MARA CEO: For payments, Bitcoin NO, stablecoins YES

[legiteum]

https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/crypto/articles/mara-ceo-says-bitcoins-payments-163636566.html

MARA CEO Says Bitcoin's Payments Use Case Has 'Seen Its Day Go By' As Miners Chase AI Money

"Fred Thiel, chairman and CEO of MARA Holdings (MARA), the largest public Bitcoin (BTC) miner, said Bitcoin's use as a medium of exchange has "seen its day go by," adding the commercial transaction layer for AI and everyday payments will be built on stablecoins, not Bitcoin."


Here you have the one of the biggest proponents of Bitcoin on the planet--a guy who literally makes more money if Bitcoin is more widely adopted--saying that Bitcoin has no future as a means of value transfer.

He goes on to say what most people already know but are afraid to admit: that Bitcoin is a pure meme investment and a pyramid scheme that depends entirely on other people paying more than you did for the same asset so you can sell it at a profit:

"Thiel added that because Bitcoin fails to produce any yield, it depends on the fact that more people want to buy it than want to sell it."

[Alvin_talk]

Here you have the one of the biggest proponents of Bitcoin on the planet--a guy who literally makes more money if Bitcoin is more widely adopted--saying that Bitcoin has no future as a means of value transfer.

Being a big shot doesn't always mean all your judgement and assessments are correct. You have to overlook his personality and status so that you can scrutinise the situation and see  if he is right or wrong.

Does gold produce yield? The answer is NO, yet it has served as a store of value for centuries now. Thesame applies to Bitcoin, its value proposition does not rely on cash flow generation, rather, it is based on the following;
1. Fixed supply
2. Self custody
3. Censorship resistance

I have mentioned before that bitcoin as everyday money is not meant for everybody, it is meant for those who value self custody and as far as I know, the network is sufficient to accommodate and serve such individuals. You know, sometimes I feel you are being paid off by some shitcoin organisations to spread FUD in this community but guess what? YOU'VE FAILED ALREADY" so stop trying.

[AVE5]

"Fred Thiel, chairman and CEO of MARA Holdings (MARA), the largest public Bitcoin (BTC) miner, said Bitcoin's use as a medium of exchange has "seen its day go by," adding the commercial transaction layer for AI and everyday payments will be built on stablecoins, not Bitcoin."

That's nice to say which I believe such use case can only be built in the commercial blockchain networks. I'm sure some newbies will be like WHAT? Does it mean bitcoin can no longer be used for means of payment or exchange with this new development?
Obviously that's not going to be. In my subjective, this modality is only fostered to control crypto currency volatility to have its value stable for merchants through the stable coins.
This also hasn't comprised the bitcoin consensus. The digital assets networks and technologies is just going beyond to profer the needs for future purposes and ease on user's experiences.

[Publictalk792]

No one calls gold a pyramid scheme for that reason, why Bitcoin?

And yes, stablecoins have basically already won that battle, with USDT and USDC moving billions of dollars per day for real world use cases, while Lightning Network has failed to really take off in the way people had hoped. Thiel is right on that point.

However, payments losing does not mean Bitcoin losing everything. Roles of store of value and medium of exchange are two different roles. Bitcoin won one, and stablecoins won the other, and it was a clear victory. That is not failure, that is just how things turned out.

Importantly, Bitcoin miner who is now seeking to make money from AI is not necessarily the most unbiased voice out there today when it comes to Bitcoin payments.

[X-ray]

Idk what your problem with Bitcoin is but I want to point out that one of the biggest hurdle Bitcoin facing is legal compliance because it's decentralized and not controlled by centralized entity unlike Stablecoin.

If you are thinking about fee, I refuted it because bitcoin's fee has been very cheap for quite a while and stablecoin transaction often times cost more than that, stablecoin isn't the utopia that you'd think of, they occasionally getting fee problem at peak hours, I recommend you to see etherscan's fee heatmap.

In short government can't intervene unlike stablecoin is the main reason company decide to choose stablecoin for payments not because Bitcoin is worse. I'm talking about stablecoin freezing billions because government said so which would be impossible to happen if you are using Bitcoin.

On top of that these Mining company run based on profit, they'd chase their next trend and do so without thinking twice as long as it brings them more profit. It's not a rocket science.

[m2017]

MARA CEO Says Bitcoin's Payments Use Case Has 'Seen Its Day Go By' As Miners Chase AI Money

I agree that bitcoin is rarely used as a means of payment. It's currently a completely speculative asset.

"Fred Thiel, chairman and CEO of MARA Holdings (MARA), the largest public Bitcoin (BTC) miner, said Bitcoin's use as a medium of exchange has "seen its day go by," adding the commercial transaction layer for AI and everyday payments will be built on stablecoins, not Bitcoin."

This makes sense, because who would want to use a highly volatile coin?

Here you have the one of the biggest proponents of Bitcoin on the planet--a guy who literally makes more money if Bitcoin is more widely adopted--saying that Bitcoin has no future as a means of value transfer.

I don't think he's a blind supporter of bitcoin, but a calculating businessman looking for profit. Did you notice the mention in the article that Mara no longer buys bitcoin, but has sold a large number of bitcoins over the past year?

He goes on to say what most people already know but are afraid to admit: that Bitcoin is a pure meme investment and a pyramid scheme that depends entirely on other people paying more than you did for the same asset so you can sell it at a profit:

"Thiel added that because Bitcoin fails to produce any yield, it depends on the fact that more people want to buy it than want to sell it."

Right now, it's true that bitcoin is a speculative investment tool (yes, it's somewhat reminiscent of a Ponzi scheme), but the world is changing, and humanity is once again changing the way bitcoin is used. Recall the recent law in Russia, according to which bitcoin can be legally used as a means of payment for cross-border settlements (importers \ exporters). Therefore, it's possible that bitcoin will also have the characteristics of a payment method (along with its speculative nature) not at the user level, but at the country level.

How come bitcoin isn't profitable (useful)? In the link you provided to the article, Thiel says the following:

"He said that at the end of the day, industrial Bitcoin mining is more of a residual activity than a business. Miners are treated as power sinks for load balancing, and mining moves to where there are excess electrons- a solar microgrid once the batteries are full or a data center during commissioning, where mining can replace the load banks usually used to absorb power at essentially no incremental cost."

[legiteum]

No one calls gold a pyramid scheme for that reason, why Bitcoin?

Gold has practical use including electronics, jewelry, decorations, teeth, and other stuff. And it's been around as a coveted asset for about 6000 years longer than Bitcoin has.

That said, gold absolutely has been called a pyramid scheme too when the price goes crazy like has been doing lately. Silver too. Gold could drop pretty far if people stopped getting so excited about the price going up.

However, payments losing does not mean Bitcoin losing everything. Roles of store of value and medium of exchange are two different roles. Bitcoin won one, and stablecoins won the other, and it was a clear victory. That is not failure, that is just how things turned out.

I agree, and I don't get the maxis who think Bitcoin needs to be used for everything including as a floor wax in order for it to be successful.

Idk what your problem with Bitcoin is but I want to point out that one of the biggest hurdle Bitcoin facing is legal compliance because it's decentralized and not controlled by centralized entity unlike Stablecoin.

Huh? Have you been living under a rock for the last 15 years? Bitcoin is absolutely, positively legal everywhere that matters. The president of the USA has a $half billion in BTC himself. It can't possibly get any more "legal" than that.

And since Bitcoin is legal, all digital currencies are legal. Nobody cares about "decentralization" anymore, and things like Ether went to a defacto centralized model 10 years ago and the authorities never cared about that either.

If you are thinking about fee, I refuted it because bitcoin's fee has been very cheap for quite a while and stablecoin transaction often times cost more than that, stablecoin isn't the utopia that you'd think of, they occasionally getting fee problem at peak hours, I recommend you to see etherscan's fee heatmap.

Again, I won't quibble about fees (although what you call "cheap" is not cheap compared to other mainstream forms of payment), but the time Bitcoin takes is simply impossible for mainstream payments. And something that works, "most of the time" is not a solution for anything. No vendor is going to take a chance with losing all of their customers because Bitcoin is having a bad day.

In short government can't intervene unlike stablecoin is the main reason company decide to choose stablecoin for payments not because Bitcoin is worse. I'm talking about stablecoin freezing billions because government said so which would be impossible to happen if you are using Bitcoin.

If you are a criminal, or are afraid of your government coming after you, Bitcoin is a pretty stupid choice since it can be traced with chain analysis. Criminals, money launderers, tax evaders, etc. mostly prefer Monero for this reason.

Regardless, you are talking about a relatively tiny audience of people with reason to fear the government freezing their accounts. That's why perhaps 90% of people who own Bitcoin do so with a custodial account in their own name, which can be frozen or seized by the government just like any bank account. This isn't a worry for 99% of the population, so barely anybody even uses Bitcoin that way.

Right now, it's true that bitcoin is a speculative investment tool (yes, it's somewhat reminiscent of a Ponzi scheme), [...]

Ahhhhh! Bitcoin is not a Ponzi scheme!

A Ponzi scheme is a criminal activity that depends on deception by a party that profits from it. That's not what Bitcoin is.

Bitcoin is a Pyramid scheme, which is very different. Lots of things are pyramid schemes, and they are usually perfectly legal and above board. Ponzi schemes are illegal and immoral, whereas Pyramid schemes are... a pastime, much like gambling.

(Sorry for the rant, but definitions matter to me   ).

[...] but the world is changing, and humanity is once again changing the way bitcoin is used.


Recall the recent law in Russia, according to which bitcoin can be legally used as a means of payment for cross-border settlements (importers \ exporters). Therefore, it's possible that bitcoin will also have the characteristics of a payment method (along with its speculative nature) not at the user level, but at the country level.

Cross-border transfers are fine with Bitcoin because they are usually very large transfers and waiting a 10-20 minutes is no big deal. But there are 1/10,000th the number of these on any given day versus mainstream everyday payments. I think that's what Thiel was talking about.

[bitbollo]

OP? Bitcoin isn't a pyramid scheme, bad definition! There are many reason (practically) but you don't need to recruit no one and the ability and resilence of network isn't linked only to new users come into it. If I don't recruit or sell or whatever to other users I would net get any penalty for that. Even if I would do this I would not get any real benefit!

coming back on the topic MARA has already switched their business model. Probably (its not a bad news by itself) the industralization of bitcoin and blockchain can't work on this stage (or probably due the nature of the network it would be always futile effort).

[UchihaSarada]

https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/crypto/articles/mara-ceo-says-bitcoins-payments-163636566.html

MARA CEO Says Bitcoin's Payments Use Case Has 'Seen Its Day Go By' As Miners Chase AI Money

"Fred Thiel, chairman and CEO of MARA Holdings (MARA), the largest public Bitcoin (BTC) miner, said Bitcoin's use as a medium of exchange has "seen its day go by," adding the commercial transaction layer for AI and everyday payments will be built on stablecoins, not Bitcoin."

I don't buy his opinion too seriously because MARA pool is a mining pool that tried to censor Bitcoin transactions. They tried to do that several times years ago, and I don't trust them.

There are report and press releases about their censorship.
Observing Bitcoin mining pools.
Marathon Digital Holdings to Launch the First North American-Based Bitcoin Mining Pool, Fully Compliant with U.S. Regulations on March 2021.
Marathon Digital Holdings Becomes the First North American Enterprise Miner to Produce Fully AML and OFAC Compliant Bitcoin on May 2021.

In Bitcoin mining industry and Bitcoin community, MARA does not have good reputation.

[Rashlyowl]

No one calls gold a pyramid scheme for that reason, why Bitcoin?

And yes, stablecoins have basically already won that battle, with USDT and USDC moving billions of dollars per day for real world use cases, while Lightning Network has failed to really take off in the way people had hoped. Thiel is right on that point.

However, payments losing does not mean Bitcoin losing everything. Roles of store of value and medium of exchange are two different roles. Bitcoin won one, and stablecoins won the other, and it was a clear victory. That is not failure, that is just how things turned out.

I like your response bros, you’re evaluating both with a strong sense of objectivity, not a BTC fanatic. I also agree with some of Fred Thie's views when comparing BTC & stablecoins in terms of real-world adoption. Because lightning network adoption fell short of expectations, BTC lost out. However, in other respects, BTC remains superior to stablecoins.

[Outhue]

Here we go again, Bitcoin as a means of payment is not something that everyone would do, most people prefer to use Bitcoin as a store of value, it's not like if Bitcoin isn't been used as money it will die, OP said no one cares about Decentralisation? Is that coming from the fact that Trump has billions in Bitcoin and institutions are also available? Opinions will remain opinion even if it's coming from someone who is well known, that doesn't mean he knows better, Bitcoin been decentralised is an option too, it's there, if you want to use it that way why not? Many people don't care about decentralisation and that doesn't make Bitcoin now centralised.

[Majestic-milf]

Huh? Have you been living under a rock for the last 15 years? Bitcoin is absolutely, positively legal everywhere that matters. The president of the USA has a $half billion in BTC himself. It can't possibly get any more "legal" than that.

And since Bitcoin is legal, all digital currencies are legal. Nobody cares about "decentralization" anymore, and things like Ether went to a defacto centralized model 10 years ago and the authorities never cared about that either.

So you're saying in the countries that's its not legal, Bitcoin doesn't matter there? Help me understand this. Bitcoin was created so everyone who make use of it can be financially free from outside interference. If Thiel says he's more focused on stablecoins instead of Bitcoin, then let him.
You cited Trump's Bitcoin as on of the significant reasons as to why Bitcoin is legal, are you then saying because the POTUS holds Bitcoin, it's automatically legal in other areas?

[notocactus]

Bitcoin was created so everyone who make use of it can be financially free from outside interference.

There are conditions and what you said is not automatically true without any conditions.

People must use Bitcoin blockchain and bitcoin with non custodial (the least condition) and open source wallets. With such wallets, they can have private keys, full controls of private keys, UTXOs, and can broadcast transactions freely by their own favorite settings. If they want privacy, they can use Tor for their wallets and transactions.

It's not true if they use centralized exchanges, market places and platforms. No private keys, no controls, no freedom, no privacy as KYC is very likely mandate.

If Thiel says he's more focused on stablecoins instead of Bitcoin, then let him.

Let him be but the others especially newbies must learn.
PSA: Most Stablecoins Can Be Frozen, Even in Your Own Wallets.
Stablecoins and blacklists.
Not your keys, not your coins.

[free-bit.co.in]

Everyone is taking Fred Thiel's statement out of context.

Did he say that Bitcoin has no future?

No. He himself said that Bitcoin is still important as a store of value and he personally hodl Bitcoin.

His point was that stablecoin can be more practical for everyday high frequency commercial payment. Especially in AI ​​economy where price stability is important.

But drawing the conclusion like- 'Bitcoin is a pyramid scheme' from here is a huge leap. You know, Gold also does not yield, yet it has survived as value store for thousand of years. No yield does not mean it is a pyramid.

[Fiatless]

He goes on to say what most people already know but are afraid to admit: that Bitcoin is a pure meme investment and a pyramid scheme that depends entirely on other people paying more than you did for the same asset so you can sell it at a profit:

Sorry, I went through the article and couldn't find where Fred Thiel called Bitcoin a "pure meme investment and a pyramid scheme". I would be glad if you could highlight it. I am curious because he said this

Thiel said Bitcoin remains a store of value for holders who want assets outside central control and fully portable, and that he holds it personally. He also said he is not less excited about Bitcoin than five years ago, but has "put it in a different box."

You seem to be rephrasing what he said to suit your intentions. Stablecoin could have some advantages, but it doesn't in any way erode the benefits of using Bitcoin.   

[standardnepo]

"Thiel added that because Bitcoin fails to produce any yield, it depends on the fact that more people want to buy it than want to sell it."

I don’t understand why he would say this. Most people and institutions investing in Bitcoin see it as a long-term asset, so they’re comfortable holding it for years rather than selling. Am I missing something here?

I’m still relatively early in my Bitcoin journey, but one thing I’ve noticed is that every bear market, someone comes out with a statement like this. Yet Bitcoin has continued to attract long-term holders and institutional adoption over time.