MARA CEO: For payments, Bitcoin NO, stablecoins YES

[sunsilk]

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:

That's his opinion but he forgotten that in order to mine bitcoin, there's the energy that the miners are using for mining the blocks. So there's a foundation and cost for having it.

Unlike the memes and pyramid schemes, they're from several people's pocket paying the first investors.

And why think of a yield if it's a store of value?

[Majestic-milf]

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.

Let's assume all these conditions you mentioned in your first sentence are met, one can enjoy it's uses without having to worry about if the government can Snoop on your transactions just because they are having a bad day.

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.

You're right on this but it's not going to surprise me that some will see these dangers and still decode to stick their necks. It makes me wonder if some deserve to be warned cause it just needs a so called financial expert to come and spew one rubbish or give his opinion and then you'd see them holding onto his words like it were gold.

[legiteum]

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!

You are right: Bitcoin isn't exactly a typical Pyramid scheme either since individuals don't need to add nodes to the scheme in order to profit--it's a collective scheme: everybody collectively needs to recruit new members to the scheme in order for existing members to profit. But individually you aren't required to do anything at all.

Another name for this type of investment is, "The Greater Fool Theory". This is somewhat derisive sounding, but it's what investors call meme investments like Bitcoin. GFT investments are those that depend entirely on more people coming in to the system and buying the same thing you bought when there were fewer people so you can sell what you bought at a profit.

Again, I don't think there's anything wrong with Pyramid schemes or GFT's: they are both entertainment just like gambling is.

So you're saying in the countries that's its not legal, Bitcoin doesn't matter there? Help me understand this.

From the standpoint of Bitcoin's price and financial activity, Bitcoin is legal in enough places to make it completely mainstream. Legalizing Bitcoin in the few places that it's still illegal wouldn't make much difference to its overall adoption numbers.

"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?

Institutions don't have "long terms assets" they just have assets. Unlike us lazy individuals who have jobs and other things to do all day--and thus we passively invest and leave stuff in our portfolio for a long time because we forget about it--large institutional investors have large staffs (and now AI agents) that reevaluate every single aspect of their portfolio every single day.

The only reason any institution holds Bitcoin at any given time is that they think there's a good chance they will be able to sell it for more in the future. If they thought otherwise, they would sell the asset in milliseconds.

Stablecoin are not independent currency. Almost all major stablecoin ultimately depend on fiat currency and issuer. So your account can be frozen, blacklisted or your transfer can be blocked by issuer or regulator. Bitcoin does not require that trusted third party. Satoshi's main innovation was trustless digital money.

Almost everybody who holds Bitcoin today--especially on a volume basis--does so with some kind of custodial account like CoinBase or Binance or one of the ETFs. Those act just like a regular bank account.

Almost nobody stays awake at night and fears that their assets will be frozen by the government--and those who do probably wouldn't use Bitcoin anyhow, they would use Monero since it's truly anonymous.

Today, stablecoins are doing billions of dollars per day in volume (many times more than BTC) and nobody seems to care about this "problem"...

Why is Gold and other stocks are not considered a pyramid scheme, because they works based on buying and selling, the same way Bitcoin works also.

Gold often is considered the same kind of pyramid scheme that Bitcoin is, since it's acts like a meme investment in the same way Bitcoin does. Gold, however, does have actual practical use so it's not a "pure meme" like Bitcoin is. But particularly when gold doubles in value like it has in the past few years, people consider that a "meme" phenomenon, not practical demand.

Stocks are completely different because there is a company that is making profits, has potential to make more profits, and so on. Hence investors focus on the machinery of the company behind the stock, and not the demand for the stock itself. (There are some "meme stocks" out there too, where investors seem to be ignoring the fundamentals, but most are based on actual stuff).

But that doesn't mean that payment aren't being made in Bitcoin. We are also now using Lightning Network, Fedimint and the new L2 solution.

Bitcoin L2s haven't taken off because there's no point in using them: they have all of the issues that more centralized (and thus faster and more efficient) coins have, and none of the advantages. That's why stablecoins now do perhaps 100x the volume that all of the Bitcoin L2s do combined--and this will just just more extreme in the future.

And L2s are not Bitcoin, and it's dishonest to imply that "Bitcoin is A, B and C" and then imply that the L2 also has those features when it doesn't. Using an L2 is using a completely different product that has a completely different set of security issues, and does not impart the decentralization that Bitcoin itself does--it's no different that using something like CoinBase or Robinhood to buy Bitcoin.

So, is it a defect to have no yield?
Does pure gold or dry cash generate any yield or interest?
So are they failing to maintain their value?

Most people don't hold much or any of their portfolios in cash. Bitcoin does not compete with USD or other sovereign currencies, it competes with stocks, bonds, and things like sports betting.

Since Bitcoin does not give yield, it is Pristine Collateral and Hard Money.

LOL, don't you think it's a bit crazy calling it "hard money" when it's lost half of its value in the last year?  

[DanWalker]

And L2s are not Bitcoin[/b][/url], and it's dishonest to imply that "Bitcoin is A, B and C" and then imply that the L2 also has those features when it doesn't.

I didn’t say that Lightning, Fedimint or other L2 offer same trust model as Bitcoin L1.
Of course there are trade offs.
But ultimately settlement is on Bitcoin blockchain and BTC is used as native asset. Being part of Bitcoin ecosystem and being Bitcoin L1 are not same thing.

Bitcoin L2s haven't taken off because there's no point in using them: they have all of the issues that more centralized (and thus faster and more efficient) coins have, and none of the advantages.

But Lightning's usage has significantly increased last few years. It is being used in almost every exchange, wallet, merchant integration and remittance use case.
hmm there are still challenge like centralization and liquidity management. But it wouldn't be fair to say no one is using it or that it doesn't have any benefit.

That's why stablecoins now do perhaps 100x the volume that all of the Bitcoin L2s do combined--and this will just just more extreme in the future.

But this does not mean L2 is not needed. Main attraction of stablecoin is price stability, not Bitcoin's censorship resistance or fixed monetary policy.

Using an L2 is using a completely different product that has a completely different set of security issues, and does not impart the decentralization that Bitcoin itself does--it's no different that using something like CoinBase or Robinhood to buy Bitcoin.

Using Coinbase require you to give them full custody of your BTC. But you can also use Lightning with self custodial node or wallet, where you keep private key.
Yes, many people use custodial Lightning wallet for convenience. But that is not a requirement of protocol but a user preference.

[stompix]

In fact, Bitcoin L1 was never designed for million of small transaction per second.

And the Commodore was never designed to play games in 4k...
Things fucking evolve! What is left behind is ...well...left behind!

People always bragged how BTC is fast, you can send money internationally for pennies, how this and that, and while laughing all the way at banks and WU and MG we have seen those evolve and make instant transactions directly in the currency you choose with zero forex fees and so on!

What have most rallying behind Bitcoin done? Well, they changed the narrative, saying that, well, Bitcoin was never meant to beat banks and WU and MG!

Thiel is perfectly right here, and one just has to open their yes and look right here in this forum, the center of Bitcoin, and you can see at every corner how stablecoins are getting more and more used when normally we would have banned them for the main marketplace dealing. There is no more talk in 0.45 BTC, 0.010 BTC, everyone talks in dollars.
But some really want to stick their head in the sand and think this is how problems will go away!

[legiteum]

And L2s are not Bitcoin[/b][/url], and it's dishonest to imply that "Bitcoin is A, B and C" and then imply that the L2 also has those features when it doesn't.

I didn’t say that Lightning, Fedimint or other L2 offer same trust model as Bitcoin L1.
Of course there are trade offs.
But ultimately settlement is on Bitcoin blockchain and BTC is used as native asset. Being part of Bitcoin ecosystem and being Bitcoin L1 are not same thing.

If you use an L2, you might as well use something that works better like a fast and efficient L1 coin made for payments, or just use a broker like CoinBase or Robinhood. L2s don't add any value and instead introduce all kinds of security and performance issues.

That's why hardly anybody uses them for real payments.

Using Coinbase require you to give them full custody of your BTC. But you can also use Lightning with self custodial node or wallet, where you keep private key.
Yes, many people use custodial Lightning wallet for convenience. But that is not a requirement of protocol but a user preference.

If you don't use the Lighting Network, you need to do an on-chain transaction in order to start trading with somebody, which completely negates the advantage of doing a transaction with Lightning: you are better off just doing an on-chain transaction directly and skipping the added complexity of the L2.

If you use LN, you are trusting a network that is centralized and has the same inherent issues as any centralized network--except that LN doesn't work as well as dedicated L1s made for payments. In other words, LN is basically no different than trusting something like CoinBase or Binance because you have to trust the LN servers in the same way you need to trust those companies--and there are lots of attacks on LN even though you keep your private key because that doesn't guarantee anything. Bitcoin is completely trustless. LN is not. Hence all LN amounts to is a slower and less reliable version of things like CoinBase.

That's why L2s haven't taken off, and today only do a tiny fraction of the volume that stablecoins do.

This is what Thiel observed as well. You can ignore the technical arguments against Lightning if you want, but it's harder to ignore the market.

[BALIK]

That's like saying "sky is blue and water is wet"

This is CEO of a centralized company that has been carrying out an attack on one of Bitcoin's principles by censoring transactions and obeying the invasive censorship laws set forth by the US regime. If he said anything else, I would have been surprised. Otherwise you are quoted here is exactly what I'd expected him to say.

Good news is that this US-based mining company is rather small (4% of hashrate) so it doesn't really matter what they think or do. If the "desperate-for-news" news outlets don't relay the crap these people say, it would be as if they don't even exit

Whether Mara's hashrate is 4% or 40% is that make Thiel's observation wrong?
If Bitcoin is best for payment then why are stablecoin being used so much for everyday transaction? Even everyone is choosing stablecoin for remittance, exchange settlement and merchant payment.

So if you call him a govt puppet or follower of US government thin will the problem he mentioned be automatically solved?
Seems like dismissing a doctor's diagnosis because you don't like the hospital he works for,,,
Ask yourself, is market choosing Bitcoin for everyday payment or something else?

[X-ray]

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.

I'm talking in the context of bitcoin being used for payments although in reality Bitcoin is still facing legal hurdle because it's being categorized as commodity and some country don't allow payments using Bitcoin because they only allow legal tender.

But I'm gonna outline the real problem of using bitcoin, or crypto that isn't stablecoin in general as a payment and honestly rarely being spoken about and it's the legal aspect especially the taxation.

Both stablecoin and Bitcoin is considered as property under IRS Notice 2014-21 but stablecoin didn't trigger capital gain tax because fairmarket value = cost basis, even if you argue that there is still small value shift at the range of 0.001 - 0.005 dollar for stablecoin which often happens, in practicality it's so minimal often time being ignored.

Bitcoin on the other hand, for every payment you made it will trigger capital gain because gain/loss rarely equal zero after fair market value - cost basis. This is the real reason in my opinion bitcoin is falling behind for payments.

Some company and individual don't want that complexity, only better regulation can fix this.

[hd49728]

I'm talking in the context of bitcoin being used for payments although in reality Bitcoin is still facing legal hurdle because it's being categorized as commodity and some country don't allow payments using Bitcoin because they only allow legal tender.

I understand it but it's like a grey area as if they only allow citizens to have Bitcoin ownership while don't accept Bitcoin as a payment method, it's confusing for citizens and contradicting with each other legally.

To have ownership, people must buy bitcoins if they are not Bitcoin miners, while purchases are basically a trade with a payment by cash or something else for bitcoin. It's about Bitcoin buyers so if buyers do it legally, the Bitcoin sellers must be considered legally with their selling actions.

But I'm gonna outline the real problem of using bitcoin, or crypto that isn't stablecoin in general as a payment and honestly rarely being spoken about and it's the legal aspect especially the taxation.

Both stablecoin and Bitcoin is considered as property under IRS Notice 2014-21 but stablecoin didn't trigger capital gain tax because fairmarket value = cost basis, even if you argue that there is still small value shift at the range of 0.001 - 0.005 dollar for stablecoin which often happens, in practicality it's so minimal often time being ignored.

Bitcoin surely is better to use than stablecoins because between decentralized and centralized cryptocurrencies, a decentralized one is better.
Stablecoins are better than CBDCs because CBDCs are fully controlled by central banks and governments.

I would like to continue with Bitcoin for my investment as well as wealth storage, while stablecoins are not my favorite choices. CBDCs are certainly not in my favorite list but I know governments are moving towards CBDCs.
https://cbdctracker.org/

[yhiaali3]

Well, since he admitted that "the number of people who want to buy Bitcoin exceeds the number who want to sell it," let him tell us why? Why would people want to buy something that, according to him, does not produce any return? Why would people hold onto this product so tightly if it is useless?

Basically, these statements are coming from someone who used to earn millions from Bitcoin mining and today seems to have lost interest because he found a better way to earn. At the very least, he should have kept quiet and not contradicted himself.

[legiteum]

Bitcoin on the other hand, for every payment you made it will trigger capital gain because gain/loss rarely equal zero after fair market value - cost basis. This is the real reason in my opinion bitcoin is falling behind for payments.

Some company and individual don't want that complexity, only better regulation can fix this.

Got it. I understand your position now.

I agree that taking payment in an instrument that is volatile will add accounting overhead, and that might put some people off.

Of course, they could just immediately (as in, within minutes) trade their BTC for USD and mitigate the issue. I suspect there's probably good software tools out there too so they could just pay the capital gains taxes automatically if they incur any.

To "fix" the regulation would mean abolishing capital gains taxes, which investors have wanted for years . But critics call that a "tax cut for the rich" since it would definitely be a... tax cut for the rich.

Regardless of these issues though, Bitcoin currently processes 500k transactions per day and the there are upwards of 5B transactions per day in the world, so there's simply no chance Bitcoin will ever handle even a tiny fraction of them. Hence I personally don't think the tax issues are the ultimate limitation.

[disbil]

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.

Bit difference between gold and bitcoin based on physical only and price still not stable yet how current price gold drop significant after breaking out to higher.

Bitcoin exactly have much feature for payment transaction trough faster process, transparent and you can make transaction without limited amount for sending or receiving difference the payment trough fiat. I think wrong way when someone talking about bitcoin not worth it for payment and prefer bitcoin function as stable coins considering how many often bitcoin break out to higher price.

[OsaiEmma]

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:

I disagree with your meme investment description of Bitcoin. Bitcoin isn't a meme investment in the slightest; it has real utility and an algorithm that creates an economic advantage in terms of demand and supply. A lot of altcoins have their liquidity pegged to Bitcoin, and a majority of the cryptocurrency ecosystem are built around Bitcoin; calling Bitcoin a meme coin is so out of place.

And the Commodore was never designed to play games in 4k...
Things fucking evolve! What is left behind is ...well...left behind!

People always bragged how BTC is fast, you can send money internationally for pennies, how this and that, and while laughing all the way at banks and WU and MG we have seen those evolve and make instant transactions directly in the currency you choose with zero forex fees and so on!

What have most rallying behind Bitcoin done? Well, they changed the narrative, saying that, well, Bitcoin was never meant to beat banks and WU and MG!

Thiel is perfectly right here, and one just has to open their yes and look right here in this forum, the center of Bitcoin, and you can see at every corner how stablecoins are getting more and more used when normally we would have banned them for the main marketplace dealing. There is no more talk in 0.45 BTC, 0.010 BTC, everyone talks in dollars.
But some really want to stick their head in the sand and think this is how problems will go away!

I do love this reply the most; the key takeaway is evolution. Although mainstream remittance and international transfer mediums evolved to be fast and cheap to keep up with the competition Bitcoin created; this still didn't negate the importance of Bitcoin. Bitcoin evolved too after being knocked out of the competition because it wasn't just solving the issue of "Commerce of the internet"; it was also solving the issue of trust and control/centralization. I guess that's why it evolved into something more than just a means of payment and became arguably the best financial and investment instrument and also a good store of value/ hedge against inflation.

On a side note: we often say stablecoins are centralized and all that, but we also have a decentralized stablecoin called DAI that keeps censorship resistance while being a stablecoin.

[henmark]

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."

A pyramid scheme doesn't actually work the way Bitcoin or any other asset does. In a pyramid scheme, an investor is supposed to bring new investors if they actually want to make money from the scheme, because they are paid from the money that is paid by the new participants. With Bitcoin, just because someone else is ready to pay you a higher price for what you bought earlier doesn't really make it a pyramid scheme. If that's how you describe a pyramid scheme, then almost anything in this world that is bought and then traded for a profit follows the same pattern. Those who do business by buying something cheaper and then selling it for a higher price are also doing the same thing.

Other than that, I do agree with him that Bitcoin is not as widely used as a payment method as stable coins, and the reason is simple for that. Those who accept stable coins for payment want no hassle of either using third-party payment processors to convert their bitcoins to fiat immediately after they are received, or those who are making the payments also want to preserve their bitcoins because they know it grows in value and who knows, after an hour the same amount might become higher or lower, so people are using stable coins for making payments more, but that doesn't mean Bitcoin cannot or will never be used for that.

[pooya87]

If Bitcoin is best for payment then why are stablecoin being used so much for everyday transaction? Even everyone is choosing stablecoin for remittance, exchange settlement and merchant payment.

Not everyone is using stablecoins. Only those who don't mind using centralized fiat payment systems where they have no control and can get their funds stolen by the companies/governments are using centralized stablecoins where they have no control and can get their funds stolen by the companies/governments...

Not to mention that comparing bitcoin with stablecoins is like comparing apples and oranges. They are not even in the same category! Stablecoins should be compared with something like PayPal not bitcoin. Those who keep making these comparisons (flippening dudes that come along every couple of years with their "better than" bitcoins) either have their interest elsewhere (usually advertising a shitcoin) or have no understanding of these matters and are caught in a hype.

You'll never hear them use stablecoins in their correct category though (compared with fiat) because their only argument (number of txs processed) has no merit there

So if you call him a govt puppet or follower of US government thin will the problem he mentioned be automatically solved?

Did I call him a government puppet? I don't recall.

Ask yourself, is market choosing Bitcoin for everyday payment or something else?

Bitcoin was never supposed to be used by everyone for everyday payment. It is not even designed to handle that many transactions (nor do the stableshitcoins by the way).

Bitcoin was invented for those people who were seeking that "Exit" from the centralized and corrupt banking system that has its metaphorical hand in their pockets. An Exit that leads toward financial sovereignty.
Most people don't even know what term means to want to choose that Exit, so the only reason you see this loud minority own any bitcoins is because they saw its price go up and thought they could become rich overnight.

[Maine22K]

I think two separate issues are being mixed together. Saying Bitcoin may not become the dominant everyday payment method isn’t the same as saying it has no future. Many Bitcoin supporters already view the base layer primarily as a secure settlement network, while payment solutions like Lightning aim to handle smaller transactions. Also, the fact that Bitcoin doesn’t produce yield is true, but that alone doesn’t make it a pyramid scheme. Assets can lack yield without fitting the definition of a pyramid scheme. The more interesting question is whether Bitcoin’s long-term value comes from its utility as a scarce, decentralized monetary asset or whether demand alone is sufficient to sustain it.

[lionheart78]

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.

Not only the legal compliance, but also the confirmation time. Yes, lightning network is created to patch the hole, but it does not attract much attention for people to use it.  Many still prefer stablecoins for transactions because of their almost non-volatility.

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.

The good thing with Stablecoins is its available on different networks and there are networks that charge cheaper fees.

But I think it is too early to say that Bitcoin is not fit for payments like stablecoins.  There are still lots of rooms for improvement on Bitcoin, who knows, in the near future we might hear a breakthrough towards Bitcoin development with regards to transactions and confirmations improvements.

[WatChe]

Whether Mara's hashrate is 4% or 40% is that make Thiel's observation wrong?
If Bitcoin is best for payment then why are stablecoin being used so much for everyday transaction? Even everyone is choosing stablecoin for remittance, exchange settlement and merchant payment.

So if you call him a govt puppet or follower of US government thin will the problem he mentioned be automatically solved?
Seems like dismissing a doctor's diagnosis because you don't like the hospital he works for,,,
Ask yourself, is market choosing Bitcoin for everyday payment or something else?

If we look at original concept of Bitcoin proposed by Satoshi then Bitcoin is peer to peer electronic cash transfer but market these days is choosing Bitcoin for investment and not for daily use. The main reason why people are buying and hodling Bitcoin for long term or for investment purpose is because of its price that is exponentially going up with time. People feel that it is more profitable to hodl bitcoin then buy a cup of coffee with it. Moreover Bitcoin acceptance policy also varies from country to country and that is also a reason why its not adopted for daily living.

[legiteum]

I disagree with your meme investment description of Bitcoin. Bitcoin isn't a meme investment in the slightest; it has real utility and an algorithm that creates an economic advantage in terms of demand and supply. A lot of altcoins have their liquidity pegged to Bitcoin, and a majority of the cryptocurrency ecosystem are built around Bitcoin; calling Bitcoin a meme coin is so out of place.

I meme investment is simply an investment that is not driven by any fundamentals, but rather purely by the demand for its name. There are lots of investments that are like this, at least to some extent. TSLA and SpaceX (and anything Elon Musk is associated with) are at least partially driven by their meme. Gold often works this way.

Bitcoin is a "pure" meme investment since it has no fundamentals at all: its price is driven purely by people's perception that more people will buy it.

Insofar as Bitcoin has utility as a means of value transfer, that value is in no way reflected in the price: Bitcoin would work just fine if the price of BTC was $1.

"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."

A pyramid scheme doesn't actually work the way Bitcoin or any other asset does. In a pyramid scheme, an investor is supposed to bring new investors if they actually want to make money from the scheme, because they are paid from the money that is paid by the new participants.

We already discussed this earlier in the thread, and yes, "pyramid scheme" doesn't quite fit since those require individual actions. Bitcoin is a sort of "collective pyramid scheme" that relies on more holders coming in to the system in order to drive the price up.

And also, in case you missed it, Bitcoin has absolutely nothing to do with a "Ponzi scheme" either. Lots of people use that term without knowing what it means. Ponzi schemes are illegal, and there's nothing illegal about Bitcoin.

I think two separate issues are being mixed together. Saying Bitcoin may not become the dominant everyday payment method isn’t the same as saying it has no future.

I agree, but some Bitcoin maxis seem to feel like Bitcoin needs to somehow take over every daily payment on the planet in order to be viable, even though it cannot physically handle even .1% of those payments. And this is in the context of other products (like fast, small-payment-oriented stablecoins) being thousands of times better than Bitcoin for that.

Bitcoin is an investment instrument. People should be satisfied with this. Imagining it's anything else is delusional.

But I think it is too early to say that Bitcoin is not fit for payments like stablecoins.  There are still lots of rooms for improvement on Bitcoin, who knows, in the near future we might hear a breakthrough towards Bitcoin development with regards to transactions and confirmations improvements.

I started a new topic about this a while back:

If Bitcoin was centralized, would the price of BTC go down or up?

Bitcoin absolutely could be made to be fast and scalable enough for mainstream transactions, but it would require that it formally drop the "religion" of decentralization (which the market has shown that people don't really care about anyhow).

[dkbit98]

I never liked Mara pool or any of their actions in the past.
It is so stupid to think AI bubble will continue in future without exploding, and promoting stablecoin payment while mining bitcoin is totally idiotic