules to not accept every byte of data ever broadcast.
rules used to be more useful to keep the network clean. but now doomad loves how the rules have been relaxed 'softened' to allow more junk into the blockchain, and he doesnt want to have the junk stopped

you might want to do some research.. i can back up my stance..
i already told you to research the BIS to see the actual plans for BRICS ecomony..
i already told you to research the BRI to see the "silkroad" deals are not related to BRICS membership

once you can see they are separate deals with separate function, purpose, goals, financing, economics, etc.. it becomes clear

brics:
is a multi-CBDC connecting via a m-bridge of forex barter of each CBDC independently. with no middle/central reserve master currency (thus not yuanization)

BRI:
the media news of china demanding every country(100+) repay china in yuan. is not limited or related to the brics nations. if you research more you will see its to do with loans china did with many countries(over 100(thus not brics specific)) in regards to the trade deals of developing the "new silk road"(BRI) .. where china as a independent state financing the BRI(not brics). want their loans repaid in yuan for the separate BRI project(unrelated to brics)

it is funny to watch you say that if china are handing out yuan it must be BRICS.. but then say brics is not invented yet so yuan is brics equivalent.. as your bases to pretend that BRICS=YUAN (facepalm)

rather then realise the different economics and trade deals are at play for the different projects

the BRI is not limited to "brics" memebers. so not related to brics
 

i have no issues with women..
seems your jumping the gender defence bandwaggon rather than see how social media are promoting a new economic narrative

im not the one that invented/promotes/viral-trends  "girl math" nor previous trends of "girl power"*
and like i said in other posts. over time different social trends come and go.
previously for instance the social trend was guys: "YOLO a Lambo" and womens trends were "couponing"
previously for instance the social trend was guys: "support the family home" and womens trends were "girl power in the workplace"
previously for instance the social trend was guys: "men are bread winners" and womens trends were "be the house wife"
previously for instance the social trend was guys: "men go to war" and womens trends were "get to work to support your country"

it swings back and forth, depending on the era. some decade pro female independence some decade con

..
the point is not about my personal experiences. because i have no negativity against females, i adore smart women

the point however is, society is the ones speaking such narratives in this decade/era. and it shows how (by how viral these trends get) that it changes societies thoughts on economics

its more about the economic differences of changing times.. not about attacking a gender

*the funniest part about these social economic trends being bashed into a gender battle. is that its actually the females themselves that are derogatory about themselves by using "girl" instead of "women", and its the females sharing social media clips, reels, skits between themselves

when i see people shout "deposit/lock into LN, a sub-product bridge to bitcoin"
when i see people shout "deposit/lock into ETF, a trade-fi exposure product to bitcoin"

it must be corrected that LN and ETF are not bitcoin because bitcoin never leaves the bitcoin network and these other platforms are transacting in a totally different unit pegged to bitcoin. much the same as WBTC rBTC [insert other wrapped/pegged tokens] which are not bitcoin

the only smallest positive claim is that ETF sponsors have agreements that a custodian will lock up a portion of bitcoin circulation so they can trade their other platform units(shares). and have been willing to spend millions on legal stuff, applications to be able to do it. so it gives a perception that the trade-fi have long term plans for bitcoin custody. thus legitimises bitcoin as something that will stay around for awhile

the spammers are creating transactions of 112 vB @ 52sat/vb to pay 5824sat (~$2.50)

yet the average real byte transaction length divided by fee of others (blocksize divided by total block fee) puts everyone else at a
333byte tx paying the bumped 52sat/vb of 17316(~$7.40) meaning everyone else is paying ~3x extra compared to the spammers

even core do not believe people should be bumping by 1sat increments so cores default GUI fee mechanism bumps in 5sat increments

the other thing is, because the spammer bump fee in 10sat increments instead of 1sat
means everyone else cant just bump by 1sat to compete(10+1), but instead also have to bump by 5sat(10+5) to outbid spammers
which causes the average fee to jump quickly

with the market price of bitcoin being more then 5x of the days core decided on the 5sat increment. they should review and close the gap and bring it down to 1sat increments.. just like their predecessors did when markets stepped up in previous cycles
thus allowing users more control and less leaping to higher fee's so quickly



its like any auction
if an asset is at auction from a starting bid of $10k but each bid increments at $5k, in auction bid competition it only needs 3 bids to jump to $25k.. yet if the increments were $1k those same 3 bids competing would only get to $13k thus not forcing the price so high so quickly

depends how it is done

if you sell high buy low (accumulate via shorting your own stash(no margin no leverage no futures)) you can pay with the excess gains while retaining the main principle
also some people in argentina may have relatives working in america where the american relatives work for fiat. convert to btc and remit btc to their argentinian relatives landlord


however if you are a bitcoin investor and if you are doing the opposite of DCA where you are just depleting your stash each month. then not so much a good plan

last week blackrock only had 227btc and GBTC had 630k-ish
this week blackrock has 11,440btc and GBTC has gone down to 617k-ish

i knew grayscale were not looking to accumulate more AP's nor more baskets. so we have to wait and see what the rest of this weeks brings because they didnt update their funding for monday so we just gotta wait and see if this week is any different than the initial rush of launch week

we could see alot of the 600k slide out of grayscale, but too soon to tell, all depends on the master plan of the big boys like fidelity and blackrock.
ark21 already left grayscale befor launch week, but that was small amounts compared to grayscales large hoard

they are still not supporters of bitcoin

analogy
much like monsanto is not supporters of organic wheat
yes they trade in GMO wheat but are not in the business of real organic wheat.
they still think organic wheat has risk of pestilence

they see organic wheat as the inferior competition, not the underlying seed they have in their seed house

they will not want citizens trading organic seeds and growing their own or harvesting local market wheat. they will want to control the whole wheat market via people investing in their monsanto GMO variety and commodity shares

expect them to still scream out that they dont endorse bitcoin but want people to invest in the "exposure" to its price, which they will control via their whale trading of the spot market and lobbying SEC to tighten up access and utility of spot markets to be tougher than just buying shares on their platform

be careful of the fools game of sudden admiration...

ive used the analogy before.. (comparing bitcoin economy to wheat farm economy)
monsantoGMO  said natural wheat is ripe for disease..
monsanto got involved in wheat commodities

their creation of GMO wheat is not about suddenly adoring natural family farmed wheat. they just want to control the wheat commodity and have lobbied the EPA to make organic wheat be pressured into higher standards. where old fashioned farmed natural wheat is obliterated by industrial farming of GMO crops that then sue if GMO gets mixed with natural by family farms

now back to reality
his support of a bitcoin ETF is not the same as supporting real bitcoin transactions on the bitcoin network

i guarantee  you guys like dimon and fink will both claim their locked custody coins are the clean harvest which people can invest in. whilst then claiming circulating coins on the network are the plague ridden crop no one should touch

they dont think of themselves as bitcoin users. they want to control the upper echelons of international markets. and see the natural form be treated as the enemy/competition taking customers away from their investments.

money doesnt disapear

the OP tries to protray this scenario

when you buy a share at $10. the money sits in a reserve. if the market price changes to $5 and the person sales he gets $5. and the other $5 disapears..


however the reality is
at the first purchase, another holder had the share and wanted to sell the share for $10. and the buyer gave him $10

there is no reserve holding money. the seller got the whole $10
the seller leaves and spends it on his lifestyle

now the current holder that paid $10. realises later he cant sell his share to break even and the market of buyers are only demanding $5,
so reluctantly sells at a loss. and the new buyer got a share for $5.

money doesnt disappear. its always swapped between buyers and sellers. is just sometimes there are winners sometimes there are loses.
but the money does tally between buyer-seller

..
stocks/shares/crypto markets are not just "supply""demand"
there are deeper levels involved

lets take 2 cryptos..
imagine that they are used by the same merchants, accepted on same exchanges, they have the same blocktimes and average tx per block, and even coin rewards per block
where the only difference is the block ID hash method

A. PoW with 500exahash network
B. PoW with 5exahash network

calculating the current generation asics rate, power and hardware cost
where world wide electric ranges from $0.04-$0.50
A. has a world wide mining cost per coin range of $25k-$140k
B. has a world wide mining cost per coin range of $250-$1.4k

everyone on the planet can mine for less than (A. $140k) (B. $1.4k) so no one planet will want to market buy coin above that amount if they can happily mine for less

no one on the planet can mine for less than (A. $25k) (B. $250) so no one planet will want to market sell coin below that amount if they can happily mine for less

now you should see the economics of why the two PoW have different speculative market window lengths people trade within

..
now ..
within each markets speculative window.. (A. min $25k .. B. min $250)  (A. max $140k .. B. max $250)
different people in different locations have different costs
EG pacific islands(japan hawaii) have electric at the $0.50(max) rate and slavic countries at the $0.04(min) rate

japan and hawaii are not going to mine. its too expensive but will happily buy while the market is below (AB max)
slavic countries are going to mine. its too expensive to buy and will happily mine and sell the market is above (AB min)

and all of this is yet to even incorporate the "supply/demand" of high school dumb economics

$500 a day = is only $130k a year
most digital marketing jobs pay that or more..

yes if you only have 1 client/employer its like $35k but most marketers operate by servicing multiple businesses

google earns BILLIONS from digital marketing millions of businesses

the issue i see is when these marketing companies dont run in-house operations but subcontract it out to freelancers. but then undercut minimum wage of freelancers

the $500 a day is usually where you are operating 5 campaigns at once which should be each campaign paying atleast minimum wage $120 a day each.
if you are being lowballed. try to find a real job

but.. if i moved my hoard.. no one bats an eyelid
if someone moved their 2009 mined coins.. it provokes a reaction
people do look at each coin differently

heck fiat is like this
if you get money at christmas from a relative the authorities do not care
if you get money from a drug dealer. the authorities do care

$10k from an employer is treated differently than $10k from relative, vs $10k from pension, vs $10k from selling a product vs $10k crossing a border

in bitcoin a fresh mined btc is differently than a blacklisted btc that was on silkroad and then went through a mixer. authorities do watch for these

if 1btc=1btc then mixers would be redundant and not used.. so why so much advertisements that mixers are needed

funnily enough i find those promoting mixers as scammers. wanting to lose their dirty coins onto innocent people they scam by saying all coins are the same to scam innocent people into giving away clean coins to someone handing them dirty coins
end result is innocent people told btc=btc get fooled into swapping, thinking there is no harm. but end up holding dirty coin and end up getting questioned and investigated if they use their now collected dirty coin with a service that watches for dirty taint

in short if someone says 2 statements together. they are deceptive
a. btc=btc (meaning mixers are not required as all coins are equal)
b. promote a mixer service and say even/especially innocent people should use it

my topic is not about gender discrimination. its about how the youth view/share their own popular saving/spending methods/philosophies within their own peer/gender groups

"girl math" is a popular philosophy created by women and shared by women. its their own invention. they chose it and popularised it.
its not discrimination just to talk about the subject

im not saying all women think this way but its the current social media narrative of economics that women are branding themselves (most in the teen-25yo age range of females by females)

as for guys the popular trend is the save/invest and then buy products philosophy using the gains not the principal.
(it used to be just "YOLO a lambo")

the point of my post is not to discriminate by just mentioning the 2 trends.
it was to mention the two trends to compare the two different popular trends of modern economic 'teachings' (sharing) on social media

---

everyone knows for centuries women have always worked. even classical history and biblical and ancient greek/egyptian scriptures show that women have been leaders(cleopatra,catherine the great, elizabeth the first, queen victoria (hundreds more))
examples of medeival bakers, wheat milling, colonial times saloons, biblical inn's/vineyards, ancient and modern farms, dress makers, writers, modern office workers, etc[insert lots more jobs] show women have for centuries had jobs and a variety of them

however there have always been popularised trends of philosophies that change per era that cause different economics to be taught to change people views

EG men coming back from world wars returned and found lack of jobs. so to reduce the employment market competition (to open up more available jobs for veterans) there were misogynistic campaigns like the 1950's "women should be house wives"

my topic is not about the misogyny of one trend campaign vs another.. its more of the ECONOMIC differences between 2 current trends and how the results of following such trends cause different results