fiat will never deflate

recession does not mean deflation. recession is just calming down of excessive inflation
it just means reduced inflation

instead of 10% they want to still money print but at a 5% rate instead of 10% rate

going from 2% to 10 to 5 is not deflation, especially if they can then go 5 to 7 later.. where there will always be more creation

deflation is going from 50, 25, 12.5, always getting less and less than previous until there is no creation

processed/manufactured "urea" aka phosphates is expensive.. but natural(organic) urea aka livestock urine. is a by product livestock farms want to get rid of for free/at cost

some farmers have efficiency methods to deliver phosphates and minerals to plant roots directly and in proportion to plants needs(hydroponics), without wastefully just spraying tonnes of it on baron fields and hope enough leaches into the soil to feed the plants(eg sometimes monsoons/floods wash away the top layers thus become a wasted task that does not feed the plants the nutrients.)

its not really a "blame fertiliser" thing. its a less than modern/efficient farming that is to blame for why some crops dont yield their full potential

getting processed phosphates used to be soo cheap due to cheap imports that farmers just bought the imports and sprayed to their hearts content. without caring about asking their nearby livestock farmer for urine/manure.

now its got more expensive farmers are not realising there are other ways, the y are stuck in their old practices of importing cheap. that they are shocked when prices go up

but.. there are other ways. i dont see a long term problem i just see a temporary transition to a new way of farming

there are now horticultural businesses that are completely skipping the "fertiliser"(animal/plant byproduct) stage

hydroponics is replacing the need of animal/plant by-product matter. and going straight to mineral feed

some are even getting the prices down of compost fertiliser. by diluting compost/manure in water to shake out the minerals from the compost into a potent mineral pool. to then need less compost/manure per plant

afterall why need to fill a field with fertiliser/compost to a 1foot(12 inches) depth layer, which includes the empty space between plants. when you can just feed the plants roots with 1inch of mineral saturated water

blockchain utility is currency with rules. currency you can check was created the proper way, within the rules and not just randomly created from nothing outside of any logic/rule
PoW blockchains means the currency creation comes at a non zero cost meaning it creates value discovery
(no im not talking about speculative premium market that sits above non zero bottom value)

i buy bitcoin face to face, no bank needed. i dont need a bank manager to then set up joint bank accounts. nor need bank managers to set up family trust funds..  i just make multisig

if i want to transfer i dont have to give out my name, location(billing address) plus account details just to spend funds. i simply type in the destination
with fiat, banks can do deals with merchants to gather shopping list receipts(you know when they ask you to go into these cashback accounts if you buy from certain retailers) bitcoin however does not list what you bought on the blockchain.. no items no names


if i want to transfer to people i know internationally i just set the destination recipient, and its done. i dont need to worry about figuring out the different fee's per location and check if that location has a bank or western union kiosk, or having to pay a 3-way conversion fee.  i just send to a bitcoin address

bitcoin doesnt have limits of 0.06 before a bank stops payment to question why you need to transfer more then 0.06 per day

if i want to do inheritance. i can just put funds onto keys.. done

holding fiat for 5 years means the same $1m will buy me less food, drink, goods after the 5 years
holding btc for 5 years means the same xbtc will buy me more food, drink, goods after the 5 years

im not talking about the speculated market premium of random ATH. im talking about the deflationary raises of a non-zero bottom value

fiat/CBDC wont be backed by an underlying asset nor of "strength of national currency"
its purely backed by income/tax/court laws of maintaining that population gets paid in fiat, pays taxes in fiat and fines/debts in fiat(legal tender laws). which keeps fiat in circulation and popular by citizens

they are very christian with results too, i was not banned, but putting in "bull having sex with a bitcoin" just displayed 2 cows standing next to each other

crypto being a national security threat, is only true if it was to truly disrupt fiat.

for instance instead of speculating to a price of dollar. if crypto exchanges speculated to "min wage" where by 1btc of 1600x min wage means $16,000 in us and $380 in africa. where by this would be "fair value" for the world, where each coin no matter location is worth 1600 hours of labour.. but would disrupt the forex of fiat, because africans would sell for dollar and then use forex to buy african currency to then buy 33coins. and rinse and repeat. which would cause disruption to the forex exchange rates between us and africa until us and africa went 1:1

this disruption has not occured.
nor has mass population vetoed using fiat to only transact in crypto..

so i see no "national security threat"

as for some replies in the topic saying "why would they invest in crypto" or "they should just use bitcoin and kill fiat"

well no.. central banks want to fully control the products they create(fiat) by using crypto as a replacement of fiat still plays at the whims of 'value discovery' of mining and world speculation 'price discovery'. plus crypto has no 'minus' meaning they cant do debt on the bitcoin blockchain.

so they want their own system of accounting that can go into the minus and they 'premine'/mint any amount they like, under their own choice. to be able to control and offer debt and QE

they will obviously invest in crypto for their own business deals internally. its already been noted the central banks all linked to BIS have requested a 5% ability to invest in decentralised coins which the BIS is going to finally allow just 2% investment (in their recent response) to begin in 2025
aswell as a near limitless investment amount in stable coins and centralised coins that meet certain criteria

however these small investment amounts will not provide banks security to never go full 2008 again.. banks wil still go bust and ask for bailouts

whomever the entity is (luke/hacker) they are not stupid to just throw coins into an exchange to cash out, straight from the "event". as the lack of taint jumps are to close to the publicly known address, which has been called out as stolen funds

their game is to taint jump and tx format change to hope they can skip passed the limits and tolerances of coin analysis where the fresh addresses of small amount wont raise any red flags when eventually entering an exchange/service

im surprised that these coins have not moved on much. i would have expected those precise(no decimal) coins on bc1q addresses to have been 'spent' through a mixer by now. several times. or looped through a non kyc exchange to swap for altcoin/stablecoin.

edit

i just checked address in tx above. and it has now split the 1btc into smaller amounts of 0.002
as have some other bc1q adddreses(taint back to 1yar) of precise amounts now split into 0.001 amounts
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/addresses/BTC/bc1qr3vpj9ffshqp53u9la0g6nwhx6f5n3z9l7xhwd
this to me shows signs of splits of "mixer token" allotments (al)ready to be mixed
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/addresses/btc/bc1qm2qljj3a64ueqfq885ne2yy9pddnez7vz4y2v5

i would say beyond this point it is now hard to tell if these funds when spent are the entity(luke/hacker) or some idiot that is in receipt from some mixed funds.

but knowing (due to FATF regs) that regulated exchanges do not tolerate funds that went through a mixer, it should be fun to see what exchanges accept or reject deposits from those spends, even if the user is not entity(hacker/luke)

as for the funds the entity does get (different mixer deposit stash) they too may have issues trying to deposit into exchanges unless another taint jump ordeal is done to outpace chain analysis tolerances

there are two different things being said..
govern = a set of key actors setting rules and enforcing rules the masses have to comply with
consensus. a known popularity of best practices, accepted expectations agreed by the masses. a basic standard of rule agreed by the masses

even in a grocery store, there is expected acceptable practices to not just put food in your pocket and walk out. but instead to take it to the cashier and pay for it. which allows the "freedom" to not be chaperoned/governed by employees per visit

this does not mean there are not rules. but where the community understands a set of rules/morals and self governs

some view libertarianism as the outlaw/lawless society of no laws, no punishment, let people do as they please even if it inflicts harm, change on others... to me i dont see libertarian as this.
i also dont see libertarian as allowing representatives to make laws for us to auto-follow, where there is no election or vote
eg, saying devs can slide in protocol changes without consensus is "libertarian".. is wrong in my mind. i see that as authoritarian

my view is freedom as long as you dont inflict harm, change, loss on another. where the population on mass have a bare minimum set of rules they decide themselves to agree to , a basic etiquette of moral understanding when others are involved set by the whole community agreement. not by some master representation group above the community.
yes individuals, master groups are free to set proposals for rules/etiquette, but not enforce them against populations lack of agreement(abstinence)
eg barter between two individuals is liberty/freedom, they can agree on whatever value they want
expanding to more population a freemarket of mass individuals coming to an agreement of perceived value is freedom/value
but to say a custodian of users funds is free by 'libertarian right' to 'rig the price' or abscond with all population funds, is not liberty

you do not even have to "clickwrap" (tick a checkbox and press accept) these days... just maintaining an account(continuing to have balance and using an account) is all that is needed to justify an agreement to the terms. even when terms change each month. by simply logging in you are then locked to that months terms, whether they have notified you or not that the terms changed since last visit/use.

here is the thing though,

there are 3 aspects
"property"
"currency"
"assets & commodity"

when bitcoin was just a property 2009-2014 government had no jurisdictions over crypto.
businesses(CEX) were just swap shops, like selling/buying trading cards. no regulations required

users fear was
if businesses would honour users deposits as still users property once converted to business displayed balance.
if strangers, peers would honour payments transfers as legal contract for goods/services
which would even today require a court claim if there was legal dispute over ownership/contract/agreements where a business/individual refused to honour agreements
...
when countries began to see crypto as a currency, this opened the door to some regulators who mainly had jurisdiction over just the businesses that service a currency for a fee, requiring said businesses to police its customers, identify them and report any suspicious currency uses

when regulators fought over the category of currency, (either asset or commodity) different jurisdictions got involved where they could get more involved with the crypto itself
EG as a commodity regulator could put quota's on trade value/yield or put circuit breaks on a crypto that pumps/dumps passed a limit of volatility, aswell as restrict whom can trade/be an accredited holder.. an environmental regulators can put production limits and environmental bans on the ways production is done

..
alot of people should have fought off the "currency" recognition and now fought off the "commodity" recognition as both allowed regulation to overstep and leap into controlling aspects of crypto that have not helped users. but hindered them

but due to the dream of "mainstream" they let regulators categorise crypto
such as highlighted by LeGaulois

these regulations and categories have not been consumer protection regulators though. 99.99% of them then are the banker regulators wanting to hinder/stifle crypto in favour of banking practices(most ceo of regulators are ex bankers)

governments cant and dont control bitcoin.. politicians do not sit at computers watching everyones purchases. governments dont walk around asic farms seeing if they are using renewable energy or using the most efficient miners. governments are simply lobbied by the banking industry, to put in laws to let banker led regulators to have powers to hinder/stifle bitcoin by classifying crypto into a jurisdiction that allows regulators(ex bankers) to step in
also governments are lobbied by the ex bankers where governments delegate regulators to do all the work

its getting a bit late to just say boycott CEX, because now even defi-DEX have to be careful.

even the likes of sub networks like lightning, if you are a payment router you are facilitating a transfer of currency for a fee...
.. and banks are watching for users who do too many bank wires in trades on their personal bank accounts to treat them as a unlicensed business breaching their personal bank account policies

so its not "businesses" fault. its the declarations of "currency" "asset/commodity" that has lead to this over stepping of regulators that delegate businesses to police its customers

as for things that are businesses fault. they have always had property law even before crypto, by which possession is 9/10ths of the law. its upto the business/recipient to be honourable and agree to terms that give rights to people that handed them property, currency.. which is why #NotYourKeyNotYourCrypto is important to keep in mind

..
separate from that. no matter what bitcoin was defined as, handing any funds to a stranger you cant slap with a rotten fish is always a risk. whether a business or individual.
once they have your coins the only true method to get them back if they are dishonourable is via court.. if you can locate them to serve a court claim upon them

shortest version possible:

celsius had multiple versions of terms of service. lets call them 1-9
versions 5-8 were in favour of property belonging to celsius estate, not account holder

versions 1 and 9(9 is the current one on website now) were in favour of users ownership and to be treated as creditors
versions 2-4 are in the middle.
5-8 side with celsius ownership

the bankruptcy and date of closing access to trading earning. milestoned version 5-8 as the active ToS
which said that

there will be a separate court case hearing where account holders can provide arguments and proof of being a creditor via the claims resolution process

reading previous news CORZ was charging its customers $0.10c/kwh electric(higher than previous months, and higher than national average electric costs) which put the costs at more then the market rate of bitcoin (unprofitable mining)

thus many customers can rightfully so. stop paying ongoing hosting contracts, and retrieve their asics via corz sending the customers asics back to the customer or forward the asics to another hosting business.

celsius was already debating with CORZ about this
https://cointelegraph.com/news/celsius-network-defaults-on-payments-to-core-scientific-causing-financial-unrest

massive cost change
us national rates went from a average
$0.0744 ->$0.0861 (oct 21-oct22)
yes corz charged a
$0.0752 -> $0.0943 (2021-july 2022)
then asked for over $0.10 from august onwards

basically $0.014 extra than national average (16%)
the initial 2021 ask by coz was a 0.0752 ask which was 1.1% above average

in short corz was trying to demand an extra 15% profit for corz, while supplying celsius with less coin value thus not break even or profit compared to market rate

(celsius losing value by continuing contract but corz making excess profit by continuing contract)

anyways
there is alot more to this celsius-corz saga where it appears that corz is being shady in parts too

case in point
grayscale
https://grayscale.com/terms-of-service/

some people do other fun things
write it down in any form they like (paper)(etching metal)
and put that into a metal tin. and then put that tin in a plastic sealed container. and bury it in their back garden (if they fear family theft or neighbour theft when visiting the house)

some people have tatooed themselves in a private area

some have lazer engraved it into diamonds

some have metal etched it into the inside of their wedding ring

it actually does not matter if its seed or legacy or multisig or segwit

if you expose any seed, wallet file, private key to a system that is hackable(online) where you probably downloaded a compromised file that contains a trojan. those coins no matter the format of the private key, becomes their

what if i told you that some businesses have different ToS/user agreements per customer
yep it happens
especially when some businesses can say things like "we can modify, alter, change terms without notice..  by using the service you are agreeing to the terms"

in short they dont even have to have a tick box that you have read/agreed to any agreement/change of agreement, and you are suppose to periodically re-read the terms/agreement to notice any changes that affect you

you read and admit to reading just 10 words but missed out the important parts
- If the cryptocurrency assets in the Earn Accounts are owned by the Debtors,  the Account Holders are unsecured creditors
-If only some Account Holders prevail with their arguments that they own the cryptocurrency assets in their accounts

funny part is i actually quoted the word for word important parts of the court filing
you however said 10 words that were not in the filing quote you just quoted a few posts ago.. the word "customer" was not in that quote you posted

it used words like debters, users, account holders.. thus you are the one interpreting and misrepresenting by snipping sections without reading full context

---

the advice, one more time for emphasis
do not by default think that when you deposit you retain ownership rights

always expect #not-your-keys-not your-coin
always inspect user agreement terminology

to see where your rights stand

you ignored the IF

customers have to prove they own the balance in their accounts
which relies on their user agreement terms

IF the user agreement terms do not show that funds/balances/reserves of balances are customer property. then the customers are not debtors/creditors/owners

in short the user agreement needs to contractually say funds are customers property.. otherwise they are not


you are not automatically retaining your right ownership (of assets or of a businesses balance/value), simply because you handed them value..
they have to state there is a agreement that they are allowing the value/balance/asset reserve they received to be assigned/owned by a customer.

this isnt anything new due to crypto.. its standard business/property law
possession is 9/10th of the law. the possessor owns it unless the possessor states otherwise.. or there was an agreement of IOU/property ownership terms

.. now lets clarify
https://celsius.network/terms-of-use
their terms do keep mentioning things like
"Your Celsius Account allows you to view your balances"
"“Account” or “Celsius Account” means a User’s designated user account on the Celsius website or mobile application, allowing a User to access and use the Services, view the User’s balance of Eligible Digital Assets held in custody on the User’s behalf"

all suggestive that the balances/funds are the customers property

however if found that a user is under 18 or from a prohibited country like korea, or broke one of the policies of celsius. the balance/coin does not belong to the customer and they can seize those funds

but as said in last couple posts.. it neds a contractual proof that the business is declaring the funds as customers for the customers to be able to make a valid claim

there are actually other exchanges user agreements with much more evil terms.  so its important people read their user agreement terms when using a service.
celsius terms are not so bad, and most customers should get some amount back

when you give funds to grayscale.. you are not buying bitcoin..

you are buying shares in a trademark/company/brand. called "GTBC"

where by GBTC has ITS OWN collateral/stocks/ property OWNED BY GTBC
you have no ownership rights of the BTC held by GBTC. they own the BTC. you just own the shares. that deviate from the BTC due to many reasons GBTC decides
https://twitter.com/Grayscale/status/1593737745364652032
the btc are not owned by customers

analogy..
the gym equipment is owned by the fitness business. not the members of the gym.


https://grayscale.com/end-of-year-ceo-letter-to-investors-2022/

they are not selling their collateral. they are buying back the shares. at share value