MARA CEO: For payments, Bitcoin NO, stablecoins YES

[avp2306]

There is a very fundamental external driver to the mooning, and that is that holders speculate that more and more people will sell their fiat junk for something with a fixed supply. It's the same with people speculating that other people will sell fiat for gold, but you're not going to call gold bars a meme.

Bitcoin does not compete with sovereign currencies like USD. Only very poor people think of physical currency as an investment. Saying "Bitcoin is better than USD" like saying a Toyota is better than a cardboard box to live in--when most civilized people live in, you know, a house.

Bitcoin competes with investments like stocks, bonds, derivatives, etc. and gambling like sports betting and prediction markets. Saying, "Bitcoin is so much better than that pile of physical cash you keep stuffed in your cookie jar" sounds... a little low class. Just saying .

Its not really meant for that because cash is used only as medium of exchange, while Bitcoin is known as store value. That's why its not good to compare it with fiat because their usage is different.

This is the reason its common for us to see that lots of people compare with those assets you have mentioned. Because  many viewed Bitcoin as investment and not as something they could for for everyday payment or transaction.

I find that Bitcoin vs cash argument as mainly strawman. Because for me the real debatable matter is if Bitcoin can earn a position along side with those traditional investment as speculative asset or a hedge.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Bitcoin competes with investments like stocks, bonds, derivatives, etc. and gambling like sports betting and prediction markets. Saying, "Bitcoin is so much better than that pile of physical cash you keep stuffed in your cookie jar" sounds... a little low class. Just saying

Bitcoin competes with a lot of things, amongst them fiat currencies themselves, not as currencies but as stores of value. Yes, you might believe that there are far superior ways to store value across time than holding USD in a bank account paying tiny interest, but it is still something a lot of people do regardless.

The problem with you is that you keep moving the goalposts. I did not argue whether Bitcoin is a good or bad investment relative to others, or whether Bitcoin competes with fiat currency. I simply corrected you on what the fundamental "external driver" to the rising market value is.

[OsaiEmma]

If it had anything to do with utility it would be at nearly zero.

How can you say this? Even Paypal's stock is not zero and it is not as grounded as Bitcoin:

PayPal works far better as a means of payment, which is why millions of sites take PayPal. Because of this, PayPal, as a company providing software and services, is very valuable. People invest in PayPal, Inc. because they think they will get more customers, or have higher profits in the future, and so on.

I agree with you, and guess what? The same goes for Bitcoin. People believe in its technology, its cryptography, how it is solving the issue of centralized, trust-based payment systems; they believe in its security, they believe in its scarcity and it being a store of value, they believe in its fast, borderless, irreversible transactions and now it is broadly accepted as a means of payment. Even Paypal uses Bitcoin now; they also see its worth and value.

Now you may claim Bitcoin price has halved in the past year, this is something we've seen time and time again as it correlates to a major event hard-coded in its mechanism. I'm talking about the Bitcoin miner's reward halving.

If you insist on calling Bitcoin a "meme investment" you should also call Microsoft, NVIDIA, Gold, oil and gas etc a meme investment too.

Microsoft creates and manages the software that powers millions of companies and individuals. Nvidea makes chips that power AI answers that in turn deliver value to individuals and companies, making them more productive. Gold... we talked about above. Oil and gas power the electricity that allows you to type your post into this little box .

These are all things that investors call "fundamentals". Bitcoin doesn't have those . That's what the OP meant.

These are not fundamentals but rather utilities and Bitcoin has those. They're all solving one problem or the other, if you don't know what problem Bitcoin is solving or it's utility, I reckon you read this. The above mentioned tackles problems in different sectors from each other, Bitcoin also addresses issues in a different field from them; just because Bitcoin is not solving something exactly tangible, that doesn't mean it is not solving something at all.

As I said before, Bitcoin didn't get to where it is today because people says it is valuable just buy it, nope! It got to where it is today because it has utility. If Bitcoin had no real utility, it would've been lost and disintegrated into oblivion, that's just the truth.

[legiteum]

Even Paypal uses Bitcoin now; they also see its worth and value.

PayPal does not "use Bitcoin", they offer it as in investment option to their users, just like CoinBase or Robinhood or any other investment app. When you click to buy some Bitcoin on PayPal, they simply update your account saying you bought some and then every once in a while make actual on-chain purchases or sales in order to keep their aggregate balance correlated to their customer's balances.

What they see is that many people like the meme, "Bitcoin", so they let them take a position in Bitcoin (along with a bunch of other cryptos). This is not "PayPal seeing the value of Bitcoin", this is a vendor offering something that some of their customers happen to want, no different that a corner store offering cigarettes.

Now you may claim Bitcoin price has halved in the past year, this is something we've seen time and time again as it correlates to a major event hard-coded in its mechanism. I'm talking about the Bitcoin miner's reward halving.

LOL. That's a new one! 

So now "halving" means, "the price of BTC is going to fall in half". ROFL

As I said before, Bitcoin didn't get to where it is today because people says it is valuable just buy it, nope! It got to where it is today because it has utility. If Bitcoin had no real utility, it would've been lost and disintegrated into oblivion, that's just the truth.

Yes, Bitcoin has utility. Nobody said it doesn't. The OP was merely pointing that the market price of Bitcoin is in no way connected to that utility. Bitcoin would still work the same way of the price was $1 per coin. Bitcoin's utility today is virtually irrelevant and almost nobody uses Bitcoin as a mainstream means of payment, and all of those other features don't matter in the apps people use like PayPal and Robinhood and CoinBase, etc. For most of today's investors, Bitcoin is just another button on an app--and when they "buy Bitcoin" they are talking to an Oracle database, not the Bitcoin blockchain.

Hence it simply doesn't matter what "features" Bitcoin might have in the background since that's not why investors invest, and thus drive the price of BTC higher. They invest in Bitcoin because of the name "Bitcoin", which they believe is a hot meme right now and will become more popular, meaning their investment will go higher so they can sell it later at a profit.

[dansus021]

well bitcoin for daily transaction like debit and visa without third party is impossible in my opinion, bitcoin is for investmet like digital gold and pretty much that it. because the blockchain itself bitcoin is not meant for daily tx it going slow and expensive, is the best for investment and transaction between country or cash settlement. while stablecoin is stable, live on many chain and cheap. Even now USDC is creating their own chain.

and I dont agree with this " 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" well in theory all investment that include stock or commodity is driven by basic suply and demand and that include bitcoin

Mara now maybe is thirsty with AI and want to piece of that cake

[hd49728]

well bitcoin for daily transaction like debit and visa without third party is impossible in my opinion, bitcoin is for investmet like digital gold and pretty much that it. because the blockchain itself bitcoin is not meant for daily tx it going slow and expensive, is the best for investment and transaction between country or cash settlement.

Transactions are what keep Bitcoin blockchain alive because Bitcoin miners do both things: mining for finding new blocks and confirmation transactions. Their mining income is from both sources: block subsidy and transaction fees.

Transaction fees in the future will become main income for Bitcoin miners, so it's very important for not only miners but also Bitcoin blockchain.

In a few decades when the reward gets too small, the transaction fee will become the main compensation for nodes.  I'm sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume.

and I dont agree with this " 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" well in theory all investment that include stock or commodity is driven by basic suply and demand and that include bitcoin

Bitcoin is not a Ponzi and people are confusing between Bitcoin and Ponzi scam projects that tried to use Bitcoin for their scams or just Bitcoin as a hook to attract victims.

Bitcoin is not a Pyramid Scheme.
Bitcoin: Addressing the Ponzi Scheme Characterization.
Bitcoin is pumped by Tether.

[OsaiEmma]

Now you may claim Bitcoin price has halved in the past year, this is something we've seen time and time again as it correlates to a major event hard-coded in its mechanism. I'm talking about the Bitcoin miner's reward halving.

LOL. That's a new one! 

So now "halving" means, "the price of BTC is going to fall in half". ROFL

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I said this event correlates! It means investors are reacting based on this major news or event, and that's why Bitcoin is not just a "meme investment" (although i still don't agree with your definition of a meme investment).

Yes, Bitcoin has utility. Nobody said it doesn't. The OP was merely pointing that the market price of Bitcoin is in no way connected to that utility.

But yet, the market always react to the 4 years Bitcoin miner's reward halving which is one of its utility: a feature that makes it a store of value by creating scarcity.

Bitcoin would still work the same way of the price was $1 per coin.

It won't, the incentives won't be worth it for miners, and we all know miners are very important to the network.

Bitcoin's utility today is virtually irrelevant and almost nobody uses Bitcoin as a mainstream means of payment, and all of those other features don't matter in the apps people use like PayPal and Robinhood and CoinBase, etc. For most of today's investors, Bitcoin is just another button on an app--and when they "buy Bitcoin" they are talking to an Oracle database, not the Bitcoin blockchain.

So all the onchain transactions are done by robots? Or possibly AI's?

Hence it simply doesn't matter what "features" Bitcoin might have in the background since that's not why investors invest, and thus drive the price of BTC higher. They invest in Bitcoin because of the name "Bitcoin", which they believe is a hot meme right now and will become more popular, meaning their investment will go higher so they can sell it later at a profit.

If Bitcoin was just a worthless project or just one of those payment services back then in 2008, how many users and investors would it have today? Well this is just a hypothetical question because we can't tell for sure. But what I'm trying to say is that Bitcoin's utility attracted investors, contributors, miners, node runners and all sorts of users to it, not just the name "Bitcoin".

And besides, every stock on earth is bought in the hopes that it becomes popular and are sold in profit. So are all stocks "meme investments"?

You can go ahead and argue that others does better when it comes to cross-border transactions and digital transactions. Yes, you're right! But, does it really matter whether it is better or not? In as much as it is still used for that purpose, doing tens of billions of dollars per day in transaction even higher than PayPal's, how can you still dismiss its utility in that regard.

[legiteum]

But yet, the market always react to the 4 years Bitcoin miner's reward halving which is one of its utility: a feature that makes it a store of value by creating scarcity.

Upturns in the price of BTC occurred a few times in a roughly coincidental way with Bitcoin's price. Insofar as you call it a pattern (like those stars the Greeks said was a guy in a horse shooting a bow and arrow), it's a pattern that has no reason to follow next time. (Of course the "pattern at all costs" people will just make up some new pattern the price supposedly follows).

And in any case, the alleged "halving pattern" wouldn't explain why Bitcoin is particularly at any actual level like $150k or $1.50.

It won't, the incentives won't be worth it for miners, and we all know miners are very important to the network.

The mining difficulty adjusts, so Bitcoin would not stop working if the price went down.

So all the onchain transactions are done by robots? Or possibly AI's?

 

Can you explain what you meant by this?

If Bitcoin was just a worthless project or just one of those payment services back then in 2008, how many users and investors would it have today? Well this is just a hypothetical question because we can't tell for sure. But what I'm trying to say is that Bitcoin's utility attracted investors, contributors, miners, node runners and all sorts of users to it, not just the name "Bitcoin".

I'll answer your theoretical with another theoretical: if Bitcoin was fixed in price like a stablecoin, would it have ever taken off? I doubt it.

And besides, every stock on earth is bought in the hopes that it becomes popular and are sold in profit. So are all stocks "meme investments"?

That they are bought with the hope of them going up is not what makes them a meme investment, it's why people think it will go up. You think AMZN or APPL will go up because Amazon's or Apple's business will do better. For investing in oil futures, you look at what is happening in Iran, etc.

For a meme investment, you don't look at any business or practical detail, you look at other investors exclusively.

You can go ahead and argue that others does better when it comes to cross-border transactions and digital transactions. Yes, you're right! But, does it really matter whether it is better or not?

You are correct, it does not matter. That's the whole point of the OP! Now you get it.

You invest in Bitcoin because you think more people are going to invest in Bitcoin than are investing now, not because you think the product is going to grow in practical value. That's the definition of meme investment.

[OsaiEmma]

But yet, the market always react to the 4 years Bitcoin miner's reward halving which is one of its utility: a feature that makes it a store of value by creating scarcity.

Upturns in the price of BTC occurred a few times in a roughly coincidental way with Bitcoin's price. Insofar as you call it a pattern (like those stars the Greeks said was a guy in a horse shooting a bow and arrow), it's a pattern that has no reason to follow next time. (Of course the "pattern at all costs" people will just make up some new pattern the price supposedly follows).

It's obvious you haven't traded before bcause if you have, you wouldn't be saying this. It's even strange that you talk about stock and investors as though people trading are buying shares and being shareholders. Nobody trading these instruments in a forex market or CEx ever care about what the company is doing, they only care about how the news or fundamentals affects the market, or what the chart is saying.

Patterns are normal things for traders.

And in any case, the alleged "halving pattern" wouldn't explain why Bitcoin is particularly at any actual level like $150k or $1.50.

This is something for you to research, go find that out because that's not what we're talking about in this thread.

It won't, the incentives won't be worth it for miners, and we all know miners are very important to the network.

The mining difficulty adjusts, so Bitcoin would not stop working if the price went down.

Yeah you're right, difficulty adjusts but the reward won't be as favorable as it is now. We know the reward will continue to halve every 4 years, at some point, the reward will be incredibly small to the point miners will be discouraged from mining.

So all the onchain transactions are done by robots? Or possibly AI's?

 

Can you explain what you meant by this?

You said this:

Bitcoin's utility today is virtually irrelevant and almost nobody uses Bitcoin as a mainstream means of payment

So I'm asking, if almost nobody uses Bitcoin as a mainstream means of payment, then how do we explain all the onchain daily transactions in the Bitcoin network, are they done by robots and AIs? And how do you explain PayPal integrating Bitcoin if there is no demand for transactional utility.

If Bitcoin was just a worthless project or just one of those payment services back then in 2008, how many users and investors would it have today? Well this is just a hypothetical question because we can't tell for sure. But what I'm trying to say is that Bitcoin's utility attracted investors, contributors, miners, node runners and all sorts of users to it, not just the name "Bitcoin".

I'll answer your theoretical with another theoretical: if Bitcoin was fixed in price like a stablecoin, would it have ever taken off? I doubt it.

(This has nothing to do with my question though, you actually didn't answer it but we'll discuss anyways cause I'm enjoying the dialogue).

Now, why do you think so? Anyways these are just theoretical questions, you can't provide a definitive answer. If Bitcoin were to go the route of a fixed price I honestly think the mechanism will be different from what it is today, but as I said earlier, these are just hypothetical instances/ questions.

And besides, every stock on earth is bought in the hopes that it becomes popular and are sold in profit. So are all stocks "meme investments"?

That they are bought with the hope of them going up is not what makes them a meme investment, it's why people think it will go up. You think AMZN or APPL will go up because Amazon's or Apple's business will do better. For investing in oil futures, you look at what is happening in Iran, etc.

For a meme investment, you don't look at any business or practical detail, you look at other investors exclusively.

As I said earlier, you're obviously not a trader or have no clue how trading works. I don't think any trader actually care about the content of the news, they only care about how the news will affect the market. If Apple comes today and release a major news saying they're fully adopting Nvidia graphics card, no trader will really go into details on how and why, they just want to know if the news will affect the stock price or not.

You can go ahead and argue that others does better when it comes to cross-border transactions and digital transactions. Yes, you're right! But, does it really matter whether it is better or not?

You are correct, it does not matter. That's the whole point of the OP! Now you get it.

You invest in Bitcoin because you think more people are going to invest in Bitcoin than are investing now, not because you think the product is going to grow in practical value. That's the definition of meme investment.

I saw what you did here, you just took my reply out of context, that's a sneaky move. This is what I said.

You can go ahead and argue that others does better when it comes to cross-border transactions and digital transactions. Yes, you're right! But, does it really matter whether it is better or not? In as much as it is still used for that purpose, doing tens of billions of dollars per day in transaction even higher than PayPal's, how can you still dismiss its utility in that regard.

The bottom line is, whether other services are better in this regard, that doesn't negate the fact that it is still actively being used for such activities, it doesn't stop it from being part of its utility today. And besides this, there are still more utilities; so calling Bitcoin a meme investment is completely wrong.

[legiteum]

It's obvious you haven't traded before bcause if you have, you wouldn't be saying this. It's even strange that you talk about stock and investors as though people trading are buying shares and being shareholders. Nobody trading these instruments in a forex market or CEx ever care about what the company is doing, they only care about how the news or fundamentals affects the market, or what the chart is saying.

Yeah... I've... traded before .

And yes, we are saying the same thing: as in investor, you know news about a non-meme's fundamentals will affect the market. If the supply line of TSLA has been disrupted by a war, you know that investors will panic about that and the price will go down (unless they mitigate the issue, etc.). The point is that, ultimately, the price is driven by fundamentals, or at least mostly so.

Patterns are normal things for traders.

Lots of people apply market patterns to Bitcoin, and they are absolutely wrong to do so. They apply patterns that are based on traditional stocks and other instruments that have a basis in fundamentals, and also often have a history that is 100 or 200 years old. When you apply these same techniques to BTC it's just plain wrong.

And patterns take people in because they are ripe with rationalization: people can see a pattern in anything, and when it doesn't happen the way the pattern predicted in the future, they just say there was this other part of the pattern that's now affecting it. It's like a fortune cookie that means whatever you want it to mean.

You said this:

Bitcoin's utility today is virtually irrelevant and almost nobody uses Bitcoin as a mainstream means of payment

So I'm asking, if almost nobody uses Bitcoin as a mainstream means of payment, then how do we explain all the onchain daily transactions in the Bitcoin network, are they done by robots and AIs?

Bitcoin peaks out at about 500k transactions per day lately. World wide daily payments is about 2-3 billion for credit cards alone. Bitcoin is a tiny, tiny portion of daily payments. It's not nothing, but it's not relevant in the world of payments either.

And how do you explain PayPal integrating Bitcoin if there is no demand for transactional utility.

PayPal is the same as CoinBase, Robinhood, and those other apps in that it's offering an investment product for Bitcoin. They allow you to buy and sell BTC as an investment in that you never actually see real Bitcoin, you just see a number that tells you what your position is worth. There's also a button there to send your Bitcoin to a wallet, and... it doesn't actually work . The hoops you need to jump through every single time make it almost impossible to use. And guess what: their users don't seem to care or else PayPal would fix this.

PayPal no doubt looks at the same numbers I look at: that statistically speaking, almost nobody uses Bitcoin for money transfer...

I don't think any trader actually care about the content of the news, they only care about how the news will affect the market.

No argument there, but what is the news about? It's about fundamentals and the operations of their business e.g. some partnership with another company or something. Take that partnership between APPL and NVDA for instance. Imagine the news is that the partnership broke up, which has made investors nervous and the price has gone down. Then you read some news an hour later that APPL is going to make their own chips and it's going to be better for them than the partnership. What do you do? You trade into APPL immediately because you know that news is going to send the price up. Is it because you think investors are going to like that news and thus drive the price up? Yes. But at the end of the day, the news is about real stuff and not circular reasoning e.g. that investors are going to like it because more investors are going to like it.

Meme investments have none of that. (And again, just to emphasize that we're talking in absolutes here, but as the reality is a usually some combination of meme and non-meme factors depending on the instrument).

Bitcoin's sole utility is transactions. That's what the product actually does: it allows you to move value from one entity to another. Does any BTC investor even know that number? Do they care? Of course not. And if they did, handling 0.002% of the world's daily transactions would not justify a $1T market cap. It wouldn't even be a penny stock.

[r_victory]

Despite Bitcoin's proposition of being "digital money," it's difficult to imagine it being used as such at present, as it has already become a form of store of value, often a speculative asset (not that it is, but it has become so). Stablecoins, on the other hand, are based on real money and, consequently, are easier to accept as such and use in everyday life.

[Btcdeybodi]

Bitcoin peaks out at about 500k transactions per day lately. World wide daily payments is about 2-3 billion for credit cards alone. Bitcoin is a tiny, tiny portion of daily payments. It's not nothing, but it's not relevant in the world of payments either.

The problem you have is that you just want bitcoin to be used more for daily transactions instead of people to use it as a store of value. Perhaps, if bitcoin is used more for daily transactions it means that it might likely behave like stable coins which can reduce its value. The value of Bitcoin will continue to increase till the last supply is mined.

Bitcoin competes with investments like stocks, bonds, derivatives, etc. and gambling like sports betting and prediction markets. Saying, "Bitcoin is so much better than that pile of physical cash you keep stuffed in your cookie jar" sounds... a little low class. Just saying .

It is very funny for you to say that bitcoin competes with all of those stuffs you named. As a matter of fact, the only asset that can compete against bitcoin is gold.

[legiteum]

The problem you have is that you just want bitcoin to be used more for daily transactions instead of people to use it as a store of value.

I don't "want" Bitcoin to be used for transactions, and... it's not. And I agree that people use it as an investment instead.

The value of Bitcoin will continue to increase till the last supply is mined.

Bitcoin has fallen in half in the last year, so I don't see any correlation between Bitcoin mining and its trading price...

Bitcoin competes with investments like stocks, bonds, derivatives, etc. and gambling like sports betting and prediction markets. Saying, "Bitcoin is so much better than that pile of physical cash you keep stuffed in your cookie jar" sounds... a little low class. Just saying .

It is very funny for you to say that bitcoin competes with all of those stuffs you named. As a matter of fact, the only asset that can compete against bitcoin is gold.

I was reacting to a common refrain among many Bitcoin boosters that say, effectively, "USD totally sucks for reason X, Y, and Z... so buy Bitcoin instead". The implication is that people store their life savings in USD, which almost nobody with any decent savings ever does. Only people living hand-to-mouth use sovereign cash as a means of storing their money, so that comparison sounds... unsophisticated .

Anyhow, while gold is certainly a competitor to BTC, so are all other floating cryptos, and so are all other kinds of investments.

More recently, some of BTC's drop in price has been ascribed to the proliferation of sports betting apps and prediction markets because it's the same exact investors who tend to buy Bitcoin. They aren't exactly doing the same thing, but Bitcoin is competing for the same money as betting and prediction apps.

Also, there are "perps", which essentially multiply the supply of BTC infinitely by allowing investors to just bet on a future price (again, without touching the actual on-chain asset). Those too compete for the same investment dollars as investing directly in BTC.