Everything you wanted to know about Bitcoin Strategic Reserve

[abaeze]

They are steering back protecting the banks.
This clamp down on stablecoin holders is not enforceable, by the way.
Probably it’s going to be relevant only in case of primary deals, or minting and burning of Stablecoins tokens. Not on secondary transactions.

Since Bitcoin has no central regulator or issuer, we should support Bitcoin more. Stablecoins can be useful, but only Bitcoin can provide true financial sovereignty in the long run. So limited and reasonable regulation to ensure transparency is good, but excessive regulation, which reduces user freedom or brings Stablecoin under complete government or corporate control and it is contrary to the original purpose of cryptocurrency.

[Ribust]

They are steering back protecting the banks.
This clamp down on stablecoin holders is not enforceable, by the way.
Probably it’s going to be relevant only in case of primary deals, or minting and burning of Stablecoins tokens. Not on secondary transactions.

Yas..
It is easy to understand the point of view of those who think this way. A substantial portion of current regulation efforts on the subject appears to target issuers, which certainly serves the interests of the conventional banking industry. Nevertheless, enforcement of regulations for individual stablecoin owners poses a considerable challenge due to the nature of transactions within a blockchain environment. Hence, it is likely to assume that the process will concentrate on the points of contact between stablecoins and the financial system, namely on their issuance, redemption, minting, and burning.

 Transactions between the parties are hard to control directly in any way, but regulated issuers might have to comply with the reporting mechanisms and freezing measures.

Since Bitcoin has no central regulator or issuer, we should support Bitcoin more. Stablecoins can be useful, but only Bitcoin can provide true financial sovereignty in the long run. So limited and reasonable regulation to ensure transparency is good, but excessive regulation, which reduces user freedom or brings Stablecoin under complete government or corporate control and it is contrary to the original purpose of cryptocurrency.

The uniqueness of Bitcoin is that it is not owned by any one company or country, which is why many consider it as the most powerful financial instrument available. The use of stablecoins for payments and transactions cannot be overlooked; however, regulation in this context must be aimed at transparency and security of the users rather than control.

[avp2306]

They are steering back protecting the banks.
This clamp down on stablecoin holders is not enforceable, by the way.
Probably it’s going to be relevant only in case of primary deals, or minting and burning of Stablecoins tokens. Not on secondary transactions.

And yeah this is why they made those good law to adopt stablecoin, because they want lessen or avoid the risk of other unstable coins.

If people read their reports we could see that their main intention is to save the banking institution.

Here is the PDF of congress about this,
 
https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/PDF/IN12525/IN12525.2.pdf
https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/PDF/IN12522/IN12522.2.pdf
https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF12984/IF12984.2.pdf

[JayJuanGee]

They are steering back protecting the banks.
This clamp down on stablecoin holders is not enforceable, by the way.
Probably it’s going to be relevant only in case of primary deals, or minting and burning of Stablecoins tokens. Not on secondary transactions.

And yeah this is why they made those good law to adopt stablecoin, because they want lessen or avoid the risk of other unstable coins.

If people read their reports we could see that their main intention is to save the banking institution.
Here is the PDF of congress about this,
https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/PDF/IN12525/IN12525.2.pdf
https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/PDF/IN12522/IN12522.2.pdf
https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF12984/IF12984.2.pdf

Goals also seem to be able to monitor and control any kinds of transactions whether they are bitcoin-related or not, and the more channels they can put their grubby little fingers into, the more limitations there will be for bitcoin holders to interact with those systems.

[GhostOfBitcoin]

They are steering back protecting the banks.
This clamp down on stablecoin holders is not enforceable, by the way.
Probably it’s going to be relevant only in case of primary deals, or minting and burning of Stablecoins tokens. Not on secondary transactions.

Hey @Fillippone I also think this might be more suitable for primary market operations, because when stablecoin issuers mint new tokens or burn them through redemptions, it is relatively easy to coordinate directly with banking channels.

But the situation is different in the secondary market. For example, if a user buys USDT or USDC on an exchange and sells it to another user, there is no direct involvement of the issuing institution. As a result, even if there are measures proposed to protect banks, they are difficult to effectively apply to most transactions in the secondary market.

Therefore, in my opinion, such a system would be limited to certain operational steps rather than covering the entire stablecoin ecosystem. It is necessary to observe real-world implementation and market reactions to assess its effectiveness in the long term.

[avp2306]

They are steering back protecting the banks.
This clamp down on stablecoin holders is not enforceable, by the way.
Probably it’s going to be relevant only in case of primary deals, or minting and burning of Stablecoins tokens. Not on secondary transactions.

And yeah this is why they made those good law to adopt stablecoin, because they want lessen or avoid the risk of other unstable coins.

If people read their reports we could see that their main intention is to save the banking institution.
Here is the PDF of congress about this,
https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/PDF/IN12525/IN12525.2.pdf
https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/PDF/IN12522/IN12522.2.pdf
https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF12984/IF12984.2.pdf

Goals also seem to be able to monitor and control any kinds of transactions whether they are bitcoin-related or not, and the more channels they can put their grubby little fingers into, the more limitations there will be for bitcoin holders to interact with those systems.

This is the one exactly their intention to monitor or have control with the transaction trails of people. Also they provably care that much about stablecoins, because it is pegged with their USD that's why they  like to adopt and try to be in control.

They may try to expand their influence also control with existing financial system, but one things if for sure here, they cannot automatically weaken the influence or popularity of Bitcoin. That actions they have done will just give great highlight the importance of Bitcoin.

[Ribust]

BREAKING: Senate leaders are holding emergency meetings next week in a last-minute effort to save the Clarity Act before the clock runs out.


X

U.S. Senate leaders will meet in an emergency session next week to advance the passage of the Clarity Act before deadlines lapse. The legislation is intended to create a regulatory environment that makes clear rules for digital assets, eliminating confusion for crypto companies and investors. This may have implications for the crypto industry if the bill is approved.

[JayJuanGee]

They are steering back protecting the banks.
This clamp down on stablecoin holders is not enforceable, by the way.
Probably it’s going to be relevant only in case of primary deals, or minting and burning of Stablecoins tokens. Not on secondary transactions.

Hey @Fillippone I also think this might be more suitable for primary market operations, because when stablecoin issuers mint new tokens or burn them through redemptions, it is relatively easy to coordinate directly with banking channels.

But the situation is different in the secondary market. For example, if a user buys USDT or USDC on an exchange and sells it to another user, there is no direct involvement of the issuing institution. As a result, even if there are measures proposed to protect banks, they are difficult to effectively apply to most transactions in the secondary market.

Therefore, in my opinion, such a system would be limited to certain operational steps rather than covering the entire stablecoin ecosystem. It is necessary to observe real-world implementation and market reactions to assess its effectiveness in the long term.

Aren't you guys being a bit presumptuous about the limitations of the issuing institutions in regards to their own coins?

I don't claim to be an expert, yet I don't know of any stable coins that are open source, so if the various stable coins are not open source, there would be no way to verify that individual coins cannot be tracked and/or otherwise controlled such as freezing or made to disappear, even if they are not in the custody of the issuing institution or an agent of the issuing institution.

[edited out]

Goals also seem to be able to monitor and control any kinds of transactions whether they are bitcoin-related or not, and the more channels they can put their grubby little fingers into, the more limitations there will be for bitcoin holders to interact with those systems.

This is the one exactly their intention to monitor or have control with the transaction trails of people. Also they provably care that much about stablecoins, because it is pegged with their USD that's why they  like to adopt and try to be in control.

They may try to expand their influence also control with existing financial system, but one things if for sure here, they cannot automatically weaken the influence or popularity of Bitcoin. That actions they have done will just give great highlight the importance of Bitcoin.

Maybe you and I are working from a slightly different premise (set of presumptions), even though I agree with you when it comes to bitcoin itself not being controlled or controllable, yet it seems that there are a large number of ways that states, governments and financial institutions can put their little tentacles into bitcoin through on and off ramps and even the various wallets that claim to be bitcoin yet they are not really bitcoin since they are paper bitcoin (and closed sources), and the same is true with various other paper derivatives of bitcoin that contributes to confusion in regards to what is bitcoin and what is just exposure to bitcoin prices.

Part of my point is that the more tentacles (and even potential restrictions) in the various ways that bitcoin is used (or can be acceptably used), then the more that normies are confused about the difference between paper bitcoin and real bitcoin, and they might not even realize that bitcoin can be used without so many third parties and without the third party on ramps and off ramps.

Of course, one of the potential solutions would be to create networks in which normies (bitcoin users) are interacting with others directly rather than going through third parties (or even using the 3rd party stable coins), yet there are so many ways and places that disincentives are made to directly transact on bitcoin and even some of our developers are put in jail (namely Samurai) for developing tools that facilitate and empower directly transacting in bitcoin.  By the way, when there are "incentives" to use third parties instruments/tools that is also similar to disincentives in regards to using and holding bitcoin directly.

[Donneski]

They are steering back protecting the banks.
This clamp down on stablecoin holders is not enforceable, by the way.
Probably it’s going to be relevant only in case of primary deals, or minting and burning of Stablecoins tokens. Not on secondary transactions.

And yeah this is why they made those good law to adopt stablecoin, because they want lessen or avoid the risk of other unstable coins.

If people read their reports we could see that their main intention is to save the banking institution.
Here is the PDF of congress about this,
https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/PDF/IN12525/IN12525.2.pdf
https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/PDF/IN12522/IN12522.2.pdf
https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF12984/IF12984.2.pdf

Goals also seem to be able to monitor and control any kinds of transactions whether they are bitcoin-related or not, and the more channels they can put their grubby little fingers into, the more limitations there will be for bitcoin holders to interact with those systems.

I agree with you. Just like it is to me, i expect that part to also be concerning to other Bitcoiners. It's not just about stablecoins today but what might happen next. Once a certain level of monitoring becomes normal, it's usually easier to expand it further. That is why many people should being very cautious whenever new regulations are introduced even when they seem harmless at first.

[Ribust]

Maybe you and I are working from a slightly different premise (set of presumptions), even though I agree with you when it comes to bitcoin itself not being controlled or controllable, yet it seems that there are a large number of ways that states, governments and financial institutions can put their little tentacles into bitcoin through on and off ramps and even the various wallets that claim to be bitcoin yet they are not really bitcoin since they are paper bitcoin (and closed sources), and the same is true with various other paper derivatives of bitcoin that contributes to confusion in regards to what is bitcoin and what is just exposure to bitcoin prices.

@JayJuanGee. Thank you for your important feedback.
I believe that the point we’re making is actually the same one Bitcoin in its essence cannot be regulated. And here’s the source of confusion there are many additional elements that accompany the cryptocurrency. It’s possible to control people’s access to Bitcoin as well as influence the market behavior via governments, banks, exchanges, custodial wallets, ETFs, and other derivatives. But all of these things are not Bitcoin per se they’re just some kind of services or products related to it. That’s why self-custody matters so much and so does the distinction between owning Bitcoin and having exposure to its price.

Part of my point is that the more tentacles (and even potential restrictions) in the various ways that bitcoin is used (or can be acceptably used), then the more that normies are confused about the difference between paper bitcoin and real bitcoin, and they might not even realize that bitcoin can be used without so many third parties and without the third party on ramps and off ramps.

With the introduction of more and more intermediaries like organizations, ETFs, custodianships, and regulation, newcomers end up seeing such products as Bitcoin. The truth is, Bitcoin was meant to provide the means for direct ownership and transactions between parties without the extensive need for third parties. However, the increasing involvement of paper Bitcoin and other third-party services can be confusing, hence, the need for education.

Of course, one of the potential solutions would be to create networks in which normies (bitcoin users) are interacting with others directly rather than going through third parties (or even using the 3rd party stable coins), yet there are so many ways and places that disincentives are made to directly transact on bitcoin and even some of our developers are put in jail (namely Samurai) for developing tools that facilitate and empower directly transacting in bitcoin.  By the way, when there are "incentives" to use third parties instruments/tools that is also similar to disincentives in regards to using and holding bitcoin directly.

My opinion is that the most significant issue for Bitcoin at present has less to do with the protocol itself and more to do with the relationship between users and it. Bitcoin was invented to enable peer-to-peer transactions without the need for the approval of banks, payment systems, and all other intermediaries. Instead, the majority of users are now highly dependent on the use of exchanges, custodial wallets, ETFs, and even stablecoins.

The result is a phenomenon of knowledge gap, in which a lot of new users become familiar with the price of Bitcoin but do not get the experience of owning Bitcoin via self-custody. Even more worrisome is the situation when privacy-focused solutions and their developers come under the regulatory attack since it hinders the development of innovations that promote peer-to-peer transactions.

[Ribust]

JUST IN: $326 billion asset manager Ric Edelman says 95% of the institutions that don't own Bitcoin & crypto are "going to allocate this year for the first time." 👀

"A lot of folks are looking at the Clarity Act as the key pivot point. If this gets passed into law, then that will largely be seen by many as the bottom."


X

The increasing institutional interest in Bitcoin is continually contributing to improving the future perspective of the market. The prediction by Ric Edelman that 95% of institutions not invested in crypto will invest this year shows that regulatory clarity is emerging as a major factor for driving growth. Should the Clarity Act be passed, it will contribute positively towards growth and capital inflow.

[JayJuanGee]

JUST IN: $326 billion asset manager Ric Edelman says 95% of the institutions that don't own Bitcoin & crypto are "going to allocate this year for the first time." 👀

"A lot of folks are looking at the Clarity Act as the key pivot point. If this gets passed into law, then that will largely be seen by many as the bottom."

X
The increasing institutional interest in Bitcoin is continually contributing to improving the future perspective of the market. The prediction by Ric Edelman that 95% of institutions not invested in crypto will invest this year shows that regulatory clarity is emerging as a major factor for driving growth. Should the Clarity Act be passed, it will contribute positively towards growth and capital inflow.

Yes they are gaslighting us.

They want us to suck the dick of clarity act, as if it were a good thing.

[MeCsc]

JUST IN: $326 billion asset manager Ric Edelman says 95% of the institutions that don't own Bitcoin & crypto are "going to allocate this year for the first time." 👀

"A lot of folks are looking at the Clarity Act as the key pivot point. If this gets passed into law, then that will largely be seen by many as the bottom."

X
The increasing institutional interest in Bitcoin is continually contributing to improving the future perspective of the market. The prediction by Ric Edelman that 95% of institutions not invested in crypto will invest this year shows that regulatory clarity is emerging as a major factor for driving growth. Should the Clarity Act be passed, it will contribute positively towards growth and capital inflow.

Yes they are gaslighting us.

They want us to suck the dick of clarity act, as if it were a good thing.

Seeing your criticism I went to get an idea of the act and this will move Bitcoin out of the hands of SEC regulations to CFTC, who I don't really know much about currently.

What are the issues about the Clarity Act, can you please enlighten me?

[laspol65]

NEW: H100 Group's shareholders votes to issue new shares to acquire Moonshot AS and Never Say Die AS.

The deal will triple H100’s Bitcoin reserve, from 1,051 BTC to 3,500 BTC.
Source Link



I respect this move, their Bitcoin investment has tripled due to the issuance of more shares. That's enough advice. The more money they can deposit, the more Bitcoin holdings they will be able to increase, but they have made a wise decision.

[Primark]

I respect this move, their Bitcoin investment has tripled due to the issuance of more shares. That's enough advice. The more money they can deposit, the more Bitcoin holdings they will be able to increase, but they have made a wise decision.

They are not buying new Bitcoin from the market. They are just adopting a method. I can't remember the name of that method, you can search on Google. You probably don't know that although this method has advantages, the ownership share of the old shareholders is reduced due to the new issue.

[abaeze]

I respect this move, their Bitcoin investment has tripled due to the issuance of more shares. That's enough advice. The more money they can deposit, the more Bitcoin holdings they will be able to increase, but they have made a wise decision.

They are not buying new Bitcoin from the market. They are just adopting a method. I can't remember the name of that method, you can search on Google. You probably don't know that although this method has advantages, the ownership share of the old shareholders is reduced due to the new issue.

When a public company adds thousands of BTC to their balance sheet, it indicates that they are considering Bitcoin as a long-term store of value. While the acquisition would have been best done in cash, the exchange for newly issued shares shows that both companies are very positive about Bitcoin in the long term. However, share dilution may slightly reduce the dividend for existing shareholders.

[Gost ms]

https://x.com/i/status/2072253366357663910

Taiwan has passed a new law which could be a big piece of good news for the Bitcoin market. As we all know, Taiwan is one of the richest and most developed countries in the world. The world's largest chip manufacturing company is Taiwan. As a result of the passage of this law, the country's Bitcoin acceptance rate will increase significantly, which is expected to lead to a bullish trend in the Bitcoin market.

[fillippone]

NEW: H100 Group's shareholders votes to issue new shares to acquire Moonshot AS and Never Say Die AS.

I respect this move, their Bitcoin investment has tripled due to the issuance of more shares. That's enough advice. The more money they can deposit, the more Bitcoin holdings they will be able to increase, but they have made a wise decision.

There might be a sound rationale to do so.
I have no clue about the Moonshot AS and Never Say Die AS respective mNAV, but probably they were below 1.
I guess H100 made this bid at mNAV=1 paying (paper vs paper) bitcoin at exact market price. 
Smart move, if true.

[Gragebox]

BIG PROGRESS ON THE CLARITY ACT.

🇺🇸 The US Senate is expected to release the final text of the CLARITY Act over THIS WEEKEND.

IT'S HAPPENING!


X
In case the final version of the CLARITY Act comes out this weekend as expected, it would certainly be a major step for the crypto sector in the US. It is evident that clear regulations would make everything much clearer for all involved parties. It is true, however, that it all depends on the final bill.

[laspol65]

NEW: 🇺🇸 Tomorrow's New Hampshire Governor & Executive Council hearing is on "a resolution authorizing up to $100,000,000 bonds for a project to acquire and hold" Bitcoin 👀

Source link



The Governor of Hampshire has created shares to buy Bitcoin, he will sell these shares and hold Bitcoin. This is a very good idea. This is the most important and appropriate plan for the future economic success of the country. This plan is very important to implement so it will be effective very soon.